Land Adjacent to Southwick Road, North Bradley, Wiltshire

Home , Bratton Downs, North Bradley, Winsley Mines

WELBECK STRATEGIC LAND II LLP

LAND ADJACENT TO SOUTHWICK ROAD, NORTH BRADLEY, WILTSHIRE

Ecological Assessment

February 2019 7355.EcoAss.vf1

ecology solutions for planners and developers

The copyright of this document remains with Ecology Solutions The contents of this document therefore must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part for any purpose without the written consent of Ecology Solutions.

PROTECTED SPECIES

This report contains sensitive information relating to protected species. The information contained herein should not be disseminated without the prior consent of Ecology Solutions.

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 SURVEY METHODOLOGY 2

3 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES 7

4 WILDLIFE USE OF THE SITE 9

5 ECOLOGICAL EVALUATION 18

6 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 46

7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 49

PLANS

PLAN ECO1 Site Location & Ecological Designations

PLAN ECO2 Ecological Features

PLAN ECO3 May 2017 Bat Activity Survey Results

PLAN ECO4 June 2017 Bat Activity Survey Results

PLAN ECO5 July 2017 Bat Activity Survey Results

PLAN ECO6 August 2017 Bat Activity Survey Results

PLAN ECO7 September 2017 Bat Activity Survey Results

PLAN ECO8 October 2017 Bat Activity Survey Results

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 Illustrative Masterplan

APPENDIX 2 Information obtained from MAGIC

APPENDIX 3 Conservation Objectives for Salisbury Plain SPA and SAC

APPENDIX 4 European Site Conservation Objectives: Supplementary Advice for Conserving and Restoring Site Features, Salisbury Plain SPA and SAC

APPENDIX 5 Conservation Objectives for Bath and Bradford on Avon Bats SAC

APPENDIX 6 European Site Conservation Objectives: Draft Supplementary Advice for conserving and restoring site features, Bath and Bradford on Avon Bats SAC

APPENDIX 7 NE Consultation Response

APPENDIX 8 Suitable Examples of Bat Boxes

APPENDIX 9 Suitable Examples of Bird Boxes

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background & Proposals

1.1.1. Ecology Solutions was commissioned by Welbeck Strategic Land II LLP in April 2017 to undertake an Ecological Assessment at land adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley (hereafter referred to as ‘the site’).

1.1.2. The proposals for the site are for residential development together with associated areas of infrastructure and open space (see illustrative masterplan at Appendix 1).

1.2. Site Characteristics

1.2.1. The site is situated to the south of Trowbridge, Wiltshire (see Plan ECO1) and comprises three cattle-grazed, species-poor, semi-improved grassland fields with boundary hedgerows (see Plan ECO2). Existing residential development is located to the north and beyond The Rank (a road) to the east of the site and managed agricultural land is located to the west and beyond Southwick Road which borders the southern boundary.

1.3. Ecological Assessment

1.3.1. This document assesses the ecological interest of the site as a whole. The importance of the habitats present is evaluated with regard to current guidance published by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM)1.

1.3.2. Where necessary mitigation measures are recommended so as to safeguard any significant existing ecological interest within the site. Specific enhancement opportunities that are available for habitats and wildlife within the site are detailed where appropriate, with reference to the 'UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework'2. Finally, conclusions are drawn.

1CIEEM (September 2018) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal and Marine. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester

2 JNCC and Defra (on behalf of the Four Countries' Biodiversity Group) (2012) UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. Published July 2012. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6189

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

2. SURVEY METHODOLOGY

2.1. The methodology utilised for the survey work can be split into three areas, namely desk study, habitat survey and faunal survey. These are discussed in more detail below.

2.2. Desk Study

2.2.1. In order to compile up to date background information on the site and its immediate surroundings Ecology Solutions contacted the Wiltshire and Swindon Biological Records Centre (WSBRC) in April 2017. WSBRC includes data from Wiltshire Bat Group. Where appropriate this information is included within this report, although much of it is cited as confidential and can only be made available upon request under the records centre terms and conditions.

2.2.2. Further information on designated sites was obtained from the online Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC)3 database, which utilises data provided by Natural England. This information is reproduced, where appropriate, on Plan ECO1 and at Appendix 2.

2.2.3. Mammals in Wilshire4 was also utilised to compile background information and an understanding of species distribution throughout Wiltshire, in relation to the site.

2.3. Habitat Survey Methodology

2.3.1. Surveys were carried out by Ecology Solutions in May 2017 in order to ascertain the general ecological value of the land contained within the boundaries of the site and to identify the main habitats and associated plant species, with notes made on fauna utilising these areas. Further checks were completed between June and November 2017.

2.3.2. The site was subject to a detailed survey based around an extended Phase 1 survey methodology5, as recommended by Natural England, whereby the habitat types present are identified and mapped, together with an assessment of the species composition of each habitat. This technique provides an inventory of the basic habitat types present and allows identification of areas of greater potential which require further survey. Any such areas identified can then be examined in more detail.

2.3.3. Using the above method, the site was classified into areas of similar botanical community types, with a representative species list compiled for each habitat identified.

2.3.4. All the species that occur in each habitat would not necessarily be detectable during survey work carried out at any given time of the year, since different species are apparent at different seasons. The initial survey work was undertaken within the optimal period for Phase 1 surveys and

3 https://magic.defra.gov.uk 4 Mammals in Wiltshire (2017) Second Edition, Version 1 (3rd March 2017). 5 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a Technique for Environmental Audit. England Field Unit, Nature Conservancy Council, reprinted JNCC, Peterborough.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

surveys and checks were conducted during the optimal botanical survey period for grasslands therefore it is considered that an accurate and robust assessment has been made.

2.4. Faunal Survey

2.4.1. General faunal activity observed during the course of the surveys was recorded, whether visually or by call. Specific attention was paid to the potential presence of any protected, rare, notable or priority species. In addition, specific surveys were undertaken for bats, Badgers Meles meles, Dormice Muscardinus avellanarius and Great Crested Newts Triturus cristatus.

2.4.2. Bats. Field surveys were undertaken with regard to best practice guidelines issued by Natural England6, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee7 and the Bat Conservation Trust8.

Tree Assessment

2.4.3. In May 2017, all trees within and immediately adjacent to the site were assessed for their potential use by bats. Ladders, binoculars and an endoscope were used where necessary. The trees were checked again in November 2017.

2.4.4. For a tree to be classified as having some potential for roosting bats it must usually have one or more of the following characteristics:

• Obvious holes, e.g. rot holes and old woodpecker holes; • Dark staining on the tree below a hole; • Tiny scratch marks around a hole from bats’ claws; • Cavities, splits and / or loose bark from broken or fallen branches, lightning strikes etc; and / or • Very dense covering of mature Ivy Hedera helix over the trunk.

Activity Surveys

2.4.5. Bat activity surveys (which included a transects of the central grassland areas as well as the hedgerow network) were undertaken monthly throughout the site between May and October 2017 using EcoMeter3 (EM3) bat detectors to record the data. Surveys were undertaken during suitable weather conditions.

2.4.6. SongMeter4 (SM4) bat detectors were also left to record for a minimum of five nights during each month between May and October 2017 at strategic locations within the site. This data was subsequently analysed using Kaleidoscope sound analysis software.

6 Mitchell-Jones, A. J. (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough. 7 Mitchell-Jones, A.J. & McLeish, A.P. (2004). Bat Workers’ Manual. 3rd edition. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. 8 Bat Conservation Trust (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologist – Good Practice Guidelines 3rd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

2.4.7. This survey method, aimed to identify the level of foraging, and the species present foraging and commuting within the site and any area of potentially high importance for foraging / commuting bats.

2.4.8. Badgers. Specific surveys were undertaken within and adjacent to the site, to search for evidence of Badgers between May 2017 and November 2017. Such surveys comprise two main elements. The first of these is a thorough search for evidence of Badger setts. If any setts are encountered each sett entrance is noted and plotted even if the entrance appeared disused. The following information is recorded:

i) The number and location of any well used or very active entrances; these are clear from any debris or vegetation and are obviously in regular use and may, or may not, have been excavated recently.

ii) The number and location of any inactive entrances; these are not in regular use and have debris such as leaves and twigs in the entrance or have plants growing in or around the edge of the entrance.

iii) The number of any disused entrances; these have not been in use for some time, are partly or completely blocked and cannot be used without considerable clearance. If the entrance has been disused for some time all that may be visible is a depression in the ground where the hole used to be and the remains of the spoil heap.

2.4.9. Secondly, Badger activity such as well-worn paths and run-throughs, snagged hair, footprints, latrines and foraging signs are recorded so as to build up a picture of the use of the site, if any, by Badgers.

2.4.10. Dormice. A Dormouse nest tube survey was undertaken within the site in 2017. Dormouse nest tubes were placed in May 2017 with checks carried out between June and November 2017. This survey involved the placement of nest tubes within all suitable habitat (hedgerows) as detailed within Natural England’s Conservation Handbook9 and standing advice.

2.4.11. The Dormouse nest tubes utilised were those provided as standard by the Mammal Society and were placed in accordance with the guidance provided by the Mammal Society and Natural England10. Typically, tubes are placed within hedgerows approximately every 20 metres where suitable locations can be identified. The nest tubes were attached with ties underneath suitably sturdy horizontal branches and positioned on average at approximately 1.5 metres above ground level. 50 nest tubes were placed across the site.

2.4.12. The surveys have been scored for effort according to the method developed from the South West Dormouse Project (Chanin and Woods 2003). The system used provides an overall score that reflects the chances of Dormice being discovered if present, and thus provides an

9 Natural England . 2006. The Dormouse Conservation Handbook. Second Edition. Peterborough. 10Chanin P. & Woods M. 2003. Research Report 524, ‘Surveying Dormice Using Nest Tubes – Results & Experiences from the South West Dormouse Project’. English Nature, Peterborough.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

indicator of ‘thoroughness’ of a survey. This score is calculated based on the number of tubes used and the number of months the tubes were in place.

2.4.13. The months of the year are weighted according to the likelihood of recording Dormice as set out below.

Table 1: Monthly Score Weighting (Chanin & Woods 2003) Month Weighting April 1 May 4 June 2 July 2 August 5 September 7 October 2 November 2

2.4.14. The index of effort is calculated based on the use of 50 nest tubes as a standard minimum, with less tubes used proportionately reducing the overall score and more tubes proportionately increasing the score (i.e. 25 tubes halve the score and 100 tubes double the score).

2.4.15. A score of 20 (or above,) is deemed a thorough survey, and a score of 15 to 19 may be regarded as adequate where circumstances do not permit more time or more tubes (particularly if other survey methods have also proved negative).

2.4.16. The number of tubes used was 50 and they were all checked between June and November 2017. This results in a score of 20 [(2+2+5+7+2+2) = 20] for the surveys completed, which is deemed a thorough survey.

2.4.17. Great Crested Newts. There are no ponds within the site itself and OS maps indicate that there are no ponds within 500m of the site, which are not separated by significant dispersal barrier. Two ponds (P1 and P2) are located within 250m of the site (see Plan ECO1), although they are separated from the site by Southwick Road and agricultural land. Although the ponds are separated by a dispersal barrier, Ecology Solutions attempted to gain access to undertake eDNA surveys to determine the presence of Great Crested Newts and to provide additional context for the Ecological Assessment. Access was granted for pond P1 but was denied for pond P2.

eDNA Survey

2.4.18. A specific environmental DNA (eDNA) sample survey was undertaken in June 2017 for pond P1.

2.4.19. The eDNA survey involves collecting 15-20 samples of 40ml of pond water at equally spaced locations around the perimeter of a pond. These 15-20 samples are then mixed together in a plastic sample bag to form a single amalgamated sample of the water in the pond. The amalgamated sample is mixed thoroughly to ensure any DNA present does not collect at the base of the sample bag.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

2.4.20. 15ml of water is taken from the amalgamated sample and added to 35ml of ethanol within a sample tube, to preserve any DNA present. The sample tubes are then shaken vigorously to mix the water sample and ethanol thoroughly and prevent degradation of any DNA. This technique is repeated six times, using water from the amalgamated sample, such that six sample tubes are filled.

2.4.21. The six sample tubes are then sent off to SureScreen to be analysed using polymerase chain reaction amplification techniques. The analysis involves producing DNA sequences that verify the taxonomic assignation of amplified DNA signals.

2.4.22. Terrestrial habitats within the site itself (and in areas surrounding ponds surveyed) were also searched for Great Crested Newts. This involved searching under logs, rocks and rubbish, which are favoured hiding places.

2.4.23. The land within and surrounding the site was assessed in terms of its habitat quality and its ability to support Great Crested Newts.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

3. ECOLOGICAL FEATURES

3.1. The site was surveyed in May 2017 with further checks between June and November 2017. The following main habitat / vegetation types were identified:

• Species-poor Semi-Improved Grassland • Hedgerows and Tree.

3.2. The location of these habitats is shown on Plan ECO2.

3.3. Each habitat present is described below with an account of the representative plant species present.

3.4. Species-poor Semi-Improved Grassland

3.4.1. The site comprises three cattle-grazed, species-poor, semi-improved grassland fields (F1, F2 and F3). Species present within the sward include Yorkshire Fog Holcus lanatus, Creeping Bent Agrostis stolonifera, Cock’s Foot Dactylis glomerata, Red Fescue Festuca rubra, Meadow Foxtail Alopecurus pratensis, Soft Brome Bromus hordeaceus, Sweet Vernal Grass Anthoxanthum odoratum and Perennial Rye-grass Lolium perenne. Herbaceous species include Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens, Creeping Thistle Cirsium arvense, Common Sorrel Rumex acetosa, Hogweed Heracleum sphondylium, Common Mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum, Ribwort Plantain Plantago lanceolata, Broad-leaved Dock Rumex obtusifolius, Cut-leaved Crane’s-bill Geranium dissectum, Spear Thistle Cirsium vulgare, Dandelion Taraxacum officinale, Red Clover Trifolium pratense, Daisy Bellis perennis, Greater Plantain Plantago major, Common Nettle Urtica dioica, Dove's-foot Crane's-bill Geranium molle and Thyme-leaved Speedwell Veronica serpyllifolia.

3.4.2. The northeast boundary of field F3 was wetter and includes Rush Juncus sp., Cuckoo Flower Cardamine pratensis and Common Sedge Carex nigra.

3.5. Hedgerows and Trees

3.5.1. There are seven hedgerows within the site, each of which is described individually below and shown on Plan ECO2.

3.5.2. Hedgerow H1 is unmanaged and situated along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to Southwick Road. The hedgerow is approximately 4m in height and species present include Elm Ulmus procera, Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, Blackthorn Prunus spinosa, Ash Fraxinus excelsior, Field Maple Acer campestre and Wild Privet Ligustrum vulgare with Bramble Rubus fruticosus trailing through the hedgerow. A standard semi- mature Ash is located in the eastern section of the hedgerow. The ground flora of the hedgerow includes Common Nettle, Cleavers Galium aparine, Cow Parsley Anthriscus sylvestris, Lesser Celandine Ficaria verna, Prickly Sow-thistle Sonchus asper, Germander Speedwell Veronica chamaedrys, Creeping Buttercup, Broad-leaved Dock, Hogweed and Ivy.

3.5.3. Hedgerow H2 is unmanaged and situated along the northern boundary of field F3. This hedgerow is approximately 4m in height and is dominated by Elm with Blackthorn, Ash, Dog Rose Rosa canina, Wild Privet and

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

Hawthorn, with Bramble trailing through the hedgerow. A standard immature Ash is located in the eastern section of the hedgerow. The ground flora of the hedgerows includes White Dead-nettle Lamium album and Cow Parsley.

3.5.4. Hedgerow H3 is unmanaged and divides the grassland fields F2 and F3. This hedgerow is approximately 4m in height and species present include Elm, Elder Sambucus nigra, Blackthorn, Ash, Dog Rose and Hawthorn, with Bramble trailing through the hedgerow. A standard semi-mature Ash is located in the north section of the hedgerow. The ground flora of the hedgerow includes Cleavers, Garlic Mustard Alliaria petiolata, Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea and Broad-leave Dock.

3.5.5. Hedgerow H4 is unmanaged and situated along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to Southwick Road and is essentially a continuation of H1. The hedgerow is approximately 4m in height and is dominated by Hawthorn and Elm, with Blackthorn, Field Maple, Ash, Dogwood and Wild Privet, with Bramble trailing through the hedgerow. The ground flora of the hedgerow includes Common Nettle, Hogweed and White Dead-nettle.

3.5.6. Hedgerow H5 is half unmanaged and gappy in nature (southern section) and half managed and box cut (northern section). The hedgerow is approximately 3-4m in height and species present include Elm, Hawthorn, Blackthorn, Dog Rose, Ash, Oak Quercus sp., and Wild Privet, with Bramble trailing through the hedgerow. A standard semi-mature Ash and Oak are located in the southern section of the hedgerow. The ground flora of the hedgerow includes Cuckoo Flower and Greater Stitchwort Stellaria holostea.

3.5.7. Hedgerow H6 is unmanaged and situated along the northern boundary of the site. The hedgerow is approximately 2-3m in height and species present include Elm, Hawthorn, Ash and Dog Rose, with Bramble trailing through the hedgerow.

3.5.8. Hedgerow H7 is unmanaged and situated along the northern boundary of field F1. The hedgerow is approximately 4m in height and species present include Hawthorn, Blackthorn, Field Maple, Ash and Dogwood. The ground flora of the hedgerow includes Greater Stitchwort and Cleavers

3.6. Background Records

3.6.1. The WSBRC returned no specific records of any notable plants from within the site. The closest notable records are for a number of Lichen species in 2004, located approximately 300m within St Nicholas Church. During the surveys, no notable Lichen species were noted within the site.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

4. WILDLIFE USE OF THE SITE

4.1. During the surveys undertaken in 2017 general observations were made of any faunal use of the site, with specific attention paid to the potential presence of protected or notable species. In addition, specific surveys were undertaken with regard to bats, Badgers, Dormice and Great Crested Newts.

Bats

Tree Surveys

4.2. No trees within the site were recorded to have developed suitable roosting features for bats.

Activity surveys

4.3. Activity surveys were carried out within the site between May and October 2017 inclusive.

4.4. The bat activity survey on the 26th May 2017 recorded low bat activity, with 20 Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus registrations, four Lesser Horseshoe Rhinolophus hipposideros registrations, two Myotis sp. registrations, two Serotine Eptesicus serotinus registrations and one Noctule Nyctalus noctule registration. The bat activity during this survey was mainly associated with the central hedgerows (H3 and H5) (seen on Plan ECO3).

4.5. The bat activity survey on the 27th June 2017 recorded low bat activity with 28 Common Pipistrelle registrations, two Myotis sp. registrations, two Greater Horseshoe Rhinolophus ferrumequinum registrations, two Serotine registrations and one Noctule registration. During this survey the majority of bat activity recorded was associated with west of the site (seen on Plan ECO4).

4.6. The bat activity survey on the 19th July 2017 recorded slightly higher level of bat activity than the May and June survey, with 82 Common Pipistrelle registrations, six Greater Horseshoe registrations, five Myotis sp. registrations and one registration of Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus. The vast majority of activity was recorded along hedgerow H5 (seen on Plan ECO5).

4.7. The bat activity survey on the 23rd August 2017 recorded slightly lower bat activity than July, with 64 registrations of Common Pipistrelle, 11 Myotis sp. registrations, three Noctule registrations, three Soprano Pipistrelle registrations and two Greater Horseshoe registrations. The vast majority of activity was recorded along the central hedgerows (H3 and H5) (seen on Plan ECO6).

4.8. The bat activity survey on the 18th September 2017 recorded similar levels of bat activity to August, with 64 registrations of Common Pipistrelle, 11 Myotis sp. registrations, three Noctule registrations, three Soprano Pipistrelle registrations and two Greater Horseshoe registrations. The vast majority of activity was again recorded along the central hedgerows (H3 and H5) (seen on Plan ECO7).

4.9. The bat activity survey on the 12th October 2017 recorded low bat activity, with 21 Myotis sp. registrations, nine Common Pipistrelle registrations and three Serotine registrations. The vast majority of activity was recorded along the hedgerow H5 towards the west of the site (seen on Plan ECO8).

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

Automated Surveys

4.10. The locations of the automated detectors in each of the surveys is shown on Plans ECO3 to Plan ECO8.

4.11. In the May 2017 survey, the detectors recorded low levels of activity by Common Pipistrelle and occasional registrations by Soprano Pipistrelle, Myotis sp., Lesser Horseshoe, Greater Horseshoe and Brown Long-eared Plecotus auritus (see Tables 2 and 3 below). The detector at location 1 failed to record for the full 5 nights and only recorded for two nights. Therefore, the number of nights in which the automated were left out was extended for the remaining surveys (June, August and September).

Table 2. 26th – 31st May 2017 Bat Static Survey Results – Location 1 (along hedgerow H3).

Location 1 Survey Date Species 26.05.17 27.05.17 28.05.17 29.05.17 30.05.17 31.05.17 Number of Registrations Common Pipistrelle 69 8 - - - - Myotis sp. 2 1 - - - - Lesser Horseshoe 6 1 - - - - Greater Horseshoe 1 2 - - - - Brown Long-eared 2 0 - - - - Serotine 1 0 - - - - Noctule 0 0 - - - -

Table 3. 26th – 31st May 2017 Bat Static Survey Results – Location 2 (along hedgerow H2).

Location 2 Survey Date Species 26.05.17 27.05.17 28.05.17 29.05.17 30.05.17 31.05.17 Number of Registrations Common Pipistrelle 44 12 72 6 12 5 Soprano Pipistrelle 2 0 0 0 0 0 Greater Horseshoe 4 0 0 0 1 0 Brown Long-eared 3 0 0 0 0 0 Noctule 0 0 1 0 0 0

4.12. In the June 2017 (extended into July 2017) survey, the detectors recorded varying levels of activity by Common Pipistrelle and low levels of Myotis sp. and Greater Horseshoe bats. Very low levels of activity were recorded from Soprano Pipistrelle, Lesser Horseshoe, Brown Long-eared, Serotine and Noctule (see Tables 4 and 5 below).

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

Table 4. 27th June – 02nd July 2017 Bat Static Survey Results – Location 1 (where hedgerow H4 and H5 meet).

Location 1 Survey Date Species 27.06.17 28.06.17 29.06.17 30.06.17 01.07.17 02.07.17 Number of Registrations Common Pipistrelle 18 106 209 863 869 237 Myotis sp. 1 5 6 32 40 7 Greater Horseshoe 1 2 5 11 14 6 Brown Long-eared 1 0 2 4 3 3 Serotine 0 1 0 1 0 1 Noctule 0 1 4 2 5 0

Table 5. 27th June – 02nd July 2017 Bat Static Survey Results – Location 2 (where hedgerow H3 and H7 meet).

Location 2 Survey Date Species 27.06.17 28.06.17 29.06.17 30.06.17 01.07.17 02.07.17 Number of Registrations Common Pipistrelle 88 61 301 0 0 0 Soprano Pipistrelle 3 0 0 0 0 0 Myotis sp. 5 1 3 0 0 0 Lesser Horseshoe 1 0 1 1 2 2 Greater Horseshoe 1 0 0 0 1 4 Noctule 0 2 1 0 0 0

4.13. In the July 2017 surveys, the detectors recorded low levels of activity by Common Pipistrelle and very low levels of activity by Soprano Pipistrelle, Myotis sp. (a single registration on the 20th July). and Greater Horseshoe (see Tables 6 and 7 below).

Table 6. 19th – 23rd July 2017 Bat Static Survey Results - Location 1 (along hedgerow H3).

Location 1 Survey Date Species 19.07.17 20.07.17 21.07.17 22.07.17 23.07.17 Number of Registrations Common Pipistrelle 42 2 6 6 36 Myotis sp. 0 1 0 0 0 Lesser Horseshoe 0 0 0 0 0 Greater Horseshoe 0 3 2 1 0

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

Table 7. 19th – 23rd July 2017 Bat Static Survey Results - Location 2 (along hedgerow H1). Location 2 Survey Date Species 19.07.17 20.07.17 21.07.17 22.07.17 23.07.17 Number of Registrations Common Pipistrelle 39 10 9 3 36 Soprano Pipistrelle 0 0 0 1 1 Greater Horseshoe 3 2 0 2 3

4.14. In the August 2017 surveys, the detectors recorded generally low levels (moderate on some nights in location 2) of activity by Common Pipistrelle, low levels of activity by Myotis sp. and Brown Long-eared. Serotine activity was generally low but has higher on some nights at location 2. Very low activity was recorded by Soprano Pipistrelle, Lesser Horseshoe and Great Horseshoe (see Tables 8 and 9 below).

Table 8. 23rd – 28th August 2017 Bat Static Survey Results - Location 1 (along hedgerow H7).

Location 1 Survey Date Species 23.08.17 24.08.17 25.08.17 26.08.17 27.08.17 28.08.17 Number of Registrations Common Pipistrelle 6 4 18 15 15 18 Soprano Pipistrelle 1 2 3 3 3 5 Myotis sp. 4 3 7 8 9 2 Lesser Horseshoe 2 2 1 4 4 3 Greater Horseshoe 7 3 3 3 7 1 Brown Long-eared 4 1 6 2 2 0 Serotine 18 1 17 3 7 2 Noctule 1 3 7 6 8 4

Table 9. 23rd – 28th August 2017 Bat Static Survey Results - Location 2 (along hedgerow H5).

Location 2 Survey Date Species 23.08.17 24.08.17 25.08.17 26.08.17 27.08.17 28.08.17 Number of Registrations Common Pipistrelle 91 67 52 44 38 149 Soprano Pipistrelle 4 0 11 7 7 9 Myotis sp. 32 23 30 19 19 26 Lesser Horseshoe 32 23 30 19 19 26 Greater Horseshoe 6 4 3 8 3 7 Brown Long-eared 2 1 45 15 22 32 Serotine 137 155 57 19 18 2 Noctule 6 2 11 10 9 10

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

4.15. In the September 2017 surveys, the detectors recorded generally low levels of activity (some moderate levels of activity on some nights) by Common Pipistrelle. Very low levels of activity was recorded by Soprano Pipistrelle, Myotis sp. Lesser Horseshoe, Greater Horseshoe, Brown Long-eared, Serotine and Noctule (see Tables 6 and 7 below).

Table 10. 18th – 24th September 2017 Bat Static Survey Results - Location 1 (along hedgerow H3).

Location 1 Species Survey Date 18.09.17 19.09.17 20.09.17 21.09.17 22.09.17 23.09.17 24.09.17 Number of Registrations Common Pipistrelle 14 3 49 5 47 23 77 Soprano Pipistrelle 1 0 1 1 1 23 4 Myotis sp. 0 3 2 3 1 4 15 Lesser Horseshoe 0 1 2 0 1 7 7 Greater Horseshoe 0 2 12 1 4 5 2 Serotine 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 Noctule 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Table 11. 18th – 24th September 2017 Bat Static Survey Results - Location 2 (along hedgerow H4).

Location 2 Species Survey Date 18.09.17 19.09.17 20.09.17 21.09.17 22.09.17 23.09.17 24.09.17 Number of Registrations Common Pipistrelle 18 20 21 3 63 20 136 Soprano Pipistrelle 0 1 3 0 2 2 3 Myotis sp. 3 10 4 2 11 1 21 Lesser Horseshoe 2 0 4 0 5 2 0 Greater Horseshoe 2 0 5 2 1 2 3 Brown Long-eared 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Noctule 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

4.16. In the October 2017 surveys, the detectors recorded low levels of activity by Common Pipistrelle and very low levels of activity by Soprano Pipistrelle, Myotis sp., Lesser Horseshoe and Great Horseshoe (see Tables 12 and 13 below).

Table 12. 12th – 15th October 2017 Bat Static Survey Results - Location 1 (along hedgerow H5). Location 1 Survey Date Species 12.10.17 13.10.17 14.10.17 15.10.17 Number of Registrations Common Pipistrelle 0 1 23 2 Soprano Pipistrelle 0 1 8 1 Myotis sp. 0 1 2 3

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

Table 13. 12th – 15th October 2017 Bat Static Survey Results - Location 2 (along hedgerow H4).

Location 2 Survey Date Species 12.10.17 13.10.17 14.10.17 15.10.17 Number of Registrations Common Pipistrelle 5 21 15 11 Soprano Pipistrelle 1 3 2 2 Myotis sp. 2 8 2 1 Lesser Horseshoe 0 0 0 1 Greater Horseshoe 0 0 0 2

4.17. Background Records. WSBRC returned no records of any bats from within the site. The closest record for a Common Pipistrelle was from 2013 located approximately 0.05km southwest of the site. The closest record for a Brown Long-eared is a non-specific 1km grid square recorded that covers the site for a roost from 1996. The closest record for a Soprano Pipistrelle, Nathusius Pipistrelle and Noctule, Serotine and Barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus was from 2013 located approximately 0.7km east of the site. The closest record for a Greater Horseshoe is a non-specific 1km grid square recorded that covers the site for a roost from 1993. The closest record for a Daubenton’s bat was from 2004 located approximately 1.35km northwest of the site. The closest record for a Bechstein’s Myotis bechsteinii bat was from 1985 located approximately 0.25km east of the site. Although, Bechstein’s roosts have been recorded across Biss Wood and Green Lane Wood. These roosts are part of the core roost associated with the Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bat Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Biss Wood is located approximately 2.6km northeast of the site and Green Lane Wood is located approximately 3.4km northeast.

Badgers

4.18. No evidence of Badger such as any setts, latrines, mammal paths, snagged hairs, foraging marks or footprints were recorded within or immediately adjacent to the site.

4.19. Background Records. WSBRC returned no records of Badger activity from within the site. The closest Badger record returned was located adjacent to the site, south of Southwick Road in 1989 (no specific detail was provided for the record).

Birds

4.20. During the survey work House Sparrow Passer domesticus (Red List), Jackdaw Corvus monedula, Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto, Song Thrush Turdus philomelos (Red List) and Wood Pigeon Columba palumbus were recorded within the site. These species were recorded dispersing across the site and not recorded nesting and these species would not be considered as reliant upon the site in this regard, given the surrounding habitat.

4.21. Nonetheless, the site offers some limited opportunities for nesting birds in terms of the hedgerows and trees.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

4.22. Background Records. WSBRC returned no records of any Schedule 1 or Red List11 species from within the site. The closest notable species were for Red List species Fieldfare Turdus pilaris and Redwing Turdus iliacus located 0.4km west in 2012 and House Sparrow Passer domesticus located 0.4km northwest in 2006.

4.23. The site provides some suitable foraging and nesting habitat for these species and a House Sparrow was recorded during surveys, although such species would not be considered as reliant upon the site in this regard, given the surrounding habitat.

Reptiles

4.24. Background Records. WSBRC returned a historic record for Slow Worm Anguis fragilis within the site in 1987. The closest record for a Grass Snake Natrix natrix was located approximately 0.8km northeast of the site from 1977. The closest record for a Common Lizard Zootoca vivipara was a 1km grid square record located 1km to the west of the site in 2001.

4.25. The grassland is not currently considered to have potential to support reptile species on account of its short sward during to regular grazing from cattle and so no specific surveys could be undertaken. As such, despite historic records for the site (as returned from the data search), reptiles are not considered to be present within the site.

Dormice

4.26. The hedgerows provide limited suitable habitat for Dormice given the lack of Hazel, although Bramble is present within the majority of the hedgerows.

4.27. Nest tubes were set out in May with check surveys for Dormice were carried out between June and November 2017. During the surveys, no Dormice or evidence of Dormice was recorded within the site (see table 14 below).

Table 14. Dormouse Survey Results 2017. Survey Date Results 27.06.2017 No evidence of Dormice or Dormice nest recorded 19.07.2017 No evidence of Dormice or Dormice nest recorded 23.08.2017 No evidence of Dormice or Dormice nest recorded 19.09.2017 No evidence of Dormice or Dormice nest recorded 12.10.2017 No evidence of Dormice or Dormice nest recorded 08.11.2017 No evidence of Dormice or Dormice nest recorded

4.28. Rodent droppings were recorded in two of the Dormouse tubes and these droppings were sent to Swift Ecology for DNA testing. The droppings were confirmed to be Wood Mouse Apodemus sylvaticus.

11 Red list species are those that are globally threatened, whose population or range has declined rapidly in recent years (ie by more than 50% in 25 years), or which have declined historically and not recovered. Amber list species are those whose population or range has declined moderately in recent years (by more than 25% but less than 50% in 25 years), those whose population has declined historically but recovered recently, rare breeders (fewer than 300 pairs), those with internationally important populations in the UK, those with localised populations, and those with an unfavourable conservation status in Europe.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

4.29. Background Information. WSBRC returned no specific records of Dormice from within the site. A 10km grid square record that covers the site was returned for a Dormouse in 2015. The exact location has been withheld due to its sensitive nature.

4.30. Based on the surveys conducted, it is considered that Dormice are not present within the site and as such there will be no further consideration for this species in this report.

Great Crested Newts

4.31. There are no ponds within the site itself and OS maps indicate that there are no ponds within 500m of the site, which are not separated by significant dispersal barrier. Two ponds (P1 and P2) are located within 250m of the site (see Plan ECO1), although they are separated from the site by Southwick Road, which would be considered a dispersal barrier.

eDNA Survey

4.32. Access was granted for pond P1 but denied for pond P2. Pond P1 was recorded to have 2 positive replicates out of 12. This is a low positive and therefore does not confirm the presence of Great Create Newts.

4.33. Background Records. WSBRC contained no records of any Great Crested Newts from within the site. The closest record returned was located 0.95km east of the site in 2013.

4.34. Pond P1 is located approximately 180m south of the site and Pond P2 is located approximately 150m south of the site.

4.35. Although it is known that Great Crested Newts can disperse up to 500m through suitable terrestrial habitat from their breeding pond, it is widely accepted that they tend to utilise suitable terrestrial habitat within a much closer distance. Activity is usually concentrated within 100m of breeding ponds and key habitat is located within 50m (termed by Natural England as core habitat).

4.36. Indeed, English Nature Research Report Number 576 (An assessment of the efficiency of capture techniques and the value of different habitats for the Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus by Warren Cresswell and Rhiannon Whitworth) states:

“The most comprehensive mitigation, in relation to avoiding disturbance, killing or injury is appropriate within 50m of a breeding pond. It will also almost always be necessary to actively capture newts 50-100m away. However, at distances greater than 100m, there should be careful consideration as to whether attempts to capture newts are necessary or the most effective option to avoid incidental mortality. At distances greater than 200-250m, capture operations will hardly ever be appropriate.”

4.37. Therefore, due to the lack of suitable water bodies within or adjacent to the site, the lack of suitable terrestrial habitat present across the majority of the site (grazed grassland) and given that pond P1 recorded as having only a very low positive for Great Crested Newts presence and pond P1 and P2 are separated by dispersal barrier (Southwick Road), Great Crested Newt are not considered

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

likely to be present within the site or affected by the proposals and there will be no further consideration for this species in this report.

Invertebrates

4.38. The site is expected to support a limited range of common invertebrate species, but there is no evidence to suggest that any protected or notable species are likely to be present. The habitats present and grazing management reduce the site’s suitability to support a diverse / notable invertebrate assemblage.

4.39. Background Records. WSBRC returned no specific records of any rare or notable invertebrate species from within the site. The closest notable invertebrate record was for a Shoulder-striped Wainscot Leucania comma located 0.25km in 2010. This species of Month is common throughout most of Britain and the caterpillar feed on various grasses, especially Cock’s Foot which is present within the site. Therefore, is it considered that this species could utilise the site, although they would not be solely dependent on the site, given the surrounding habitat.

Other Species

4.40. Given the habitats present and records from the local area, there is no evidence from site surveys or desk study to suggest that any other protected or notable species would be present within the site or affected by the proposed development.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

5. ECOLOGICAL EVALUATION

5.1. The Principles of Site Evaluation

5.1.1. The latest guidelines for ecological evaluation produced by CIEEM12 proposes an approach that involves professional judgement, but makes use of available guidance and information, such as the distribution and status of the species or features within the locality of the project.

5.1.2. The methods and standards for site evaluation within the British Isles have remained those defined by Ratcliffe13. These are broadly used across the United Kingdom to rank Sites, so priorities for nature conservation can be attained. For example, current Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) designation maintains a system of data analysis that is roughly tested against Ratcliffe’s criteria.

5.1.3. In general terms, these criteria are size, diversity, naturalness, rarity and fragility, while additional secondary criteria of typicalness, potential value, intrinsic appeal, recorded history and the position within the ecological / geographical units are also incorporated into the ranking procedure.

5.1.4. Any assessment should not judge sites in isolation from others, since several habitats may combine to make it worthy of importance to nature conservation.

5.1.5. Further, relying on the national criteria would undoubtedly distort the local variation in assessment and therefore additional factors need to be taken into account, e.g. a woodland type with a comparatively poor species diversity, common in the south of England may be of importance at its northern limits, say in the border country.

5.1.6. In addition, habitats of local importance are often highlighted within a local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). The Wiltshire Biodiversity Action Plan Species Inventory14 currently list a number of BAP habitats and species.

5.1.7. Levels of importance can be determined within a defined geographical context from the immediate site or locality through to the International level.

5.1.8. The legislative and planning policy context are also important considerations and have been given due regard throughout this assessment.

12CIEEM (September 2018) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal and Marine. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester

13 Ratcliffe, D A (1977). A Nature Conservation Review: the Selection of Sites of Biological National Importance to Nature Conservation in Britain. Two Volumes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 14 http://ukbars.defra.gov.uk/

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

Habitat Evaluation

5.2. Designated Sites

Salisbury Plain

5.2.1. The nearest European Protected Site is Salisbury Plain Special Protection Area (SPA) / SAC / SSSI, located approximately 6km southeast of the site.

5.2.2. The Salisbury Plain SAC qualifies under Article 4(4) of the Habitats Directive on account of it supporting the Annex I habitats “Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (Juniper on heaths or calcareous grasslands), semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) (dry grasslands and scrublands on chalk or limestone)” and “semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco- Brometalia) (important orchid sites) (dry grasslands and scrublands on chalk or limestone, including important orchid sites)”.

5.2.3. It also qualifies under Article 4(4) on account of it hosting the following Annex II species:

• Marsh Fritillary Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia

5.2.4. Of the above listed qualifying features semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) (important orchid sites) is noted as an Annex I priority habitat.

5.2.5. The Salisbury Plain SPA qualifies under Article 4.1 of EC Directive 79/409 on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the Birds Directive) as it regularly supports nationally important populations of Stone Curlew Burhinus oedicnemus (breeding) and Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus (non-breeding). It also qualifies as a SPA as it supports nationally important breeding populations of Quail Coturnix coturnix (breeding) and Eurasian Hobby Falco Subbuteo (breeding). Other Annex 1 species occurring in small numbers include Merlin Falco columbarius, Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus and Montagu’s harrier Circus pygargus.

Conservation Objectives

5.2.6. The Habitats Regulations require an assessment to be undertaken “in view of the site’s nature conservation objectives”. The Conservation Objectives for the Salisbury Plain SPA and Salisbury Plain SAC are detailed below (and are included at Appendix 3):

Salisbury Plain SPA

“Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring;

• The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features • The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

• The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely • The population of each of the qualifying features, and, • The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.”

Salisbury Plain SAC

“Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the Favourable Conservation Status of its Qualifying Features, by maintaining or restoring;

• The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying species • The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying natural habitats • The structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species • The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species rely • The population of qualifying species, and, • The distribution of the qualifying species within the site.”

5.2.7. Natural England also published supplementary advice relating to the Salisbury Plain SAC conservation objectives in February 2017. The document sets out site attributes considered to “best describe the site’s ecological integrity” and its targets for those attributes. It is included at Appendix 4. Similar advice is also referenced in the SPA objectives and is included at Appendix 4.

Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bats SAC

5.2.8. Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bats SAC is located approximately 7.7km northwest of the site. The Bath and Bradford on Avon Bats SAC qualifies under Article 4(4) of the Habitats Directive on account of it hosting the following Annex II species:

• Bechstein’s • Greater Horseshoe • Lesser Horseshoe

5.2.9. The Conservation Objectives for the Bath & Bradford-on-Avon Bats SAC is detailed below (and are included at Appendix 5).

5.2.10. “Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the Favourable Conservation Status of its Qualifying Features, by maintaining or restoring;

• The extent and distribution of the habitats of qualifying species • The structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species • The supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely • The populations of qualifying species, and, • The distribution of qualifying species within the site.”

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

5.2.11. Natural England has also published draft supplementary advice relating to the Bath & Bradford on Avon Bats SAC conservation objectives in February 2019. The document sets out site attributes considered to “best describe the site’s ecological integrity” and its targets for those attributes. It is included at Appendix 6.

5.2.12. The SAC is made up of a number of component sites, designated as SSSI’s, including Winsley Mines SSSI, Brown’s Folly SSSI, Combe Down and Bathampton Down Mines SSSI and Box Mine SSSI. These component sites comprise caves, mines and manmade tunnels, which function as hibernation and breeding roosts and swarming sites for the Annex II species listed above.

5.2.13. As identified within the SAC Planning Guidance for Wiltshire15 (SACPGW) document, in order to afford adequate protection to these highly mobile bat species which have a range of habitat requirements, a number of core roosts have been identified within the local area of the SAC. These core roosts are sites known to support roosting bat populations which also utilise habitats within the SAC for example populations of Bechstein’s bat present within the Box Mine SSSI, component site of the SAC, are known to utilise breeding roost sites within Biss Wood and Green Lane Wood, with these woods thus identified as core roosts.

5.2.14. Core roosts are assigned core areas which are considered to be of high value for bat populations utilising the associated core roost and are inclusive of an area of land within a set radius of these roost sites, dependant on the relevant bat species present. These core areas are further identified as consultation zones, within which any proposed development must engage in further assessment of any potential impacts to sensitive features. The core areas / consultation zones are detailed below:

• 4km surrounding Greater Horseshoe core roosts; • 2km surrounding Lesser horseshoe core roosts; • 1.5km surrounding Bechstein’s core roosts; • 6km surrounding Barbastelle core roosts (except at Mottisfont, where local evidence justifies a requirement for a 7.5km radius).

5.2.15. The proposed development site in this case is not located within any core roost consultation zones and the SACPGW indicates the closest core roost is for Bechstein’s and is located in Picket and Clanger Wood SSSI located approximately 1.7km southeast of the site and the site is located within the potential Impact Risk Zones (IRZ) of for Picket and Clanger Wood SSSI. However, residential development is not considered to have any impact on this SSSI.

5.2.16. However, a consultation response from Natural England for a nearby proposed development (17/03269/OUT - Wynsome Street, Southwick) also located outside of the core roost consultation zones) states (see Appendix 7):

“Recent evidence, which the council ecologists are aware of, shows that Biss and Green Lane Woods support a large colony of Bechstein’s bats

15 Wiltshire Council. 2015. Bat Special Areas of Conservation (SAC): Planning Guidance for Wiltshire.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

associated with the Bath and Bradford on Avon SAC. These bats and/or their supporting habitat are thought to be easily disturbed through recreational pressure. The development concerned has the potential to increase to recreational pressure in these woods through the uplift in population, and through the loss of recreational amenity of the site being built upon, potentially displacing recreational activity to these woods. We therefore advise that a Habitat Regulations Assessment is undertaken to assess the effect of the development on the SAC.”

5.2.17. Further to this consultation response in correspondence dated June 2017, the Wiltshire County Ecologist states:

“The Wynsome Road site is just about 3km from the tip of Biss Wood and therefore falls within provisional criteria we have agreed with Natural England for inclusion in HRA subject to the outcome of a visitors survey and Trowbridge Mitigation Strategy we have commissioned from footprint ecology”.

5.2.18. The results of the visitor survey will inform the Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy, a draft of which is due to be published in early 2019.

5.2.19. Therefore, it was the view of the Natural England and Wiltshire Council that the nearby proposed development (Wynsome Street, Southwick) would have potential to result in adverse recreational impacts, upon a core roost, Biss and Green Lane Woods, associated with the Bath and Bradford on Avon SAC. As such, a Habitat Regulations Assessment would be required.

5.2.20. This view appears to have its basis in provisional criteria, requiring appropriate assessment for developments within a 3km buffer area around Biss and Green Lane Woods, as agreed between the LPA and Natural England. As such, information for an appropriate assessment is included within this document for the proposed development adjacent to Southwick Road.

5.2.21. In relation to the site, the nearest core roost is for Bechstein’s bat located within Picket and Clanger Wood SSSI, which is a large area of suitable woodland located 1.7km southeast of the site. Although, as detailed above and in the Wiltshire Housing Site Allocation Plan Pre-submission draft plan HRA16 (WHSAP) it states:

“Wiltshire Bat Group have established that woodland on the south east of Trowbridge, referred to hereafter as the ‘Green Lane Wood complex’, supports one of the largest populations of breeding Bechstein’s bats in the UK.”

“Surveys also reveal the bats regularly travel considerable distance through the surrounding agricultural landscape to forage and drink beyond previously assumed Core Areas for this population”

16 Wiltshire Housing Site Allocation Plan Pre-submission draft plan, Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA). June 2017.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

5.2.22. Therefore, the WHSAP places greater emphasis on the Green Lane Wood complex. The complex includes Biss Wood which is located 2.6km northeast of the site and Green Lane Wood located 3.3km northeast.

5.2.23. The draft supplementary advice on conserving and restoring site features for the Bath and Bradford-on-Avon SAC (see Appendix 6) states that “Bechstein’s bats don’t tend to range far from their roosts, generally up to a maximum distance of 1-2.5km, usually closer to 1km”. As such, given the distance of the site, it is considered that the site is over the regular range for Bechstein’s (for commuting, as Bechstein’s prefer to forage in woodland). However, given the Natural England consultation in relation to Wynsome Street, Southwick, consideration to use of site adjacent to Southwick Road by Bechstein’s bat has been assessed.

5.2.24. The draft supplementary advice (February 2019) also states that Lesser and Greater Horseshoe bats can travel up to 4km and the Southwick Road site is located over 4km from the closest Horseshoe roost. However, surveys have indicated a low number of Horseshoes utilise the hedgerows within the site and so the use of the site by these species has also been assessed.

5.2.25. SACPGW detailed survey requirements “Where development proposals fall within one of the Core Areas” “and could potentially affect one or more Sensitive Features”. The site is not located within the Core Areas, although as detailed in the responses from NE for the nearby development and the WHSAP, these core areas are likely to be extended following recent research. As such, given the site is closer than the nearby development at Wynsome Street, Southwick, the surveys for the site have followed the requirement detailed for sites within the core areas.

5.2.26. SACPGW states that “All survey work should be carried out in general accordance with published best practice, although exact survey requirements will need to reflect the sensitivity of the site, and nature and scale of the proposals”

and

“For example, targeted deployment of static detectors may be required to supplement transect surveys.”

5.2.27. The survey effort employed has had regards to the best practice guidelines for a site with “moderate suitability habitat” for bats. This includes surveys undertaken monthly throughout the survey season, with the supplementary placement of static detectors for each transect survey (see previous at section 2).

5.2.28. SACPGW also states “potential impacts should be considered at an early stage in order to inform site selection, scheme design, project timescales”. Consideration for bats has been a major factor in developing a scheme for the site, with mitigation being included by design to avoid potential impacts where possible. A detailed assessment is made in subsequent sections below.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

Habitats and Birds Directives

5.2.29. Under the EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna, commonly referred to as the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC), Member States are required to take special measures to maintain the distribution and abundance of certain priority habitats and species (listed in Annexes I and II of the Directive). In particular, each Member State is required to designate the most suitable sites as SACs. All such SACs will form part of the Natura 2000 network under article 3(1) of the Habitats Directive.

5.2.30. Article 2(3) sets out that member states have a duty, in exercising their obligations under the Habitats Directive to:

“.. take account of economic, social and cultural requirements and local characteristics.”

5.2.31. Under the EC Directive on Wild Birds (the Birds Directive) (Council Directive 2009/147/EEC, previously 79/409/EEC), Member States are required to take special measures to conserve the habitats of certain rare species of birds (listed in Annex I of the Directive) and regularly occurring migratory birds. In particular, each Member State is required to classify the most suitable areas of such habitats as SPAs. This is designed to protect wild birds, and to provide sufficient diversity of habitats for all species so as to maintain populations at an ecologically sound level. All Bird Directive SPAs will also be part of the Natura 2000 network under article 3(1) of the Habitats Directive.

5.2.32. Thus, there is an obligation under the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive for member states to designate sites before turning to measures for their protection.

5.2.33. The protection afforded to SACs/SPAs is delivered through Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. Article 6(2) requires member states to take appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and disturbance of species for which the sites have been designated, in so far as the disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of the Directive. Article 6(3) and Article 6(4) require that a plan or project not directly connected with the management of the site, but likely to have a significant effect upon it, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, must be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications on the site, in view of the site’s conservation objectives.

5.2.34. Having undertaken an appropriate assessment, the competent authority may agree to a plan or project where it can be concluded that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. In light of a negative assessment on the implications for the integrity of the site, Article 6(4) provides that the plan or project may still proceed where it can be demonstrated that there are no alternatives and there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest as to why it must proceed. In the event that a plan or project is to proceed on the basis of imperative reasons of over-riding public interest, by direction of Article 6(4), compensatory measures must be put in place to ensure that the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network is protected.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017

5.2.35. The Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017, commonly referred to as the Habitats Regulations, transpose the requirements of the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive into UK legislation. The Habitats Regulations aim to protect a network of sites in the UK that have rare or important habitats and species in order to safeguard biodiversity.

5.2.36. Under the Habitats Regulations, Competent Authorities have a duty to ensure that all the activities they regulate have no adverse effect on the integrity of any of the Natura 2000 sites. Regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations requires that:

“63 (1) A competent authority, before deciding to undertake, or give any consent, permission or other authorisation for, a plan or project, which:-

(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or a European offshore marine site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and (b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site,

must make an appropriate assessment of the implications of the plan or project for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.

…

63 (3) The competent authority must for the purposes of the assessment consult the appropriate nature conservation body and have regard to any representations made by that body within such reasonable time as the authority specifies.

…

63 (5) In the light of the conclusions of the assessment, and subject to regulation 64, the competent authority may agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site or the European offshore marine site (as the case may be).

63 (6) In considering whether a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the site, the competent authority must have regard to the manner in which it is proposed to be carried out or to any conditions or restrictions subject to which it proposes that the consent, permission or other authorisation should be given.”

5.2.37. Regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations therefore sets out a two-stage process. The first test is to determine whether the plan / project is likely to have a significant effect on the European site, the second test (if applicable) is to determine whether the plan / project will affect the integrity of the European site.

5.2.38. Some key concepts of the Habitats Directive and Habitats Regulations have been clarified through case law. The most pertinent cases in relation

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

to the development proposals are Waddenzee, Sweetman, People over Wind and Holohan. These are discussed below.

Case Law

Waddenzee

5.2.39. In the ‘Waddenzee’ case (C-323/17) the European Court of Justice decided that an appropriate assessment is required for a plan or project where there is a probability or a risk that it will have a significant effect on the SPA. The Judgment states [at paragraph 3(a)] that:

“…any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site is to be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that it will have a significant effect on that site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects.”

5.2.40. Hence the need for an appropriate assessment should be determined on a precautionary basis.

5.2.41. The Judgment gives clarity that the test of ‘likely significant effect’ should also be undertaken in view of the European sites conservation objectives. It is stated [at paragraph 3(b)] that:

“where a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site is likely to undermine the site’s conservation objectives, it must be considered likely to have a significant effect on that site.”

5.2.42. Paragraph 4 of the Judgment emphasises the requirement for the appropriate assessment to rely on objective scientific information:

“…an appropriate assessment…implies that, prior to its approval, all the aspects of the plan or project which can, by themselves or in combination with other plans or projects, affect the site's conservation objectives must be identified in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field. The competent national authorities, taking account of the appropriate assessment of the implications…for the site concerned in the light of the site's conservation objectives, are to authorise such an activity only if they have made certain that it will not adversely affect the integrity of that site. That is the case where no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects.”

Sweetman

5.2.43. Further guidance in relation to the consideration of impacts in the light of the Habitats Regulations is provided in the Sweetman case (C-258/11). The case as set out by the Advocate General considered in detail the test for likely significant effect in paragraphs 50 and 51:

“50. The test which that expert assessment must determine is whether the plan or project in question has ‘an adverse effect on the integrity of the site’, since that is the basis on which the competent national authorities

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

must reach their decision. The threshold at this (the second) stage is noticeably higher than that laid down at the first stage. That is because the question (to use more simple terminology) is not ‘should we bother to check’ (the question at the first stage) but rather ‘what will happen to the site if this plan or project goes ahead; and is that consistent with “maintaining or restoring the favourable conservation status” of the habitat or species concerned’…

51. It is plain, however, that the threshold laid down at this stage of Article 6(3) may not be set too high, since the assessment must be undertaken having rigorous regard to the precautionary principle. That principle applies where there is uncertainty as to the existence or extent of risks. The competent national authorities may grant authorisation to a plan or project only if they are convinced that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned. If doubt remains as to the absence of adverse effects, they must refuse authorisation.”

5.2.44. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) agreed with the Advocate General’s conclusions, and held:

“40. Authorisation for a plan or project, as referred to in Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, may therefore be given only on condition that the competent authorities – once all aspects of the plan or project have been identified which can, by themselves or in combination with other plans or projects, affect the conservation objectives of the site concerned, and in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field – are certain that the plan or project will not have lasting adverse effects on the integrity of that site. That is so where no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects.”

5.2.45. Hence a plan or project may be authorised only if no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of effects. Reasonable scientific doubt will exist if the evidence is not sufficiently conclusive, or if there are gaps in the information. Dilly Lane

5.2.46. The Secretary of State’s decision to allow an appeal in relation to applications for a total of 170 new homes on a greenfield site off Dilly Lane, Hartley Witney was challenged in High Court by Hart District Council. The legal challenge was made on the grounds that the Secretary of State had erred in departing from her Inspector’s conclusions as to the effects on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.

5.2.47. A key issue for the case was whether mitigation measures should be disregarded when assessing whether the project would have a significant effect on the SPA. Mr Justice Sullivan (subsequently Lord Justice Sullivan, now retired) ruled in favour of the Secretary of State after concluding that there was no absolute legal rule that mitigation measures should be disregarded during the first stage – ‘the likely significant test’:

“55. The competent authority is not considering the likely effect of some hypothetical project in the abstract. The exercise is a practical one which requires the competent authority to consider the likely effect of the particular project for which permission is being sought. If certain features (to use a neutral term) have been incorporated into that project, there is no

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

sensible reason why those features should be ignored at the initial, screening, stage merely because they have been incorporated into the project in order to avoid, or mitigate, any likely effect on the SPA.”

People over Wind

5.2.48. The CJEU in People over Wind v Coillte Teoranta (case C-323/17), released on 12 April 2018, has revoked the position adopted under the Dilly Lane Decision that it was right and proper for mitigation or avoidance measures, which formed a feature of a plan / project, to be viewed as integral to the plan / project and not excluded when considering the likely significance test at Regulation 63(1).

5.2.49. The decision by the CJEU ruled that:

“Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether it is necessary to carry out, subsequently, an appropriate assessment of the implications, for a site concerned, of a plan or project, it is not appropriate, at the screening stage, to take account of the measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on that site.”

5.2.50. In accordance with this ruling, avoidance or mitigation measures cannot be considered at the first stage of the test (the ‘Likely Significant Effect’ stage) and can only be considered at the Appropriate Assessment stage.

5.2.51. This ruling conflicts with and overrules a long line of domestic case law (notably the Dilly Lane Decision (oao) Herts District Council v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others [2008] EWHC 1204 (Admin)), as summarised above, which previously held that it is appropriate to consider such measures at the ‘Likely Significant Effect’ stage.

5.2.52. The approach adopted in People over Wind was also confirmed by the ECJ in ESB Wind Developments Ltd (Case C-164/17), which was delivered on 25 July 2018.

5.2.53. As such, even where a strategic solution has been identified to mitigate/avoid potential effects on a European site, such as “Mitigation Strategy for Salisbury Plain” and as would be the case upon adoption of the Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy, technically the People Over Wind ruling now requires an Appropriate Assessment of development within the specified zone of influence to be conducted by the Competent Authority.

Holohan Judgment

5.2.54. A recent judgment with regard to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive sets out that an Appropriate Assessment must “catalogue the entirety of the habitat types and species for which a site is protected, and, on the other, identify and examine both the implications of the proposed project for the species present on that site, and for which that site has been listed, and the implications for habitat types and species to be found outside the boundaries of that site, provided that those implications are liable to affect the conservation objectives of the site.”

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

5.2.55. The habitat types and species for which the Salisbury Plain SPA / SAC and Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bats SAC is designated, is set out in the section above and the implications of the development proposals on the habitat types and species are assessed against their conservation objectives.

Potential Effects of the Development Proposals

HRA and Mitigation Strategy for Salisbury Plain SPA – Reviewed in May 2018

5.2.56. Wiltshire Council produced a HRA and mitigation strategy to address the concerns from Natural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) over the potential effects of increasing recreational pressure on breeding Stone Curlew at Salisbury Plain SPA particularly from residential housing for the local area. The mitigation strategy was reviewed in May 2018.

5.2.57. The HRA considered the likely significant effect of recreation pressure as a result of planned residential growth in Wiltshire on Stone Curlew, as a qualifying feature of the Salisbury Plain SPA.

5.2.58. The effects of increasing recreational pressure on other qualifying features of the SPA and SAC e.g. Hen Harrier have been screened out by the council as they are not deemed to be sensitive to recreational pressure.

5.2.59. The mitigation strategy sets out that measures would be required to address an increase in recreational pressure on the Salisbury Plain SPA and confirms that financial contributions proposed would be sought via a CIL charging schedule for the proposed mitigation strategies within a 0- 6.4km zone around the SPA.

5.2.60. The original mitigation strategy detailed a 15km zone around the SPA, although this was reduced in the 2018 review, after further survey information was collected. Although the zones have been reduced, the reviewed mitigation strategy does not detail updated financial contributions. Therefore, it is assumed that the contributions set out in the original mitigation strategy remains valid. As such, residential development over 4km from the SPA is £13.87 and would apply to the proposed development site in this instance.

5.2.61. Based on 95 dwellings being proposed, the financial contribution will be £1,317.65.

5.2.62. It is therefore considered that with the provision of financial contributions in line with the adopted mitigation strategy, the development proposals would not give rise to a significant effect on the integrity of Salisbury SPA / SAC either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, as required by the Habitat Regulations 2017.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

Bath and Bradford on Avon SAC

5.2.63. In view of the reasons for the qualification of the Bath and Bradford Avon Bats SAC, the distance of the site from its nearest parcel and the nature of the development proposals, the following pathways for potential significant effects have been screened out of requiring further assessment:

• Matters relating to direct ‘land take’ at the SAC; • Effects relating to air quality (e.g. dust deposition) and pollution impacts, during both the construction and operational phases of the development proposals; and • Impacts from noise or vibration during construction and operation phases.

5.2.64. The potential impacts from the proposed development at the site that have been assessed in further are detail below:

• Recreational pressure; • Loss of foraging commuting habitat; • Lighting; and • Collision risk.

5.2.65. These identified pathways for potential significant effects are discussed in detail below.

Recreational Pressure

5.2.66. With regard to recreational impacts on Biss and Green Lane Woods, while it is well documented that bats roosting underground, in features supported by the SAC including mines, tunnels and caves, are vulnerable to human disturbance1718, recreational impacts to tree roosting species such as Bechstein’s have not been well documented and there is little evidence to suggest that recreational activity in the form of dog-walkers and ramblers utilising the woods during the daytime are likely to have any particular impacts to the value of a woodland utilised as a roost site by this species.

5.2.67. Table 1 of the SACPGW, entitled “How a development proposal could affect the designated bat sites”, does not contain any reference to the potential for recreational disturbance to the SAC associated with new developments, the only mention of disturbance within this table is in regard to physical changes to a site.

5.2.68. Natural England’s own guidance, entitled “Bats: surveys and mitigation for development projects” does not identify human recreational disturbance to roost sites as being a potential concern.

5.2.69. The Site Improvement Plan for Bath and Bradford on Avon Bats, published by Natural England (April 2015), identifies a number of priorities or issues for the SAC, one of which is entitled, “Direct impact from third party”. This

17 Tuttle M.D. (1975), ”Population ecology of the (Gray bat Myotis grisescens): Factors influencing early growth and development”, Occasional Papers of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas Vol. 36, 1-24. 18 Agosta S.J. (2002), “Habitat use, diet and roost selection by the Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus) in North America: a case for conserving an abundant species”, Mammal Society: Mammal Review. 32, 179-198.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

is described within the issues and actions table with identified impacts limited to direct impacts to tunnel, mine and cave entrances within the component SSSI sites. A further identified priority or issue entitled, “Public access/disturbance”, with associated impacts identified limited to short term, one-off events including fire-juggling or bonfires near roost entrances in addition to underground use of aerosols or fuel.

5.2.70. Furthermore, the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT), the organisation responsible for the production of the Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists Good Practice Guidelines, a document which represents the adopted best practice by Natural England, does not raise recreational impacts to tree roosting bat species within any of their published documents.

5.2.71. Notwithstanding the above, the WHSAP states that “Research has shown that increased disturbance can damage such habitat through trampling of vegetation, soil compaction and vandalism”. Recent recreational pressure is detailed for Castlemead residential development located 100m from Green Lane Wood, which is considered easy walking distance of Green Lane Wood. The WHSAP set out the recreational impacts from this development:

“An inspection of Green Lane Wood accompanied by WWT confirmed that visitor access to the wood had increased significantly since construction commenced at both Castlemead and another nearby residential development site North of Green Lane. Damage to ground flora was already apparent and WWT also reported increasing problems with fires, rubbish and vandalism of bat boxes, including some known to be used by the Bechstein’s maternity colony”

5.2.72. WHSAP indicates that development within easy walking distance to Green Lane Wood will generate the highest proportion of frequent visitors, as well as the highest proportion of visits which lead to direct harm either deliberately or unwittingly through fires and vandalism.

5.2.73. Based on Natural England research the WHSAP assumes the zone of influence for recreational pressure “to be approximately 2miles/3.2km”.

5.2.74. The site is located 1.7km from Picket and Clanger Wood, 2.6km from Biss Wood and 3.3km from Green Lane Wood. As such, the site lies beyond the 3.2km zone of influence (as referenced in the WHSAP) for Green Lane Wood.

5.2.75. Picket and Clanger Wood is approximately 2.6km distance by public footpaths (including some limited use of roads), which would likely take approximately 40 minutes to walk. The wood includes a car park and is approximately 2.9km distance by car, which would likely take approximately 5 minutes.

5.2.76. It is not considered that the site is within easy walking distance of Biss Wood. Biss Wood is approximately 4km distance by road, which would likely take approximately 50 minutes to walk. If public footpaths were utilised (although there is limited connectivity and therefore roads would still need to be used) the site is approximately a 4.5km walk, which is likely over an hour walk. Also, the road towards Biss Wood does not have a

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

footpath, which will further reduce the likelihood of people walking to the wood. In addition, Biss Wood does not include a car park, which will therefore further reduce the possibility of those within the site utilising this wood for recreation.

5.2.77. In addition, Southwick Country Park and Biss Meadow Country Park are located closer to the site than Biss and Green Lane Woods and have car parks, therefore it is considered more likely that new residents would utilise these areas of open space for recreation.

5.2.78. The proposed development at the site will include areas of public open space for residents to utilise for recreational purposes and a large number of public footpaths are located adjacent and in close vicinity of the site.

5.2.79. Given the above, it is considered that the proposed development will not likely have any recreational impact on the nearby core roosts for Bechstein’s, (with those for Greater Horseshoe and Lesser Horseshoe bats even further distance, and thus also unlikely to be affected). Nonetheless, should potential recreational impacts still be considered to arise from the site proposals the mitigation could be implemented in line with that identified in the forthcoming Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy when adopted. Should the Bat Mitigation Strategy not be adopted at the point of implementation, an agreed mitigation strategy based upon appropriate financial contributions could be utilised to avoid any potential recreation effects arising. Reasonable financial contributions could be provided to fund other nearby areas of public open space (Southwick County Park, Biss Meadows Country Park, Ashton Park and Paxcroft Brook) as detailed within the WHSAP. These have been identified as requiring additional funding to provide suitable recreational opportunities for the increased recreational pressure within the local area.

Loss of Foraging / Commuting Habitat

5.2.80. The range and distribution of Bechstein’s and Horseshoe bat species are much more limited than other UK species, with Bechstein’s bats confined to south-east Wales and south England, Greater Horseshoe bats confined to south-west England and Wales, and Lesser Horseshoe bats confined to Wales, western England and western Ireland. Bechstein’s are closely associated with roost sites in mature deciduous woodlands, namely within trees. Both Horseshoe species are associated with ‘caves’ as roosting sites, although both species, but more predominantly Lesser Horseshoe bats, will also use buildings (including cellars) for roosting purposes.

5.2.81. Bechstein’s are known to forage within similar habitats as where they roost, as such they are rarely recorded outside of deciduous woodland.

5.2.82. As stated within the English Nature Research Reports No. 658 – ‘Woodland management advice for Bechstein's bat and barbastelle bat’:

“The ideal Bechstein’s bat woodland is an unevenly aged, deciduous woodland with a high number of oaks in the species mix. The woodland would be of a minimum of 40 to 50 hectares in extent and be semi-natural or ancient woodland with a dense mixed species understorey.”

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

5.2.83. The report goes on to state that:

“The ideal forage woodland is actually exactly the same as roost woodlands”

And…

“The standard pattern of foraging within a Bechstein’s bat colony is for the suitable canopy areas within about 1.5 km of the roost”

5.2.84. Optimal roosting and foraging habitat is therefore largely synonymous. Conversely, areas of woodland that are small, do not have a linked canopy to known roost sites, are species poor (notably lacking Oak) or have a poor tree age structure are much less likely to support roosting Bechstein’s or provide significant areas for foraging.

5.2.85. Greater Horseshoe bats are known to travel away from roosting sites to foraging grounds along distinct flight paths. Flight paths radiating in different directions can be used where different foraging areas become available through the season depending on insect prey availability. The majority of flight paths run along the edges of woods, woodland rides or tall hedges, with the bats only occasionally crossing open fields. It has been documented that Greater horseshoe bats generally will not cross gaps of greater than 15 metres although open fields are crossed after dusk on dark nights.

5.2.86. As stated within the English Nature Research Report No. 174 – ‘The management of feeding areas for greater horseshoe bats’:

“The preferred habitat for foraging from April to September includes areas of mixed semi-natural deciduous woodland and permanent pasture.”

5.2.87. Optimal foraging habitats will vary throughout the year based on the quality and abundance of prey species (dictated by the life cycles of different insect prey). The most valuable habitats include: Cattle grazed pasture (alone or as part of mixed stock); ancient semi natural woodland; grazed pastures (stock other than cattle); meadows grazed by cattle in the autumn; and other meadows and broadleaved woodland. 5.2.88. The English Nature publication titled ‘Managing landscapes for the greater horseshoe bat’ states:

“A landscape of permanent pasture and ancient woodland, linked with an abundance of tall bushy hedges, is the ideal habitat for greater horseshoes. This type of landscape provides the bats with both their insect food and the linear features such as woodland edges and hedges which they use as flight paths.”

5.2.89. With regard to Lesser Horseshoe bats, for foraging this species is reliant upon sheltered, vegetated areas comprising woodland and / or mature hedgerow habitat.

5.2.90. Given the ecology of Bechstein’s bats, which do not generally forage far from their roost sites (as reflected in the 1.5km buffer core areas assigned to their roosts within the SACPGW and the Draft Supplementary advice for

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

the Bath and Bradford-on-Avon SAC, which states that Bechstein’s bats don’t tend to range far from their roosts, generally up to a maximum distance of 1-2.5km, usually closer to 1km) and given the geographical location of the site relative to Picket and Clanger Wood, Biss Wood and Green Lane Wood, it is not considered likely that the proposed development would impact upon foraging and commuting individuals of this species which utilise roost locations in these woods. This is further emphasised by the lack of habitat connectivity between these woods and the site, with the intervening area including the village of North Bradley and the White Horse Business Park. Given the distance of the site from the core roosts associated with the Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bats SAC for Horseshoe bats it is not considered any Horseshoe species identified using the site would originate from the core roosts.

5.2.91. Nonetheless, activity surveys (including automated surveys) were undertaken monthly between May 2017 to October 2017 to assess usage of the proposed development site by bats.

5.2.92. Surveys recorded a total of 8 bat species. The vast majority of bat registrations were common bat species (i.e. Common Pipistrelle), with all other bat species recorded in much lower numbers. It is acknowledged that Bechstein’s and Horseshoes bats can be detected at lower levels than many bat species, but surveys across the year do give good indications of relative likely importance, allowing an accurate assessment to be made.

5.2.93. Greater Horseshoe bat activity was recorded during the activity and automated surveys, but this was generally limited across the site. The highest activity was recorded in June 2017 on the automated detector positioned where hedgerows H4 and H5 meet with a total of 39 registrations over 6 nights (although the number of registrations fluctuates between 1 and 14 registration per night). Generally, activity was recorded as being much lower throughout the year e.g. with the automated detector in June 2017 (placed where hedgerows H3 and H7 meet) only recording 6 registrations over 6 nights (and no registrations being recorded on 3 of those nights). The July survey only recorded a total of 16 registrations across both automated detectors and no Greater Horseshoe bats being recorded on some nights on each detector. The number of Greater Horseshoe registrations slightly increased in August (a peak of 31 over 6 nights on one automated detector) and September (a peak of 26 over 7 nights on one automated detector). Although, in October 2017 the number of registrations reduced again to 2 registrations only on one automated detector over 4 nights. The activity surveys did not indicate that Greater Horseshoe bats were using the cattle-grazed fields for foraging (with no individuals recorded within the main body of the fields).

5.2.94. Lesser Horseshoe activity was also recorded during the activity and automated surveys. Low levels of activity were recorded with peak levels recorded along hedgerow H5 in August 2017 where 45 registrations were recorded over 6 nights (although the number of registrations fluctuates between 4 and 14 registrations per night). Generally, activity was recorded as being much lower throughout the year. Lesser Horseshoe bats were recorded during the majority of the survey months, although were not recorded at all in July and October 2017.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

5.2.95. Due to the difficulty in separating Bechstein’s bat from other Myotis species by acoustic analysis alone it cannot be unequivocally determined whether the Myotis registrations recorded are (or are not) attributable to Bechstein’s bat. However, on a precautionary basis, given the proximity of site to known core roosts and the connectivity with these roost sites (albeit limited), it is considered that Bechstein’s bats may utilise parts of the site for commuting purposes from time to time. The number of Myotis registrations recorded during the surveys were low, with peak levels recorded along hedgerows H5 and H7 in August 2017 where 182 registrations were recorded over 6 nights (although the number of registrations fluctuates between 19 and 32 registrations per night). Generally, activity was recorded as being much lower throughout the year. As detailed previously, Bechstein’s are a woodland species and it is considered at best that only the hedgerows within the site only provide commuting habitat rather than foraging habitat. Although it has already been acknowledged that it is difficult to separate Myotis species by call alone, detailed sonogram analysis of all the Myotis calls, has identified that the vast majority of the registrations appear to be from Natters and Daubenton's. Only three registrations have parameters that indicate Bechstein’s bats, although this could only be unequivocally confirmed through trapping and inspection in the hand. Nonetheless, the three potential Bechstein’s registrations were all recorded in August 2017 along the central hedgerow (H5), which is to be retained as part of the proposed development and will include a landscape buffer, which is subject to sensitive lighting to maintain a <1 lux corridor (as per mitigation recommended within the WHSAP).

5.2.96. Having reviewed the survey data as a whole it is considered that the central hedgerows (H3 and H5) are of most value for all the bat species recorded. However, given the generally low numbers of registrations recorded for Bechstein’s, Lesser and Greater Horseshoe bats, it is not considered that the habitats represent an area of any particular importance for these species.

5.2.97. Nonetheless, the proposed development has sought to ‘design out’ any potential impacts on bat foraging / commuting habitat, including Bechstein’s, by retaining the majority of habitats of comparatively greater value for this group (hedgerows).

5.2.98. The majority of the existing hedgerows will be retained with only the loss of hedgerows H1 and H4 and minor breaks through hedgerows H3 and H2 for the proposes of internal access, indeed the break in H3 widens an existing gap in the hedgerow. Hedgerows H1 and H4 are located along the existing road, which is subject to higher levels of artificial light from street lighting (see ‘lighting’ below) and vehicles (see ‘collision risk’ below). There is no alternative to the removal of hedgerows H1 and H4 as this is required to allow a visibility splay for the proposed access road. However, a new hedgerow will be replanted in a similar position and orientation (slightly set back from existing) and using larger plants (i.e. not whips) to ensure the hedgerows maintain existing commuting and foraging opportunities for bats.

5.2.99. As per recommended mitigation in the WHSAP the proposed development includes green corridors that are generally 10m plus and incorporating existing retained and new hedgerows. Hedgerows H3 and H5 have the

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

highest recorded number of bat registrations, the corridor along the central hedgerow (H3), increases to 23m in places and open out into a larger open space in the north of the site. The corridor along hedgerow H5 abuts off-site open countryside to the west and another large area of open space within the central part of the site, including an attenuation pond, adjoins this corridor. A new hedgerow / tree belt is also to be planted along the western and northern boundaries of gardens of properties on Winchester Close where there is currently no hedgerow present. Further new hedgerow planting is proposed around the attenuation pond created in field F1 on the western and southern site boundaries where no hedgerows currently exist.

5.2.100. The green corridors and open spaces will be sown / oversown with species-rich wildflower grassland and include pockets or lines of scrub, trees and hedgerows. All of the above will enhance the commuting and foraging opportunities for bats within the site.

5.2.101. It is therefore considered that the site will continue to provide foraging and navigating opportunities for bats. In addition, the green corridors, new landscape planting, the creation of public open spaces and an attenuation pond as part of the development proposals will provide improved navigational and foraging opportunities for bats.

5.2.102. In addition, as suggested in the SACPGW the mitigation strategy for the proposed development will include a Construction Method Statement and an Ecological Management Plan. These additional documents can be included as part of a suitably worded planning condition. It is not considered that the post-construction monitoring scheme is necessary.

Lighting

5.2.103. Horseshoe bats are known to be more sensitive to impacts arising from increases in artificial lighting than most other bat species, although this is also true of the Myotis species including Bechstein’s bat. On this basis all three qualifying species for the SAC are sensitive to the provision of new artificial lighting.

5.2.104. If the site needs to be lit, a strategic lighting strategy will be implemented to ensure that the retained and new hedgerows continue to provide dark corridors post development, which in turn will maintain suitable commuting and foraging habitat. The strategy will have regards to measures in Bat Conservation Trust guidance for lighting19, to the minimise light spillage into key areas such as along the areas of open spaces and new and existing hedgerows.

5.2.105. The green corridors (building on retained / new hedgerows) will be maintained as ‘dark corridors’, such that the lux levels will be no greater than 1 lux. Light level mitigation could include the use of LED lights with warm spectrum lights, light shields / baffles, placement of lighting columns as far away from the key foraging / commuting areas / trees with potential to support roosting bats, low column heights, planting or fencing around the luminaire, dimming the lights (e.g. reduced by 50% from midnight to

19 Guidance Note 08/18, Bats and artificial lighting in the UK, Bats and the Built Environment series. Bat Conservation Trust (2018).

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

dawn, further reducing any light spillage and ensuring dark corridors are maintained), reducing the road lighting class or removing the requirement to light (which would need to be agreed with the LPA).

5.2.106. A detailed lighting strategy, including pre and post development lux plots, can be secured by way of a suitably worded planning condition.

Collision Risk Section

5.2.107. Road speeds on internal roads within the site are unlikely to be sufficiently high to lead to bat fatalities. As such, no specific measures are deemed necessary in this regard.

Conclusions

5.2.108. It is considered that many potential impacts on bats have been ‘designed out’ of the development proposals. Overall, it is considered that the retention of the majority of existing hedgerows (unless unavoidable), together with new / replacement hedgerows planting, provision of areas of public open, (including wide green corridors along all the existing and new hedgerows), sensitive / restricted lighting proposals, provision of a Construction Method Statement and Ecological Management Plan secured by planning condition and, if necessary, the promotion of alternative recreational resources (avoiding wood supporting core bat roosts) and/or appropriate financial contribution to alternative recreational resources in the local area (or other mitigation to this end detailed with the forthcoming Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy, when adopted) would avoid any potential significant adverse effects on the SAC through disturbance when the project is considered alone.

5.2.109. It is therefore considered that the development proposals would not be likely to give rise to a significant effect on the integrity of the SAC, by way of impacts on qualifying bats species. Given the mitigation proposed any residual impacts would also be deemed de minimis. As such, in combination effects are not considered to arise from the proposals. Given this conclusion, the information provided in this document and the mitigation as proposed is deemed sufficient for the competent authority to conclude with certainty that the proposals would not result in a significant effect on integrity of the Bath and Bradford-on-Avon SAC either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, as required by the Habitat Regulations 2017.

5.2.110. Other Statutory Sites. There are no statutory designated sites of nature conservation interest within the site. The nearest statutory designated site is Picket and Clanger Wood SSSI, which has been assessed under the Bath and Bradford-on-Avon SAC section above. The next nearest SSSI is Bratton Downs SSSI located approximately 5.4km southeast of the site and is designated for its geomorphological and biological features. The site is located within the potential IRZ for the SSSI, although residential development is not considered to have any impacts on this SSSI.

5.2.111. Indeed, given the distance of Bratton Downs SSSI from the site, it is not considered that there will be any adverse impacts (either direct or indirect) to this SSSI as a consequence of the development at the site.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

5.2.112. Non-Statutory Sites. There are no non-statutory sites of nature conservation interest within the site. The nearest non-statutory site is the Round Wood, Heywood Local Wildlife Site (LWS), which is located 1.8km to the southeast of the site (see Plan ECO1) and is designated for its ancient semi-natural broadleaved woodland.

5.2.113. Given the distance of Round Wood, Heywood LWS from the site, it is not considered that there will be any adverse impacts (either direct or indirect) to this LWS as a consequence of the development at the site.

5.2.114. On this basis, it is not considered that any detrimental effects will arise as a result of residential proposals at the site to any other statutory or non- statutory site of nature conservation interest.

5.3. Habitats within the Site

5.3.1. The habitats within the site are generally not considered to be of any particular ecological importance being dominated by grazed grassland fields. Although, the hedgerows and trees therein are of some greater ecological value in the context of the site.

Species-Poor Semi-Improved Grassland

5.3.2. The grassland within the site is of limited ecological value, comprising common and wide spread species.

5.3.3. Fields F1 and F2 are to be lost to the proposed development, although areas of open space including grassland will be created. Field F3 is to be retained, with an attenuation feature created within the field.

5.3.4. Mitigation and Enhancements. To offset the loss of the existing grassland and increase the ecological value of the site, it is recommended that new areas of public open space are sown with a species-rich seed mixture (such as Emorsgate’s Standard General Purpose Meadow Mixture EM2) and subject to a suitable management regime to enhance the floristic diversity of the site accordingly.

5.3.5. The proposed development also includes the creation of an attenuation pond, which will diversify the existing habitat within the site. To achieve enhancement, these features could also be planted with native aquatic vegetation sown with a species-rich wildflower grassland seed mix suitable for damp conditions (such as Emorsgate’s meadow Mixture for Wetland EM8) and designed to maximise wildlife benefits (e.g. gently sloping sides to allow wildlife to access these attenuation features). This in turn would also create new opportunities for other faunal groups, such as amphibians, within the site.

Hedgerows and Trees

5.3.6. The majority of the hedgerows within the site do not support a highly diverse species complement, although hedgerows H4 and H5 are species rich. Nonetheless, they provide foraging / commuting opportunities for bats, cover for small mammals and nesting habitat for birds.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

5.3.7. The majority of the hedgerows are to be retained, with minor losses to facilitate access and other infrastructure. Hedgerows H1 and H4 will be removed and replanted to allow for a visibility splay and very small sections of hedgerows H3 and H2 will be lost for internal road access / footpath links. The section of hedgerow H3 to be removed for the proposed access, utilises an existing gap within the hedgerow, reducing the overall loss of hedgerow required. The trees within the hedgerows are of value (albeit all within hedgerows) and are to be retained as part of the proposed development.

5.3.8. Mitigation and Enhancements. It is recommended that any retained sections of hedgerows within the site be fenced at canopy width (as required) according to the current British Standards before construction work commences, to protect roots from compaction. Fences should remain in place until construction work is complete within the vicinity of these habitats.

5.3.9. It is recommended that the new hedgerows are species rich, utilise native species and subject to an appropriate management regime to increase the ecological value of the hedgerow for wildlife. The hedgerows along Southwick Road will utilise larger plant specimens (i.e. not whips) to ensure a replacement feature is present for use by commuting / foraging bats straight away.

5.3.10. As an enhancement, a number of trees will be planted throughout the site and a new hedgerow / tree belt will be planted along the existing residential garden boundary to the east. New hedgerows will also be planted along the boundary of field F1, surrounding the proposed attenuation pond. It is recommended that the proposals again utilise native trees / shrubs of local provenance, or those of benefit to wildlife, wherever possible.

Faunal Evaluation

Bats

5.3.11. Legislation. All bats are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and included on Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (“the Habitats Regulations”). These include provisions making it an offence to:

• Deliberately kill, injure or take (capture) bats; • Deliberately disturb bats in such a way as to be likely to significantly affect:- (i) the ability of any significant group of bats to survive, breed or rear or nurture their young; or to hibernate; or (ii) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species concerned; • Damage or destroy any breeding or resting place used by bats; • Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any place used by bats for shelter or protection (even if bats are not in residence).

5.3.12. While the legislation is deemed to apply even when bats are not in residence, Natural England guidance suggests that certain activities such

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

as re-roofing can be completed outside sensitive periods when bats are not in residence provided these do not damage or destroy the roost.

5.3.13. The words ‘deliberately’ and ‘intentionally’ include actions where a court can infer that the defendant knew ‘the action taken would almost inevitably result in an offence, even if that was not the primary purpose of the act.

5.3.14. The offence of damaging (making it worse for the bat) or destroying a breeding site or resting place is an absolute offence. Such actions do not have to be deliberate for an offence to be committed.

5.3.15. Licences can be granted for development purposes by an ‘appropriate authority’ under Regulation 55 (e) of the Habitats Regulations. In England, the ‘appropriate authority’ is Natural England (the government’s statutory advisors on nature conservation). European Protected Species licences permit activities that would otherwise be considered an offence.

5.3.16. In accordance with the Habitats Regulations the licensing authority (Natural England) must apply the three derogation tests as part of the process of considering a licence application. These tests are that:

1. The activity to be licensed must be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest or for public health and safety; 2. There must be no satisfactory alternative; and 3. The favourable conservation status of the species concerned must be maintained.

5.3.17. Licences can usually only be granted if the development is in receipt of full planning permission (and relevant conditions, if any, discharged).

5.3.18. Seven species of bat are Priority Species, these are Barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus, Bechstein’s, Noctule, Soprano Pipistrelle, Brown Long-eared, Greater Horseshoe and Lesser Horseshoe.

5.3.19. Site usage. No buildings are present within the site and no trees within the site were recorded to have developed suitable roosting features for bats.

5.3.20. In general, the activity surveys and automated surveys have shown only low levels of activity, with some higher activity recorded by species such as Common Pipistrelle at certain times. The majority of activity recorded associated with the central hedgerows, although registrations were recorded on all the boundaries in the site. The registrations recorded were mainly from Common Pipistrelle, the most common UK bat species, with occasional registrations from Soprano Pipistrelle, Myotis sp., Serotine, Noctule, Brown Long-eared, Lesser Horseshoe and Greater Horseshoe.

5.3.21. Mitigation and Enhancements. The previous section regarding the Bath and Bradford on Avon Bats SAC detailed the proposed mitigation and enhancements, which will ensure that site continues to provide suitable foraging and commuting opportunities for Horseshoe and Bechstein’s bats. This will be equally applicable to all bat species.

5.3.22. The green corridors and open spaces will be sown / oversown with species-rich wildflower grassland and include pockets or lines of scrub,

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

trees and hedgerows. All of the above will enhance the commuting and foraging opportunities for bats within the site.

5.3.23. If the site needs to be lit, a strategic lighting strategy will ensure that the retained and new hedgerows continue to provide dark corridors post development, which in turn will maintain suitable commuting and foraging habitat.

5.3.24. The green corridors (building on retained / new hedgerows) will be maintained as ‘dark corridors’, where the lux levels will be no greater than 1 lux. Light level mitigation could include the use of LED lights with warm spectrum lights, light shields / baffles, placement of lighting columns as far away from the key foraging / commuting areas / trees with potential to support roosting bats, low column heights, planting or fencing around the luminaire, dimming the lights (e.g. reduced by 50% from midnight to dawn, further reducing any light spillage and ensuring dark corridors are maintained), reducing the road lighting class or removing the requirement to light (which would need to be agreed with the LPA).

5.3.25. As an enhancement, it is recommended that Schwegler bat boxes (see Appendix 8 for suitable examples), are erected on suitable retained trees and positioned out of reach of opportunistic predators such as cats. These bat boxes are known to be attractive to a number of the smaller bat species, including Pipistrelle (known from the local area). This measure will create enhanced roosting opportunities within the site.

Badgers

5.3.26. Legislation. The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 consolidates the previous Badgers Acts of 1973 and 1991. The legislation aims to protect the species from persecution, rather than being a response to an unfavourable conservation status, as the species is in fact common over most of Britain, with particularly high populations in the southwest.

5.3.27. As well as protecting the animal itself, the 1992 Act also makes the intentional or reckless destruction, damage or obstruction of a Badger sett an offence. A sett is defined as “any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use by a Badger”20. “Current use” of a Badger sett is defined by Natural England as “how long it takes the signs to disappear”, or more precisely, to appear so old as to not indicate “current use”.

5.3.28. In addition, the intentional elimination of sufficient foraging area to support a known social group of Badgers may, in certain circumstances, be construed as an offence by constituting ‘cruel ill treatment’ of a Badger.

5.3.29. Site Usage. No evidence of Badger such as any setts, latrines, mammal paths, snagged hairs, foraging marks or footprints were recorded within or immediately adjacent to the site.

5.3.30. Mitigation and Enhancements. Although no evidence of Badgers was recorded within the site, given the known presence of the species in the

20 Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended). Guidance on ‘Current Use’ in the definition of a Badger Sett http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/regulation/wildlife

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

local area and from the site itself and the habitat represent and the dynamic nature of Badgers it is recommended that the development proposals be mindful of potential impacts to Badgers

5.3.31. It is recommended that all contractors should be briefed regarding the possible presence of Badgers.

5.3.32. Any trenches or deep pits that are to be left open overnight should be provided with a means of escape should a Badger enter. This could simply be in the form of a roughened plank of wood placed in the trench as a ramp to the surface. This is particularly important if the trench fills with water.

5.3.33. Any trenches/pits should be inspected each morning to ensure no Badgers have become trapped overnight. Should a Badger get stuck in a trench it will likely attempt to dig itself into the side of the trench, by forming a temporary sett. Should a trapped Badger be encountered, Ecology Solutions should be contacted immediately for further advice.

5.3.34. The storage of topsoil or other ‘soft’ building materials within the site should be given careful consideration. Badgers will readily adopt such mounds as setts, which would then be afforded the same protection as established setts. So as to avoid the adoption of any mounds, they should be subject to daily inspections (or nightly patrols if 24 hour security is present on site) or consideration given to fencing them with Badger proof fencing.

5.3.35. During the development the storage of any chemicals required for the building construction should be well away from any Badger activity and contained in such a way that they cannot be accessed or knocked over by any roaming Badgers.

5.3.36. The inclusion of new buffer planting and extensive public open space as part of the development proposals would maintain foraging opportunities for Badgers. It is recommended that berry / fruit bearing species are included within the planting scheme to provide seasonal foraging resources. Birds

5.3.37. Legislation. Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) is concerned with the protection of wild birds, whilst Schedule 1 lists species that are protected by special penalties. All species of birds receive general protection whilst nesting.

5.3.38. Site Usage. The site offers some limited opportunities for nesting birds in terms of the hedgerows.

5.3.39. During the survey work House Sparrow (Red List), Jackdaw, Collared Dove, Song Thrush (Red List) and Wood Pigeon were recorded within the site. These species were recorded dispersing across the site and not recorded nesting.

5.3.40. Mitigation and Enhancements. The development proposals will retain the majority of existing foraging and nesting opportunities for birds, through the retention of the hedgerows within the site, although existing

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

hedgerows and small sections are to be lost to facilitate access and infrastructure. The provision of new hedgerows and landscape planting will offset any losses and provide additional opportunities for a range of bird species, and the provision of berry/fruit-bearing species would provide seasonal foraging resources for birds.

5.3.41. It is recommended that clearance of any suitable nesting vegetation, including tree felling (and habitat for ground nesting species), be undertaken outside the bird nesting season (March to July inclusive) to avoid any potential offence. Should the above timing constraints conflict with any timetabled works, it is recommended that works commence only after a suitably qualified ecologist has undertaken checks to ensure no nesting birds are present. If nesting birds are found to be present during checks then clearance would need to be delayed until young have fledged.

5.3.42. Simple enhancement measures could ensure the ornithological interest at the site is increased. For example, the erection of nest boxes on suitable retained trees. Using nest boxes of varying designs would maximise the species complement attracted to the site and, where possible, these could be tailored to provide opportunities for Red Listed / Priority Species known from the local area (see Appendix 9 for suitable examples).

Reptiles

5.3.43. Legislation. All six British reptile species receive a degree of legislative protection that varies depending on their conservation importance.

5.3.44. Smooth Snake Coronella austriaca and Sand Lizard Lacerta agilis receive 'full protection' under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as well as protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (“the Habitats Regulations”). These receive protection from:

• Killing, injuring, taking; • Possession or control (of live or dead animals, their parts or derivatives); • Damage to, destruction of, obstruction of access to any structure or place used for shelter or protection; • Disturbance of any animal occupying such a structure or place; • Selling, offering for sale, possession or transport for purposes of sale (live or dead animal, part or derivative).

5.3.45. Common Lizard Zootoca vivipara, Grass Snake, Slow Worms Anguis fragilis and Adder Vipera berus are only 'partially protected' under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and as such only receive protection from:

• Deliberate killing and injuring; • Being sold or other forms of trading.

5.3.46. The legislation relevant to common reptiles therefore protects the species, but not their habitat and any works that avoid killing or injuring any of these species, should ensure that an offence is avoided.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

5.3.47. Site Usage. The grassland is not considered to have potential to support reptile species on account of its short sward due to regular grazing from cattle. As such, no specific surveys could be undertaken. As such, despite historic records for the site (as returned from the data search), reptiles are not considered likely to be present within the site.

5.3.48. Mitigation and Enhancements. Although, it is considered that reptiles are unlikely to be present, a precautionary approach will be undertaken during vegetation removal. As such, any areas of grassland that may have become overgrown, will be subject to a habitat manipulation exercises, which can only be carried out during the active season (April-September but extended to March and October depending upon prevailing weather).

5.3.49. Habitat manipulation involves controlled cutting in a directional manner to persuading reptiles present to move towards suitable retained habitat or suitable off-site habitats. This would ensure no reptiles (if present in working areas) are injured or killed during works.

5.3.50. As a precaution, it is recommended that the removal of hedgerow is undertaken outside of the reptile hibernation period (October to March inclusive) and the roots of the hedgerows should be pulled slowly from the ground and overseen by a suitably qualified ecologist, to ensure reptiles resting within the hedgerows are not impacted.

5.3.51. It is recommended that areas of tussocky grassland area created within the site to provide new opportunities for reptiles post development. The tussocky grassland should be left uncut or only cut infrequently on a rotational basis (with one third cut in any one year) to prevent dominance of scrub, and the grassland should be cut early or late in the season when reptiles would be in hibernation.

5.3.52. It is also recommended that refuges, such as log piles are created to provide additional shelter and hibernation opportunities for reptiles. Log piles should be included along the stream corridors to enhance these areas for reptiles. The above would represent significant enhancements from this group and allow potential recolonization post development. 5.4. Invertebrates

5.4.1. Site usage. Given the habitats present it is likely an assemblage of common invertebrate species would be present within the site.

Mitigation and Enhancements. The retention of the hedgerows together with the creation of new areas of species-rich grassland within the attenuation area and the planting of trees would provide new and enhanced opportunities for a range of invertebrates.

5.4.2. It is recommended that if possible the seed mix used in the new areas of open space include a range of herbaceous species, as well as a variety of grasses, which would provide new opportunities for a number of invertebrates including those Priority Species known from the local area.

5.4.3. The proposals include the creation of a new attenuation pond, which would provide opportunities for aquatic invertebrates which are currently absent from the site.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

5.4.4. The retention and creation of log piles, would provide suitable opportunities for saproxylic invertebrates. The implementation of other potential enhancement measures recommended above would also likely provide knock-on benefits for invertebrates.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

6. PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

6.1. The planning policy framework that relates to nature conservation at the site is issued nationally through the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and locally through the Wiltshire Core Strategy and saved policies within the North Wiltshire Local Plan. The proposed development will be judged in relation to the policies contained within these documents.

6.2. National Policy

National Planning Policy Framework

6.2.1. Guidance on national policy for biodiversity and geological conservation is provided by the NPPF, published in March 2012, revised on 24 July 2018 and updated on 19 February 2019. It is noted that the NPPF continues to refer to further guidance in respect of statutory obligations for biodiversity and geological conservation and their impact within the planning system provided by Circular 06/05 (DEFRA / ODPM, 2005) accompanying the now-defunct Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9).

6.2.2. The key element of the NPPF is that there should be “a presumption in favour of sustainable development” (paragraphs 10 to 11). It is important to note that this presumption “does not apply where the plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a habitats site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), unless an appropriate assessment has concluded that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the habitats site” (paragraph 177). ‘Habitats site’ has the same meaning as the term ‘European site’ as used in the Habitats Regulations 2017.

6.2.3. Hence the direction of Government policy is clear; that is, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is to apply in circumstances where there is potential for an effect on a European site, if it has been shown that there will be no adverse effect on that designated site as a result of the development in prospect.

6.2.4. A number of policies in the NPPF are comparable to those in PPS9, including reference to minimisation of impacts to biodiversity and provision of net gains to biodiversity where possible (paragraph 170).

6.2.5. The NPPF also considers the strategic approach that Local Authorities should adopt with regard to the protection, maintenance and enhancement of green infrastructure, priority habitats and ecological networks, and the recovery of priority species.

6.2.6. Paragraphs 174 to 176 of the NPPF comprise a number of principles that Local Authorities should apply, including encouraging opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments; provision for refusal of planning applications if significant harm cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for; applying the protection given to European sites to potential SPAs, possible SACs, listed or proposed Ramsar sites and sites identified (or required) as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sites; and the provision for the refusal for developments resulting in the loss or deterioration of ‘irreplaceable’ habitats – unless there are ‘wholly exceptional reasons’ (for instance, infrastructure projects

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat) and a suitable compensation strategy exists.

6.2.7. National policy therefore implicitly recognises the importance of biodiversity and that with sensitive planning and design, development and conservation of the natural heritage can co-exist and benefits can, in certain circumstances, be obtained.

6.3. Local Policy

Wiltshire Core Strategy

6.3.1. The Wiltshire Core Strategy (adopted January 2015) is the current document in use for planning control purposes. There is one policy within this document that relates in whole or in part to nature conservation, Core Policy CP50. This policy is concerned with protection of internationally, nationally and local designated sites, protected species, priority species and habitats, waterbodies and wildlife corridors.

North Wiltshire Local Plan

6.3.2. There are two Policies saved within the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 (adopted June 2006), that have been saved following adoption of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, Policies NE12 and NE14. Policy NE12 is concerned with the protection, creation and enhancement of woodland, including ancient and semi-natural woodland, while Policy NE14 is concerned with the protection of trees, hedgerows, ponds and other ecological features.

6.4. Discussion

6.4.1. The development proposals will have no adverse effects on any statutory or non-statutory designated sites and as such it is considered that the proposals will accord with Policy CP50 of the Core Strategy and the principles laid down in the NPPF.

6.4.2. There are no areas of woodland within the site, and as such it is considered that the proposals accord with saved Policy NE12 of the Local Plan.

6.4.3. The development proposals will have no adverse effects on any protected species or Priority Species. Although there will be minor losses to the hedgerows, the planting of new sections of native hedgerow will more than offset for these losses, and as such it is considered the proposals accord with Policy CP50 of the Core Strategy and saved policy NE14 of the Local Plan.

6.4.4. In conclusion, implementation of the measures set out in this report would enable development of the site to accord with national and local planning policy for ecology and nature conservation.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

7.1. Ecology Solutions was commissioned by Welbeck Strategic Land II LLP in May 2017 to undertake an Ecological Assessment at land adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley.

7.2. The proposals for the site are for residential development together with associated areas of infrastructure and open space.

7.3. An initial habitat survey was carried out in May 2017 in order to ascertain the general ecological value of the site and to identify the main habitats and associated plant species. Further checks were completed between June and November 2017.

7.4. It is considered that the development proposals would not be likely to give rise to a significant effect on the integrity of the Salisbury Plain SPA / SAC and Bath and Bradford-on-Avon SAC, by way of impacts on qualifying features. Given the mitigation proposed any residual impacts would be deemed de minimis. As such, in combination effects are not considered to arise from the proposals. Given this conclusion, the information provided in this document and the mitigation as proposed is deemed sufficient for the competent authority to conclude with certainty that the proposals would not result in a significant effect on integrity of Salisbury Plain SPA / SAC and Bath and Bradford-on-Avon SAC either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, as required by the Habitat Regulations 2017.

7.5. There are not considered to be any significant adverse effects on any other statutory and non-statutory sites of nature conservation interest from the development proposals.

7.6. The bat activity surveys and automated surveys have shown only low levels of activity, with some higher activity recorded by species such as Common Pipistrelle at certain times. The majority of activity recorded associated with the central hedgerows, although registrations were recorded on all the boundaries in the site. The registrations recorded were mainly from Common Pipistrelle, the most common UK bat species, with occasional registrations from Soprano Pipistrelle, Myotis sp., Serotine, Noctule, Brown Long-eared, Lesser Horseshoe and Greater Horseshoe.

7.7. It is considered that many potential impacts on bats have been ‘designed out’ of the development proposals. Overall, it is considered that the retention of the majority of existing hedgerows (unless unavoidable), together with new / replacement hedgerows planting, provision of areas of public open, including wide green corridors along all the existing and new hedgerows, sensitive / restricted lighting proposals, would retain and enhance foraging and commuting opportunities for bats. The inclusion of bat boxes within the site will provide new roosting opportunities for bats.

7.8. Given the dynamic nature of Badgers it is recommended that all contractors should be briefed regarding the presence of Badgers and of the types of activities that would not be permissible on site.

7.9. The retention of the existing habitat throughout the landscape proposals will provide enhanced opportunities for birds, while the erection of bird boxes within the site will also provide new nesting opportunities for birds.

Land Adjacent Southwick Road, North Bradley, Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 7355.EcoAss.vf1 February 2019

7.10. In conclusion, through the implementation of the safeguards and recommendations set out within this report it is considered that the proposals accord with planning policy with regard to nature conservation at all administrative levels. In addition, it is considered that the recommendations outlined would create a net enhancement to biodiversity post development.

PLANS

PLAN ECO1

Site Location & Ecological Designations

PLAN ECO2

Ecological Features

PLAN ECO3

May 2017 Bat Activity Survey Results

PLAN ECO4

June 2017 Bat Activity Survey Results

PLAN ECO5

July 2017 Bat Activity Survey Results

PLAN ECO6

August 2017 Bat Activity Survey Results

PLAN ECO7

September 2017 Bat Activity Survey Results

PLAN ECO8

October 2017 Bat Activity Survey Results

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

Illustrative Masterplan

This drawing is the property of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd and is issued on the condition it is not reproduced, retained or disclosed to any unauthorised person, either wholly or in part without written consent of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd.

Site Boundary 4.77ha

Potential Vehicular Access

Proposed Vehicular Routes:

Primary

Secondary

The Rank LEAP Tertiary

Proposed Dwellings 2.61ha

SWALE

Public Open Space 2.16ha

To include:

Potential LEAP 0.04ha

Nature Nature Enhancement Area 0.64ha Enhancement and Area Attenuation Potential Attenuation Pond 0.28ha Pond

Proposed Buffer Planting

Proposed Trees

Convenience Store

Existing Trees/Hedgerows

Potential Additional Footpath Connections

Southwick Road

J:\7700\7783\LANDS\Plans\7783-L-05B Illustrative Masterplan.indd

masterplanning 1:2000@A3 environmental assessment Welbeck Strategic Land II LLP landscape design FPCR Environment and Design Ltd urban design Lockington Hall ecology Lockington 13 February 2019 DWL / DH Derby DE74 2RH Land Adjacent Southwick Road ILLUSTRATIVE MASTERPLAN architecture arboriculture t: 01509 672772 f: 01509 674565 rev fpcr North Bradley 7783-L-05 D e: [email protected] w: www.fpcr.co.uk

APPENDIX 2

Information obtained from MAGIC

Magic Map

Legend Local Nature Reserves (England) National Nature Reserves (England) Projection = OSGB36 Ramsar Sites (England) xmin = 381900 ymin = 153200 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (England) xmax = 389500 Special Areas of Conservation (England) ymax = 157200 Map produced by MAGIC on 4 September, 2017. Special Protection Areas (England) Copyright resides with the data suppliers and the map must not be reproduced without their permission. Ancient Woodland (England) Some information in MAGIC is a snapshot of the information that is being maintained or continually Ancient and Semi-Natural Woodland updated by the originating organisation. Please refer to the metadata for details as information may be Ancient Replanted Woodland illustrative or representative rather than definitive at this stage.

APPENDIX 3

Conservation Objectives for Salisbury Plain SPA and SAC

European Site Conservation Objectives for Salisbury Plain Special Protection Area Site Code: UK9011102

With regard to the SPA and the individual species and/or assemblage of species for which the site has been classified (the ‘Qualifying Features’ listed below), and subject to natural change;

Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring;

 The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features  The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features  The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely  The population of each of the qualifying features, and,  The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

This document should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Supplementary Advice document, which provides more detailed advice and information to enable the application and achievement of the Objectives set out above.

Qualifying Features:

A082 Circus cyaneus; Hen harrier (Non-breeding) A099 Falco subbuteo; Eurasian hobby (Breeding) A113 Coturnix coturnix; Common quail (Breeding) A133 Burhinus oedicnemus; Stone-curlew (Breeding)

Explanatory Notes: European Site Conservation Objectives

These Conservation Objectives are those referred to in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the “Habitats Regulations”) and Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. They must be considered when a competent authority is required to make a ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment’ including an Appropriate Assessment, under the relevant parts of this legislation.

These Conservation Objectives and the accompanying Supplementary Advice (where this is available) will also provide a framework to inform the management of the European Site under the provisions of Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of the Wild Birds Directive, and the prevention of deterioration of habitats and significant disturbance of its qualifying features required under Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive.

These Conservation Objectives are set for each bird feature for a Special Protection Area (SPA). Where the objectives are met, the site will be considered to exhibit a high degree of integrity and to be contributing to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive.

Publication date: 30 June 2014 (Version 2). This document updates and replaces an earlier version dated 29 May 2012 to reflect Natural England’s Strategic Standard on European Site Conservation Objectives 2014. Previous references to additional features identified in the 2001 UK SPA Review have also been removed.

European Site Conservation Objectives for Salisbury Plain Special Area of Conservation Site Code: UK0012683

With regard to the SAC and the natural habitats and/or species for which the site has been designated (the ‘Qualifying Features’ listed below), and subject to natural change;

Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the Favourable Conservation Status of its Qualifying Features, by maintaining or restoring;

 The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species  The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats  The structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species  The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species rely  The populations of qualifying species, and,  The distribution of qualifying species within the site.

Qualifying Features:

H5130. Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands; Juniper on heaths or calcareous grasslands H6210. Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco- Brometalia) (important orchid sites); Dry grasslands and scrublands on chalk or limestone (important orchid sites)* S1065. Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia; Marsh fritillary butterfly

* denotes a priority natural habitat or species (supporting explanatory text on following page)

* Priority natural habitats or species

Some of the natural habitats and species for which UK SACs have been selected are considered to be particular priorities for conservation at a European scale and are subject to special provisions in the Habitats Regulations. These priority natural habitats and species are denoted by an asterisk (*) in Annex I and II of the Habitats Directive. The term ‘priority’ is also used in other contexts, for example with reference to particular habitats or species that are prioritised in UK Biodiversity Action Plans. It is important to note however that these are not necessarily the priority natural habitats or species within the meaning of the Habitats Regulations.

Explanatory Notes: European Site Conservation Objectives

These Conservation Objectives are those referred to in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as amended from time to time (the “Habitats Regulations”). They must be considered when a competent authority is required to make a ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment’, including an Appropriate Assessment, under the relevant parts of this legislation.

These Conservation Objectives and the accompanying Supplementary Advice (where available) will also provide a framework to inform the measures needed to conserve or restore the European Site and the prevention of deterioration or significant disturbance of its qualifying features.

These Conservation Objectives are set for each habitat or species of a Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Where the objectives are met, the site will be considered to exhibit a high degree of integrity and to be contributing to achieving Favourable Conservation Status for that species or habitat type at a UK level. The term ‘favourable conservation status’ is defined in regulation 3 of the Habitats Regulations.

Publication date: 27 November 2018 (version 3). This document updates and replaces an earlier version dated 30 June 2014 to reflect the consolidation of the Habitats Regulations in 2017.

APPENDIX 4

European Site Conservation Objectives: Supplementary Advice for Conserving and Restoring Site Features, Salisbury Plain SPA and SAC

European Site Conservation Objectives: Supplementary Advice on Conserving and Restoring Site Features

Salisbury Plain Special Protection Area (SPA) Site Code: UK9011102

Photo: Hen harrier by Rob Zweers

Date of Publication: 27 October 2017

Page 1 of 23

About this document

This document provides Natural England’s supplementary advice for the European Site Conservation Objectives relating to Salisbury Plain SPA. This advice should therefore be read together with the SPA Conservation Objectives available here.

Where this site overlaps with other European Site(s), you should also refer to the separate European Site Conservation Objectives and Supplementary Advice (where available) provided for those sites.

You should use the Conservation Objectives, this Supplementary Advice and any case-specific advice given by Natural England, when developing, proposing or assessing an activity, plan or project that may affect this site.

This Supplementary Advice to the Conservation Objectives presents attributes which are ecological characteristics of the designated species and habitats within a site. The listed attributes are considered to be those that best describe the site’s ecological integrity and which, if safeguarded, will enable achievement of the Conservation Objectives. Each attribute has a target which is either quantified or qualitative depending on the available evidence. The target identifies as far as possible the desired state to be achieved for the attribute.

The tables provided below bring together the findings of the best available scientific evidence relating to the site’s qualifying features, which may be updated or supplemented in further publications from Natural England and other sources. The local evidence used in preparing this supplementary advice has been cited. The references to the national evidence used are available on request. Where evidence and references have not been indicated, Natural England has applied ecological knowledge and expert judgement. You may decide to use other additional sources of information.

In many cases, the attribute targets shown in the tables indicate whether the current objective is to ‘maintain’ or ‘restore’ the attribute. This is based on the best available information, including that gathered during monitoring of the feature’s current condition. As new information on feature condition becomes available, this will be added so that the advice remains up to date.

The targets given for each attribute do not represent thresholds to assess the significance of any given impact in Habitats Regulations Assessments. You will need to assess this on a case-by-case basis using the most current information available.

Some, but not all, of these attributes can also be used for regular monitoring of the actual condition of the designated features. The attributes selected for monitoring the features, and the standards used to assess their condition, are listed in separate monitoring documents, which will be available from Natural England.

These tables do not give advice about SSSI features or other legally protected species which may also be present within the European Site.

If you have any comments or queries about this Supplementary Advice document please contact your local Natural England adviser or email [email protected]

Page 2 of 23

About this site

European Site information

Name of European Site Salisbury Plain Special Protection Area (SPA)

Location Wiltshire

Site Maps The designated boundary of this site can be viewed here on the MAGIC website

Designation Date November 1993

Qualifying Features See section below

Designation Area 19,715.99 ha

Designation Changes None

Feature Condition Status Details of the feature condition assessments made at this site can be found using Natural England’s Designated Sites System

Names of component Sites of Salisbury Plain Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)

Relationship with other The boundary of this SPA coincides with Salisbury Plain SSSI and European or International Site part of Salisbury Plain Special Area of Conservation. designations

Site background and geography

Salisbury Plain SPA is located in central Wiltshire, within the Salisbury Plain and West Wiltshire Downs National Character Area, in southern England.

Salisbury Plain is an extensive and open rolling chalk plateau cut by the Hampshire Avon and tributaries. The soils are generally alkaline and free-draining, apart from places with overlying clay-with flints and long-term rainwater leaching and lessivage, which are more acidic.

The main broad habitat type is chalk grassland, with some plantation and ancient woodland being present. Juniper scrub is significant at the eastern end of Salisbury Plain. Salisbury Plain is part of a wider military training area (‘SPTA’).

Of particular note is the breeding population of stone-curlew dependent upon the extensive areas of open grassland. Sizeable populations of raptors also overwinter, feeding on small birds and mammals.

Page 3 of 23

About the qualifying features of the SPA

The following section gives you additional, site-specific information about this SPA’s qualifying features. These are the individual species of wild birds listed on Annex I of the European Wild Birds Directive, and/or the individual regularly-occurring migratory species, and/or the assemblages (groups of different species occurring together) of wild birds for which the SPA was classified for.

Qualifying individual species listed in Annex I of the Wild Birds Directive (Article 4.1)

During the breeding season the SPA regularly supports:

• Stone-curlew Burhinus oedicnemus.

At the time of its classification in 1993, the SPA supported 10% of the British breeding population.

The stone-curlew’s main supporting habitats in or close to the SPA are lowland calcareous grassland, semi-improved and improved grassland, and arable. The RSPB (Wessex Stone-curlew Project – annual reports) classify breeding sites as either on ‘semi-natural habitat’ (downland, disturbed ground within semi-natural habitat, and specially created habitat with at least 50% of its perimeter adjacent to semi- natural grassland) or ‘farmland’ (specially created habitat within arable farmland or within a crop).

Within the SPA, stone-curlews breed mainly on cultivated plots within grassland, also some scrapes and other areas disturbed by military training. Active breeding sites are distributed across a large part of The East, and around the perimeter of The Centre and The West – plus one site in the interior of The West.

Outside of the SPA, there is a wide spread of active breeding sites, both within the wider military training area (SPTA) and beyond, especially to the east and south of Salisbury Plain.

Roosts, in autumn, occur on the designated area and within the wider training area, at locations including Bourne Bottom, Cross Country Driver Training Area, Lidbury, Upavon Down, Down Farm and Enford/Lavington Folly.

During the non-breeding season the SPA regularly supports:

• Hen harrier Circus cyaneus

At the time of its classification in 1993, the SPA supported 1% of the British non-breeding population.

The hen harrier’s main supporting habitats in or close to the SPA are lowland calcareous grassland, semi-improved and improved grassland, and arable – all open landscape habitats.

The main focus of the winter roosts are on The Centre, at Ell Barrow, Rushall Down, Charlton Down and Compton Down, at the heads of dry chalk valleys or along ridges separating them. Winter roosts also occur on The West (Knapp Down, New Zealand Farm Camp) and The East (Lower and West Everleigh Downs) (Wiltshire Ornithological Society - records). They tend to forage over a much wider area, over the military training area and adjacent farmland, especially weedy winter stubbles that attract flocks of small birds. They have been recorded as far north as the Marlborough Downs. Analyses of pellets found that the winter diet is small passerines, especially skylarks and linnets, and small mammals, with a switch to rabbit and brown hare young in spring (Wiltshire Ornithological Society, 2007).

Qualifying individual species not listed in Annex I of the Wild Birds Directive (Article 4.2)

During the breeding season the SPA regularly supports:

• Hobby Falco subbuteo

Page 4 of 23

At the time of its classification in 1993, the SPA supported 1% of the British breeding population.

The hobby occurs on this SPA as a nationally important breeding population of a regularly occurring migratory species. This small falcon arrives in Britain during April each year to breed and returns to its wintering grounds in Africa during September/October.

Within or close to the SPA, it nests in small woods (e.g. Everleigh Ashes, outside of the SPA) or more isolated copses, with Scots pine and Douglas fir being favoured trees (Wiltshire Ornithological Society - records). They always use the old nests of other species, usually carrion crow and raven. The hobby feeds on insects and small birds, usually caught on the wing.

During the breeding season the SPA regularly supports:

• Common Quail Coturnix coturnix

At the time of its classification in 1993, the SPA supported approximately 20% of the British breeding population.

The common quail occurs as a nationally important breeding population of a regularly occurring migratory species not listed in Annex 1. It is the UK's only migrant gamebird.

Within or close to the SPA, the quail nests and feeds in chalk grassland and arable land, particularly meadow-like wild grasslands and winter cereals, with a vegetation structure that allows good movement with protection from avian predators and with a source of insect food (Wiltshire Ornithological Society, 2007). The quail feeds on seeds and insects on the ground.

References:

ASH D., L. WADE, J. SWAIN AND T. CROUTER., 2014. A progress report and management plan for stone-curlew, Salisbury Plain Training Area. Defence Infrastructure Organisation, December 2014.

NATURAL ENGLAND, 2017. Salisbury Plain SSSI Integrated Site Assessment 2014-15. Natural England, March 2017.

NATURAL ENGLAND. 2015. Salisbury Plain SSSI Breeding Bird Survey 2015. Thomson Ecology for Natural England.

RSPB. Wessex Stone-curlew Project - annual reports. Available at https://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/conservation-projects/details/212603-wessex-stonecurlew-project

STANBURY A. et al. 2000. Breeding bird survey of Salisbury Plain Training Area. 2000. Defence Estates, RSPB.

STANBURY A. et al. 2005. Breeding Bird Survey of the Army Training Estate of Salisbury Plain 2005. Defence Estates, RSPB

WILTSHIRE ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 2007. Birds of Wiltshire. WOS, Devizes.

Page 5 of 23

Site-specific seasonality of SPA features The table below highlights in grey those months in which significant numbers of each mobile qualifying feature are most likely to be present at the SPA during a typical calendar year. This table is provided as a general guide only. Unless otherwise indicated, the months shown below are primarily based on information relating to the general months of occurrence of the feature in the UK. Where site-based evidence is available and has been used to indicate below that significant numbers of the feature are typically present at this SPA outside of the general period, the site-specific references have been added to indicate this.

Applicants considering projects and plans scheduled in the periods highlighted in grey would benefit from early consultation with Natural England given the greater scope for there to be likely significant effects that require consideration of mitigation to minimise impacts to qualifying bird features during the principal periods of site usage by those features. The months which are not highlighted in grey are not ones in which the features are necessarily absent, rather that features may be present in less significant numbers in typical years. Furthermore, in any given year, features may occur in significant numbers in months in which typically they do not. Thus, applicants should not conclude that projects or plans scheduled in months not highlighted in grey cannot have a significant effect on the features. There may be a lower likelihood of significant effects in those months which nonetheless will also require prior consideration.

Any assessment of potential impacts on the features must be based on up-to-date count data and take account of population trends evident from these data and any other available information. Additional site-based surveys may be required.

Feature Season Period Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Site-specific references where available Hen harrier Non-breeding Winter WOS

Hobby Breeding Summer BTO

“ Non-breeding Passage

Quail Breeding Summer

“ Non-breeding Passage

Stone-curlew Breeding Summer RSPB “ Non-breeding Passage

Guide to terms: Breeding – present on a site during the normal breeding period for that species Non-breeding - present on a site outside of the normal breeding period for that species (includes passage and winter periods). Summer – the period generally from April to July inclusive Passage - the periods during the autumn and spring when migratory birds are moving between breeding areas and wintering areas. These periods are not strictly defined but generally include the months of July – October inclusive (autumn passage) and March – April inclusive (spring passage). Winter - the period generally from November to February inclusive.

Page 6 of 23

Table 1: Supplementary Advice for Breeding Qualifying Features: A133 Stone-curlew Burhinus oedicnemus; A099 Hobby Falco subbuteo and A113 Common Quail Coturnix coturnix

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) Breeding Population Stone curlew: Maintain This will sustain the site’s population and ensures it contributes to a viable local, RSPB Wessex population abundance the size of the breeding national and bio-geographic population. Stone-curlew stone-curlew population Project reports, at or above a mean of Due to the mobility of birds and the dynamic nature of population change, the from 1995 and on- 15 pairs, whilst avoiding target-value given for the abundance of this feature is considered to be the going. deterioration from its minimum standard for conservation/restoration measures to achieve. This current level as minimum-value may be revised where there is evidence to show that a population’s STANBURY A. et indicated by the latest size has significantly changed as a result of natural factors or management al. 2000 Breeding mean peak count or measures and has been stable at or above a new level over a considerable period bird survey of equivalent. (generally at least 10 years). The values given here may also be updated in future Salisbury Plain to reflect any strategic objectives which may be set at a national level for this Training Area. Note that two sets of feature. Defence Estates, figures for breeding RSPB. pairs are maintained in Given the likely fluctuations in numbers over time, any impact-assessments should other documents, for the focus on the current abundance of the site’s population, as derived from the latest STANBURY A. et SPA area and the wider known or estimated level established using the best available data. This advice al. 2005 Breeding Salisbury Plain Training accords with the obligation to avoid deterioration of the site or significant Bird Survey of the Area. disturbance of the species for which the site is classified, and seeks to avoid plans Army Training or projects that may affect the site giving rise to the risk of deterioration. Estate of Salisbury Quail: Maintain the size Plain 2005, of the breeding quail Similarly, where there is evidence to show that a feature has historically been more Defence Estates, population at a level abundant than the stated minimum target and its current level, the ongoing capacity RSPB which is above 19 of the site to accommodate the feature at such higher levels in future should also be individuals (count from taken into account. NATURAL 1986, SPA data sheet ENGLAND 2015 2006), whilst avoiding Maintaining or restoring bird abundance depends on the suitability of the site. Salisbury Plain deterioration from its However, factors affecting suitability can also determine other demographic rates of SSSI Breeding Bird current level as birds using the site including survival (dependent on factors such as body condition Survey 2015, indicated by the latest which influences the ability to breed or make foraging and / or migration Thomson Ecology, mean peak count or movements) and breeding productivity. Natural England. equivalent. Adverse anthropogenic impacts on either of these rates may precede changes in Wiltshire Hobby: Maintain the population abundance (e.g. by changing proportions of birds of different ages) but Ornithological size of the breeding eventually may negatively affect abundance. These rates can be measured or Society records. population at six estimated to inform judgements of likely impacts on abundance targets. Unless

Page 7 of 23

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) breeding pairs, whilst otherwise stated, the population size will be that measured using standard methods EUROPEAN avoiding deterioration such as peak mean counts or breeding surveys. This value is also provided COMMISSION from its current level as recognising there will be inherent variability as a result of natural fluctuations and 2009 European indicated by the latest margins of error during data collection. Union Management mean peak count or Plan 2009-11 equivalent. Whilst we will endeavour to keep these values as up to date as possible, local Common quail Natural England staff can advise on whether the figures stated are the best Coturnix coturnix available. Technical Report - 2009 – 032.

There were 36 singing quails recorded by a Breeding Bird Survey 2000, and 86 records, as ‘additional bird records’, BBS 2005. Population estimate of 74 on the SSSI, BBS 2015. The common quail shows considerable year-to-year fluctuations in population size.

Supporting Extent and Maintain the extent, Conserving or restoring the extent of supporting habitats and their range will be key PYWELL et al habitat (both distribution of distribution and to maintaining the site's ability and capacity to support the SPA population. 1998. Ecological within and supporting availability of suitable survey of Salisbury outside the breeding habitat which supports The information available on the extent and distribution of supporting habitat used Plain Training Area SPA): extent habitat breeding stone-curlew by the feature may be approximate depending to the nature, age and accuracy of 1996-7. NERC and for all necessary stages data collection. This target will apply to any supporting habitat which is known to contract report to distribution of its breeding cycle occur outside the site boundary. MoD, DEO. (courtship, nesting, feeding) The total SPA area is 19,689.91 ha, which includes some site fabric e.g. improved PYWELL et al. grassland, arable, plantations, training features and hard standings; whilst built-up 2006. Assessing Maintain the extent, areas are excluded. Within the SPA, the main habitat used by stone-curlews is floristic change on distribution and chalk grassland which covers: Salisbury Plain availability of suitable between 1996 and habitat which supports 1993: 12,933 ha 2004. Defence breeding Quail for all 1996/7: 13,247.86 ha Estates, English necessary stages of its 2003/4: 14,391.57ha Nature. breeding cycle (courtship, nesting, Within the SPA and wider SPTA, stone-curlews use 35 managed plots and scrapes, RSPB Wessex feeding) plus bare ground caused by military training, spring crops and game crops. Stone-curlew Project annual Objectives in DIO’s management plan are to: get more birds breeding on the western reports. Maintain the extent, part of SPTA to link with eastern colonies; and: increase the number of pairs on SPTA distribution and Centre so that a higher percentage breeds in areas where there is less disturbance from Check Stanbury for training. Page 8 of 23

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) availability of suitable distribution map habitat which supports The common quail systematically chooses open land, usually without hedges or breeding Hobby for all trees. It prefers cover which, although dense enough to provide protection, allows BIRDLIFE necessary stages of its fluid movement. Quail nest on the ground, in a scrape with grassy material, INTERNATIONAL breeding cycle amongst herbaceous vegetation or grasses. They are omnivorous, eating mainly 2016 Coturnix (courtship, nesting, seeds of grasses, weeds and grain, also other vegetable matter, and ground- coturnix. The IUCN feeding) dwelling invertebrates e.g. molluscs, arachnids, arthropods. Over the three breeding Red List of birds surveys on the Plain, quail have been recorded at a low density across the Threatened SPA, with no particular focus on specific areas. Species 2016.

There are currently c.1,058 ha hectares of woodland on the SPA, which is 5.4% of EUROPEAN the SPA area, and a total of c.2,196 ha on the whole Salisbury Plain Training Area COMMISSION (SPTA), which are widely scattered apart from the more open Central Impact Area. 2009 European More than half of this is relatively recent, although no further planting took place on Union Management the SSSI/SPA area after it was designated in 1993. Plan 2009-11 Common quail Coturnix coturnix Technical Report - 2009 – 032.

Supporting Conservation Maintain management Active and ongoing conservation management is often needed to protect, maintain DEFENCE habitat (both measures or other measures or restore this feature at this site. Other measures may also be required, and in INFRASTRUCTUR within and (whether within and/or some cases, these measures may apply to areas outside of the designated site E outside the outside the site boundary in order to achieve this target. ORGANISATION. SPA): function/ boundary as Super Unit supporting appropriate) necessary Further details about the necessary conservation measures for this site can be Management Plans process to maintain the provided by Natural England. This information will typically be found within, where 2010-2015, April structure, function applicable, supporting documents such as Natura 2000 Site Improvement Plan, Site 2011 and/or the supporting Management Strategies or Plans, the Views about Management Statement for the processes associated underpinning SSSI and/or management agreements. with breeding Stone ASH D., L. WADE, curlew, Hobby and Quail See DIO’s progress report and management plan from 2014. Conservation J. SWAIN AND T. and their supporting measures on this SPA for stone curlew include: CROUTER. A habitats. progress report and Maintaining breeding plots through cultivation and weed control; ensuring grazing management plan takes place around plots; managing and adjusting the distribution of plots as for stone-curlew, appropriate; maintain ploughing consents, with 50% in spring crops; control Salisbury Plain predators, especially foxes; and mark vulnerable plots with ‘ground-nesting birds’ Training Area. signs. Spraying (alone) is a potential method in areas of ground ordnance. Defence

Page 9 of 23

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) Infrastructure Organisation, December 2014.

NATURAL ENGLAND, 2014. Site Improvement Plan for Salisbury Plain (SIP209). http://publications.n aturalengland.org.u k/publication/53842 36060114944 Supporting Predation Reduce predation and This will ensure that breeding productivity (number of chicks per pair) and survival ASH D., L. WADE, habitat (both disturbance of breeding are sustained at rates that maintain or restore the abundance of the feature. As J. SWAIN AND T. within and stone curlews and quail ground-nesting birds, stone curlews are particularly vulnerable to predation. CROUTER. A outside the caused by native and progress report and SPA): non-native predators. Impacts to breeding productivity can result directly from predation of eggs, chicks, management plan predation juveniles and adults, and also from significant disturbance. The presence of for stone-curlew, predators can influence bird behaviours, such as abandonment of nest sites or Salisbury Plain reduction of effective feeding. Training Area. Defence Where evidence suggests predator management is required, measures can include Infrastructure their exclusion through fencing and scaring or by direct control. Any such measures Organisation, must consider the legal protection of some predators, as well as the likely effects of December 2014. such control on other qualifying features. TAYLOR, A., On Salisbury Plain, foxes and badgers appear to be the main predators of stone- ADAMS, N, ASH, curlews, probably at night, with Corvids less of a problem. In some cases, managed D. (2009) Report plots have been re-located in order to reduce predation e.g. away from badger into the causes of setts. The recent report and management plan includes an objective to control stone-curlew and predators, especially foxes, and a small-scale trial in co-operation with the military lapwing nest shoots was undertaken – but it was decided that culling was not an option due to predation on the scale of the Plain. Otherwise no specific measures are in place. Salisbury Plain April – July 2009, unpublished internal report, RSPB and Defence Estates.

Page 10 of 23

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available)

Supporting Air quality Maintain concentrations The structure and function of the habitats which support this SPA feature may be habitat (both and deposition of air sensitive to changes in air quality. Exceeding critical values for air pollutants may within and pollutants at or below result in changes to the chemical status of its habitat substrate, accelerating or outside the the site-relevant Critical damaging plant growth, altering vegetation structure and composition and thereby SPA): function/ Load or Level values affecting the quality and availability of nesting, feeding or roosting habitats. supporting given for the features of process the SPA on the Air Critical Loads and Levels are thresholds below which such harmful effects on Pollution Information sensitive UK habitats will not occur to a noteworthy level, according to current levels System of scientific understanding. There are critical levels for ammonia (NH3), oxides of (www.apis.ac.uk). nitrogen (NOx) and sulphur dioxide (SO2), and critical loads for nutrient nitrogen deposition and acid deposition.

Supporting Vegetation Stone curlew: Maintain The height, cover, variation and composition of vegetation are often important See the list of habitat (both characteristics the proportion of short characteristics of habitats supporting this feature which enable successful nesting, references on p. 5 within and (<5 to 10 cm) vegetation rearing, concealment and roosting. outside the and bare ground within SPA): structure nesting areas (<30% Many bird species will have specific requirements that conservation measures will bare or sparsely aim to maintain, for others such requirements will be less clear. Activities that may vegetated). directly or indirectly affect the vegetation of supporting habitats and modify these characteristics may adversely affect the feature. Quail: Maintain areas of medium to tall On Salisbury Plain, stone-curlews nest mainly on cultivated plots, also on bare vegetation (30-100 cm), ground caused by military training activities. together with some open ground, as the dominant feature of nesting areas.

Page 11 of 23

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) Supporting Food Stone curlew: Maintain The availability of an abundant food supply is critically important for successful See the list of habitat (both availability the distribution, breeding, adult fitness and survival and the overall sustainability of the population. references on p. 5 within and within abundance and As a result, inappropriate management and direct or indirect impacts which may outside the supporting availability of key prey affect the distribution, abundance and availability of prey may adversely affect the SPA): function/ habitat items (e.g. beetles, population. supporting grasshoppers, flies, process earthworm, snails, The stone-curlew’s preferred feeding habitats are short grassland, both semi-natural slugs) at prey sizes and improved, spring tillage, pig fields and manure heaps. Past research has preferred by stone demonstrated the importance of vegetation structure for foraging. On Salisbury curlew. Plain SPA, the chalk grassland tends to be relatively long, therefore maintaining grazing close to the breeding plots must be viewed as important. The wider Quail: Maintain the surrounds, still within the wider military training area, are largely semi and improved distribution, abundance grassland, and arable, with scattered plantations. and availability of key prey items (e.g. beetles, ants, earwigs, crickets) at prey sizes preferred by quail, and maintain a high cover/abundance of food plants preferred by quail (e.g. chickweeds, sand-spurreys and hemp-nettles)

Hobby: Maintain the distribution, abundance and availability of key prey items e.g. small birds, moths, flying ants, beetles and dragonflies are preferred by hobby.

Page 12 of 23

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) Supporting Landscape Stone curlew: Maintain This feature is known to favour large areas of open terrain, largely free of See the list of habitat (both the area of open and obstructions, in and around its nesting, roosting and feeding areas. Often there is a references on p. 5 within and unobstructed terrain need to maintain an unobstructed line of sight within nesting, feeding or roosting outside the within and around habitat to detect approaching predators, or to ensure visibility of displaying JOHNSTON, A SPA): structure nesting, roosting and behaviour. (2009) feeding sites. Demographic An open landscape may also be required to facilitate movement of birds between analysis of the Hobby: Maintain a high the SPA and any off-site supporting habitat. impact of proportion of open and conservation action unobstructed terrain Stone-curlew: on Salisbury Plain, the scrub management programme is prioritising on Stone Curlew whilst retaining mature avoidance of encroachment onto chalk grassland and so maintaining the open populations. PhD trees in woodland, small landscape. The proximity of scrub/woodland cover to nests is important as it can thesis, Cambridge. clumps and as isolated harbour predators and this influences nest site selection; although some low individuals. herbaceous cover is desirable for feeding and when chicks have hatched. Breeding plot locations must also avoid steep or even moderate slopes, as this restricts visibility.

Hobby: Salisbury Plain, both the SPA and wider military training area, is primarily an open, chalk grassland landscape. There are currently c.1,058 ha hectares of woodland on the SPA, which is 5.4% of the SPA area, and a total of c.2,196 ha on the Salisbury Plain Training Area (SPTA), which are widely scattered apart from the more open Central Impact Area. More than half of this is relatively recent, although no further planting took place on the SSSI/SPA area, after it was designated in 1993. The plantations play an important role in creating a realistic training environment, providing cover, concealment and shelter. They provide nesting sites for hobby and some other birds; however, also fragment the landscape and habitats, with potential ecological consequences.

Supporting Connectivity Maintain the safe The ability of the feature to safely and successfully move to and from feeding and ASH D., L. WADE, habitat (both with passage of stone- roosting areas is critical to their breeding success and to the adult fitness and J. SWAIN AND T. within and supporting curlews moving between survival. This target will apply within the site boundary and where birds regularly CROUTER. A outside the habitats nesting, roosting and move to and from off-site habitat where this is relevant. progress report and SPA): function/ feeding areas. management plan supporting On Salisbury Plain, a large proportion of the breeding sites lie within the SPA, plus for stone-curlew, process some on the wider military training area and many further afield especially Salisbury Plain surrounding the eastern end, including two RSPB reserves. Defence Infrastructure Training Area. Organisation’s management plan suggests that stone-curlew sub-populations on Defence the Plain are able to support their corresponding local areas, as follows: Infrastructure Organisation,

Page 13 of 23

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) SPTA West: an area in an arc south west bordering the Wylye Valley and on to December 2014. Martin Down. SPTA Centre (northern edge): this can help in colonisation north to the Marlborough Downs (north of Pewsey Downs NNR), early signs of which have begun to be demonstrated. SPTA Centre (south): the Woodford Valley area. SPTA East: this can support the downs north-east towards Newbury and south east to Porton/ Winterbourne/ Normanton.

The East has the largest autumn roosts and highest number of sites, although numbers fluctuate significantly e.g. Cross Country Driver Training Area, Bourne Bottom and Flagpole, Lidbury and Plantations, and Upavon Down. On the Centre, Enford, Far Triangle and Lavington Folly area is the main roost area. On the West, Knook and Breakheart area is the main roost area.

Supporting Minimising Stone-curlew: The nature, scale, timing and duration of some human activities can result in the TAYLOR E.C., R.E. habitat (both disturbance Restrict the frequency, disturbance of birds at a level that may substantially affect their behaviour, and GREEN AND J. within and caused by duration and/or intensity consequently affect the long-term viability of the population. As ground-nesting PERRINS (2007) outside the human activity of disturbance affecting birds, stone curlews are particularly vulnerable to human disturbance. Stone-curlews SPA): nesting, roosting, Burhinus disturbance foraging, feeding, Such disturbing effects can for example result in changes to feeding or roosting oedicnemus and moulting and/or loafing behaviour, increases in energy expenditure due to increased flight, abandonment of recreational birds so that the nest sites and desertion of supporting habitat (both within or outside the designated disturbance: breeding stone curlew site boundary where appropriate). This may undermine successful nesting, rearing, developing a feature is not feeding and/or roosting, and/or may reduce the availability of suitable habitat as management tool significantly disturbed birds are displaced and their distribution within the site contracts. for access. Ibis, 149 (Suppl. 1), 37- Disturbance associated with human activity may take a variety of forms including 44 noise, light, sound, vibration, trampling and the visible presence of people, animals and structures. TAYLOR E.C. (2006) Stone- On Salisbury Plain, increased housing on the surrounds and road development on curlews Burhinus site are likely to result in more people and their dogs accessing the Plain, which has oedicnemus and the potential to disturb stone-curlews. Wiltshire Council produced a mitigation human disturbance: strategy to support their Infrastructure Delivery Plan. effects on behaviour, Military training – vehicle use, troops on the ground, helicopters - has the potential distribution and to influence stone-curlew settlement in spring and destroy or disturb nests. This is breeding success. avoided or reduced through locating breeding plots away from the main, tactically PhD thesis, important military training sites and corridors – and the current DIO management Cambridge plan stresses an adaptive approach to managing the distribution of breeding plots, University.

Page 14 of 23

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) with on-going RSPB and DIO monitoring a key part of this. Some plots have signs around them. In practise, the scale of the Plain means that there are likely to be few LILEY, D., PAYNE, incidents, as long as the spread and intensity of military training remains the same. K. & PEAT, J. (2007) Access Military helicopters have been investigated and shown to have minimal impact, in a Patterns on small study. Salisbury Plain. Footprint Ecology / On the Plain, disturbance of hobbies by the general public or military training is Enviros generally thought to be unlikely due to the size and remoteness of the place, and Ltd., Wareham, the species relatively secretive nature. Dorset.

TAYLOR J. (2012) HRA and mitigation strategy for Salisbury Plain SPA in relation to recreational pressure from development. Wiltshire Council.

CHARMAN E. AND R.E. GREEN (2009) Response of breeding stone curlews to Apache helicopter training on Salisbury Plain Training Area. Unpublished internal report, DIO.

Version Control Advice last updated: n/a Variations from national feature-framework of integrity-guidance: Removed attribute of ‘medium height vegetation patches within roosting areas’.

Page 15 of 23

Page 16 of 23

Table 2: Supplementary Advice for Non-breeding Qualifying Features: A082 Hen harrier Circus cyaneus

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) Non-breeding Population Maintain the size of the non- See the notes for this attribute in table 1 above. Winter roosts on the population abundance breeding Hen Harrier Plain have been population at a level which is This target is derived from the initial count from 1993 (SPA data sheet monitored since consistently above 5 2006). Roost counts at the SPA are as follows: 1977 by MOD individuals, whilst avoiding conservation groups, deterioration from its current Maximum count of 13 in 2010/11 then from 1983/4 as level as indicated by the Maximum count of 12 in 2011/12 part of Hawk & Owl latest mean peak count or Maximum count of 20 in 2012/13 Trust national winter equivalent. Maximum count of 19 in 2013/14 roost survey, now Maximum count of 12 in 2014/15 run by BTO/HOT and undertaken by Wiltshire Ornithological Society.

Supporting Extent and Maintain the extent and Conserving or restoring the extent of supporting habitats and their range will Winter roosts on the habitat (both distribution of distribution of suitable habitat be key to maintaining the site's ability and capacity to support the SPA Plain have been within and supporting (either within or outside the population. monitored since outside the non-breeding site boundary) which 1977 by MOD SPA): extent and habitat supports Hen Harrier for all The information available on the extent and distribution of supporting habitat conservation groups, distribution necessary stages of the non- used by the feature may be approximate depending to the nature, age and then from 1983/4 as breeding/wintering period accuracy of data collection. This target may apply to supporting habitat part of Hawk & Owl (moulting, roosting, loafing, which also lies outside the site boundary e.g. the SPA, wider military Trust national winter feeding). training area and beyond are known to provide feeding habitat. roost survey, now run by BTO/HOT and . The hen harrier is a bird of open country that roosts communally. undertaken by Wiltshire The main roost is on the Centre, at Ell Barrow, Rushall Down, Charlton Ornithological Down and Compton Down, at the heads of dry chalk valleys or along ridges Society. separating them. Also, roosting occurs on the West (Knapp Down, New Zealand Farm Camp) and East (Lower and West Everleigh Downs) Supporting Conservation Maintain management or See the notes for this attribute in table 1 above. DEFENCE habitat (both measures other measures (whether INFRASTRUCTURE within and within and/or outside the site For roosting on the Plain, hen harriers need > 10 hectares of tall, thick ORGANISATION. outside the boundary as appropriate) grass free from scrub that has not been burnt, cut or grazed for at least one Salisbury Plain SPA): function/ necessary to maintain the season – the sheltered heads of valleys are preferred. The year-on-year Nature Conservation Page 17 of 23

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) supporting structure, function and/or the management needs for specific roosting areas are discussed and agreed Super Unit process supporting processes between DIO and WOS. Management Plans associated with non-breeding 2010-2015, DIO, Hen Harrier and its Grazing requirements and controls are provided by Defence Infrastructure 2010. supporting habitats. Organisation’s (DIO) Farm Management Plans with their tenants. Scrub management is provided by DIO’s Super Unit Management Plans. DEFENCE INFRASTRUCTURE ORGANISATION Farm Management Plans – with their tenant farmers.

Supporting Vegetation Maintain an optimal mix of The height, cover, variation and composition of vegetation are often DEFENCE habitat (both characteristics vegetation to provide important characteristics of habitats supporting this feature which enables INFRASTRUCTURE within and sufficient cover for roosting successful concealment/roosting. Many bird species will have specific ORGANISATION. outside the hen harriers and more open, requirements that conservation measures will aim to maintain, for others Salisbury Plain SPA): structure prey-rich areas for hunting. such requirements will be less clear. Activities that may directly or indirectly Nature Conservation affect the vegetation of supporting habitats and modify these characteristics Super Unit may adversely affect the feature. Management Plans 2010-2015, DIO, Hen harriers do not currently nest on the Plain. 2010.

Their foraging areas in autumn, winter and early spring tend to include the DEFENCE SPA, wider military training area and beyond, where the habitats support INFRASTRUCTURE their prey, which is primarily small mammals e.g. field voles and small ORGANISATION’s passerine birds e.g. skylarks and meadow pipits. The rotational grazing Farm Management system on the Plain tends to provide a sequential structure to the grassland Plans – with their that supports such fauna. tenant farmers.

For roosting, hen harriers require > 10 hectares of tall, thick grass free from DEFRA 2016 Joint scrub that has not been burnt, cut or grazed for at least one season – the action plan to sheltered heads of valleys are preferred. The year-on-year management increase the English needs for specific roosting areas tend to be discussed and agreed between hen harrier DIO and WOS. population, Defra/Upland Grazing requirements and controls are provided by Defence Infrastructure Stakeholder Forum, Organisation’s (DIO) Farm Management Plans with their tenants. Scrub hen harrier sub-

Page 18 of 23

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) management is provided by DIO’s Super Unit Management Plans. group

Supporting Minimising Restrict the frequency, The nature, scale, timing and duration of some human activities can result habitat (both disturbance duration and/or intensity of in the disturbance of birds at a level that may substantially affect their within and caused by disturbance affecting behaviour, and consequently affect the long-term viability of the population. outside the human activity roosting, foraging or feeding SPA): birds so that the non- Such disturbing effects can for example result in changes to feeding or minimising breeding hen harrier roosting behaviour, increases in energy expenditure due to increased flight, disturbance population feature is not abandonment of nest sites and desertion of supporting habitat (both within significantly disturbed. or outside the designated site boundary where appropriate). This may undermine successful nesting, rearing, feeding and/or roosting, and/or may reduce the availability of suitable habitat as birds are displaced and their distribution within the site contracts. Disturbance associated with human activity may take a variety of forms including noise, light, sound, vibration, trampling, the presence of people, animals and structures.

On Salisbury Plain, hen harriers roost at dusk in remote areas and there are currently no known issues due to disturbance from the general public or military training.

Supporting Landscape Maintain the amount of open This feature is known to favour large areas of open terrain, largely free of DEFENCE habitat (both and unobstructed terrain obstructions, in and around its nesting, roosting and feeding areas. Often ESTATES DTE SP within and within areas used for roosting there is a need to maintain an unobstructed line of sight within nesting, Integrated Rural outside the and hunting. feeding or roosting habitat to detect approaching predators, or to ensure Management Plan, SPA): structure visibility of displaying behaviour. An open landscape may also be required DE, 2010 to facilitate movement of birds between the SPA and any off-site supporting habitat. DEFENCE INFRASTRUCTURE Hen harriers are birds of open landscapes, hunting low over the ground, ORGANISATION. circling areas several times and surprising and flushing their prey. They Salisbury Plain usually avoid closed-canopy woodland, conurbations and high mountain Nature Conservation tops; but do use pre-thicket stage forestry for nesting and foraging. Super Unit Management Plans There are currently c.1,058 ha hectares of woodland on the SPA, which is 2010-2015, DIO, 5.4% of the SPA area, and a total of c.2,196 ha on the whole Salisbury 2010. Plain Training Area (SPTA), which are widely scattered apart from the open Central Impact Area. More than half of this is relatively recent, although no further planting took place on the SSSI/SPA area, after it was designated in STANBURY A. et al. Page 19 of 23

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) 1993. The plantations play an important role in creating a realistic training 2000 Breeding bird environment, providing cover, concealment and shelter; however, also survey of Salisbury fragment the landscape and habitats, with potential ecological Plain Training Area. consequences. DIO’s Super Unit Management Plan (section 2.6) identifies Defence Estates, that plantations appear to inhibit ground-nesting birds – their study found a RSPB, p. 34 50% decrease in numbers of breeding skylark within 1km squares containing plantation(s) presumed due to predation threat - potentially GRINSTED S. 2017 lowering the carrying capacity of hen harrier. Salisbury Plain SSSI Integrated Site The amount of scrub on the Plain, at Integrated Site Assessment in 2014- Assessment 2014- 15, was found to have significantly decreased due to DIO and Natural 14, Natural England. England programmes; with the bulk of SSSI units meeting scrub cover targets, apart from three units at the far western end and four on Beacon Hill.

Supporting Connectivity Maintain the safe passage of The ability of the feature to safely and successfully move to and from habitat (both with hen harriers moving between nesting, feeding and roosting areas is critical to their breeding success and NATURAL within and supporting feeding and roosting areas to the adult fitness and survival. This target will apply within the site ENGLAND 2013 outside the habitats when present during the non- boundary and where birds regularly move to and from off-site habitat where National Character SPA): function/ breeding period this is relevant. Area Profile:132 supporting Salisbury Plain and process During winter, Hen harriers can gather at coastal sites and form communal West Wiltshire roosts at night. These can hold significant numbers of individuals and Downs (NE479), roosting habitat can include carr woodland, marshes and reed-beds. Natural England.

The SPA, wider military training area (38,000 ha) and the rest of the chalk plateau in central Wiltshire, provide a mostly continuous landscape, apart from where it is dissected by river valleys and the main roads and settlements along these. Across the plateau, the main habitat is grassland, which is unimproved in the interior and on the peripheral SSSIs, and semi- and improved grassland more to the edges, both providing potential for hen harrier hunting, if lightly managed and tussocky, and harbouring small mammals and birds. As well as the core SPA, there are surrounding SSSIs and local wildlife site grasslands e.g. Bratton Downs to the north and Parsonage Down NNR to the south.

The National Character Area Profile says ‘woodlands are generally confined to the valley slopes, with scattered copses and shelterbelts on the high downs’. From the 1960s, the army planted c.1300 ha of plantation,

Page 20 of 23

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) increasing the cover of woodland to c.6% on the military training area, potentially causing a degree of habitat loss and fragmentation – although no planting has taken place on the SPA area, since the designation has been in place. Supporting Food Maintain the distribution, The availability of an abundant food supply is critically important for DEFENCE habitat (both availability abundance and availability of successful breeding, adult fitness and survival and the overall sustainability INFRASTRUCTURE within and within key prey items at prey sizes of the population. As a result, inappropriate management and direct or ORGANISATION’s outside the supporting preferred by hen harriers indirect impacts which may affect the distribution, abundance and Farm Management SPA): function/ habitat (pipits to gamebirds; voles to availability of prey may adversely affect the population. Plans – with their supporting young rabbit size). tenant farmers. process The hen harrier hunts by flying low over the ground and approaching small mammals and birds whilst avoiding detection.

On Salisbury Plain, the grazing regime is key to determining food availability. On the SPA and other ‘Schedule 3’ areas, DIO’s Farm Management Plans with their tenant farmers, set prescriptions for the grazing regime, at three levels: ‘without restriction’, ‘within guidelines’ and ‘special restrictions’. The first requires long grass margins, otherwise no constraint on timing or stocking levels; the second requires long grass margins and specifies maximum stocking levels; and the third requires long grass margins and sets specific management within mapped polygons e.g. grazing may be restricted to only 30 or 50% of that area per year, which may be for any or all of the species requiring lighter grazing and longer grass.

Most of the grazing is done through temporary pennings, with relatively high stocking levels for a short time period and variable periods of rest in between, often just once or perhaps two grazing sessions in a year; therefore there is plenty of scope for long, tussocky grass harbouring small birds and mammals; however, the botanical diversity must also be maintained, which requires periods of more intense grazing. Ultimately, grazing is controlled through the number of temporary pennings a farmer is allowed and utilizes at any one time.

Page 21 of 23

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) Supporting Air quality Maintain concentrations and The structure and function of habitats which support this SPA feature may More information habitat (both deposition of air pollutants at be sensitive to changes in air quality. about site-relevant within and or below the site-relevant Critical Loads and outside the Critical Load or Level values Exceeding critical values for air pollutants may result in changes to the Levels for this SPA is SPA): function/ given for the feature's chemical status of its habitat substrate, accelerating or damaging plant available by using supporting supporting habitat on the Air growth, altering vegetation structure and composition and thereby affecting the ‘search by site’ process Pollution Information System the quality and availability of nesting, feeding or roosting habitats. Critical tool on the Air (www.apis.ac.uk). Loads and Levels are thresholds below which such harmful effects on Pollution Information sensitive UK habitats will not occur to a noteworthy level, according to System current levels of scientific understanding. There are critical levels for (www.apis.ac.uk). ammonia (NH3), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and sulphur dioxide (SO2), and critical loads for nutrient nitrogen deposition and acid deposition.

Version Control Advice last updated: n/a Variations from national feature-framework of integrity-guidance: Removed sub-attribute: water quality/quantity as not relevant to hen harriers on Salisbury Plain. Combined the two sub-attributes for vegetation characteristics to cover roosting and foraging Removed ‘with short vegetation’ from the landscape target, as although this may be relative it conflicts with the other targets.

Page 22 of 23

European Site Conservation Objectives: Supplementary Advice on Conserving and Restoring Site Features

Salisbury Plain Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Site code: UK0012683

Date of Publication: 20 February 2017

Page 1 of 30

About this document

This document provides Natural England’s supplementary advice about the European Site Conservation Objectives relating to Salisbury Plain SAC. This advice should therefore be read together with the SAC Conservation Objectives which are available here. You should use the Conservation Objectives, this Supplementary Advice and any case-specific advice given by Natural England, when developing, proposing or assessing an activity, plan or project that may affect this site.

These tables do not give advice about SSSI features or other legally protected species which may also be present within the European Site.

If you have any comments or queries about this Supplementary Advice document please contact your local Natural England adviser or email [email protected]

Page 2 of 30

About this site

European Site information

Name of European Site Salisbury Plain Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

Location Wiltshire

Site Maps The designated boundary of this site can be viewed here on the MAGIC website.

Designation Date April 2005

Qualifying Features See section below.

Designation Area 21465.94 ha

Designation Changes On Porton Down, ‘The Bowl’ covering 322.42 ha, was added to the SSSI, SAC and SPA designated area in 1999.

Feature Condition Status Details of the feature condition assessments made at this site can be found using Natural England’s Designated Sites System

Names of component Salisbury Plain, Porton Down and Parsonage Down. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)

Relationship with other Salisbury Plain SPA and Porton Down SPA boundaries overlap with European or International the SAC. Site designations

Other information Natura 2000 Standard Data Form for Salisbury Plain SAC

Site background and geography

Salisbury Plain SAC is located in central Wiltshire, within the Salisbury Plain and West Wiltshire Downs National Character Area (NCA), in southern England.

Salisbury Plain is an extensive and open rolling chalk plateau, with Parsonage Down on the southern edge of this and Porton Down to the south-west. The three constituent sites are located on chalk geology, cut by the tributaries of the Hampshire Avon.

The soils are generally alkaline and free-draining, apart from places with overlying clay-with flints and long-term rainwater leaching and lessivage, which are more acidic.

The defining habitat type is chalk grassland, also some secondary and ancient woodland is present. Juniper scrub is significant on parts of Salisbury Plain and much of Porton Down.

Salisbury Plain is managed as part of an extensive military Training Area (SPTA). Porton Down forms part of the wider Porton Down Defence Science & Technology Laboratory (Dstl). Parsonage Down is part of a National Nature Reserve run by Natural England.

Page 3 of 30

About the qualifying features of the SAC

The following section gives you additional, site-specific information about this SAC’s qualifying features. These are the natural habitats and/or species for which this SAC has been designated.

Qualifying habitats:

• H6210 and 6211 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) (* important orchid sites)

These grasslands are typically found on thin, well-drained, lime-rich soils associated with chalk and limestone. They occur predominantly at low to moderate altitudes in England and Wales, extending locally into upland areas in northern England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Most of these calcareous grasslands are maintained by grazing. A large number of rare plants are associated with this habitat, including, on Salisbury Plain SAC: purple milk-vetch Astragalus danicus, dwarf sedge Carex humilis, bastard-toadflax Thesium humifusum and the early gentian Gentianella anglica, as well as various bryophytes and lichens. The invertebrate fauna is also noteworthy, and includes rarities such as the marsh fritillary butterfly Euphydryas aurinia, adonis blue butterfly Lysandra bellargus and silver-spotted skipper Hesperia comma. Salisbury Plain in central southern England is believed to be the largest surviving semi-natural dry grassland within the European Union and is therefore the most important site for this habitat in the UK. It supports extensive examples of CG3 Bromus erectus grassland, which is the most widespread chalk grassland found in the UK; and also supports significant areas of other types e.g. extensive CG2 Festuca ovina-Avenula pratensis grassland on Parsonage Down and extensive CG7 Festuca ovina – Hieracium pilosella – Thymus praecox grassland on Porton Down.

This SAC is also distinctive in hosting the priority habitat type "orchid rich sites". This priority habitat type comprises calcareous grasslands which contain either a rich suite of orchid species, important populations of at least one nationally uncommon orchid species or one or several orchid species considered to be rare, very rare or exceptional in the UK.

• H5130 Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands

Salisbury Plain represents common juniper Juniperus communis formations near the southern edge of the habitat’s range on chalk in southern England, where it is particularly rare. This site is the best remaining example in the UK of lowland juniper scrub on chalk. The juniper is juxtaposed with extensive H6210 semi-natural dry grassland and chalk heath.

In some cases the scrub has developed recently by invasion of open chalk grassland and contains few typical shrub species. However, most of the scrub is of the southern mixed scrub type and is enriched by roses Rosa spp., wild privet Ligustrum vulgare, dogwood Cornus sanguinea, wayfaring tree Viburnum lantana and other species characteristic of the type.

Both Salisbury Plain and Porton Down components of the SAC hold important populations of juniper; it is not present on the Parsonage Down component.

Qualifying Species:

• S1065 Marsh fritillary butterfly Euphydryas aurinia

The marsh fritillary butterfly Euphydryas aurinia is typically found in a range of habitats in which its larval food plant, devil’s-bit scabious Succisa pratensis, occurs. Marsh fritillaries are essentially grassland butterflies in the UK, and although populations may occur occasionally on wet heath, bog margins and woodland clearings, most colonies are found in damp acidic or dry calcareous grasslands. Page 4 of 30

Management in both wet and dry situations is predominantly by low-intensity cattle or pony grazing.

The butterfly flies in late May and June. The female lays batches of eggs on the underside of large Devil’s-bit Scabious plants. From August until late September the brown, spiny caterpillars feed together on Scabious leaves inside a silken web. During the winter they hibernate together in a small web, hidden in grass tussocks. The caterpillars emerge in February or early March and separate; sometimes wandering several metres to find fresh Scabious leaves. By late April the caterpillars pupate and emerge as adult butterflies 2 to 3 weeks later.

Populations of marsh fritillary vary greatly in size from year to year, and, at least in part, this is related to cycles of attack from parasitic wasps. Adults tend to be sedentary and remain in a series of linked meta- populations, forming numerous temporary sub-populations, which frequently die out and re-colonise. Where unable to do this, populations do not seem to be able to persist in habitat fragments. It is therefore essential to conserve a cluster of sites in close proximity.

Marsh fritillary (Natural England/Allan Drewitt)

Salisbury Plain represents marsh fritillary Euphydryas aurinia in chalk grassland in central southern England, and contains a cluster of large sub-populations where the species breeds on dry calcareous grassland. The site extends the range of ecological variability included in the SAC series. The butterfly is mainly present on the Salisbury Plain part of the SAC, with Porton Down and Parsonage Down being less suitable for the species, although it does occur in small numbers.

Page 5 of 30

Table 1: Supplementary Advice for Qualifying Features: H6210/H6211 semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) including orchid-rich sites

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available) Extent and Extent of the Maintain the total extent of There should be no measurable net reduction (excluding any trivial loss) in the PYWELL 1998 distribution feature within the H6210/11 feature on extent and area of this feature, and in some cases, the full extent of the feature may WILSON & of the feature the site Salisbury Plain at 13,247.86 need to be restored. The baseline-value of extent given has been generated using REED 2007 ha and on Porton Down at data gathered from the listed site-based surveys and/or measured using GIS. WILD 1988 855 ha Area measurements given may be approximate depending on the methods, age Restore the total extent of and accuracy of data collection, and as a result this value may be updated in future the H6210/11 feature at to reflect more accurate information. Parsonage Down to 186.27 ha The extent of an Annex I habitat feature covers the sum extent of all of the component vegetation communities present and may include transitions and mosaics with other closely-associated habitat features. Where a feature is susceptible to natural dynamic processes, there may be acceptable variations in its extent through natural fluctuations.

Where a reduction in the extent of a feature is considered necessary to meet the Conservation Objective for another Annex I feature, Natural England will advise on this on a case-by-case basis.

Grassland restoration at Parsonage Down is required. This extent target includes Hundred Acres (under restoration) and all the grassland/scrub areas, but excludes the small beech plantation.

Page 6 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available) Extent and Spatial Maintain the distribution and A contraction in the range, or geographic spread, of the feature (and its component PYWELL 1998 distribution distribution of configuration of the vegetation and typical species, plus transitional communities) across the site will WILSON & of the feature the feature H6210/11 feature*, including reduce its overall area, the local diversity and variations in its structure and REED 2007 within the site where applicable its composition, and may undermine its resilience to adapt to future environmental WILD 1988 component vegetation types, changes. across the site. This may also reduce and break up the continuity of a habitat within a site and how well its typical species are able to move around the site to occupy and use habitat.

Such fragmentation can impact on their viability and the wider ecological composition of the Annex I habitat. Smaller fragments of habitat can typically support smaller and more isolated populations which are more vulnerable to extinction.

These fragments also have a greater amount of open edge habitat which will differ in the amount of light, temperature, wind, and even noise that it receives compared to its interior. These conditions may not be suitable for some of the typical and more specialist species associated with the Annex I habitat feature.

*Salisbury Plain is a large, dynamic site, therefore some flexibility is needed in terms of the distribution of its component vegetation types; as long as each community type is present and not threatened, and the overall quantity of H6210 grassland does not decline. On Porton Down, the lichen-rich grasslands (CG7b), which arose from bare, impoverished ground, are disappearing due to natural, successional processes; therefore a plan is needed for some limited re-setting of this process, through the creation of bare, recovering ground at appropriate locations. On Parsonage Down, the extensive, high quality CG2 Festuca ovina – Avenula pratensis grassland must be protected from encroachment by upright brome (and decline to CG3) through sufficient grazing. Structure and Vegetation This habitat feature will comprise a number of associated semi-natural vegetation PYWELL 1998 Ensure the component function community types and their transitional zones, reflecting the geographical location of the site, WILSON & vegetation communities of (including its composition altitude, aspect, soil conditions (especially base-status and drainage) and REED 2007 the feature are referable to typical vegetation management. In the UK these have been categorised by the National WILD 1988 and characterised by the species) Vegetation Classification (NVC). following National Vegetation

Classification types: Maintaining or restoring these characteristic and distinctive vegetation types, and CG2 Festuca ovina – the range of types as appropriate, will be important to sustaining the overall habitat Avenula pratensis grassland feature. This will also help to conserve their typical plant species (i.e. the constant

Page 7 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available) CG3 Bromus erectus and preferential species of a community), and therefore that of the SAC feature, at grassland appropriate levels (recognising natural fluctuations). CG4 Brachypodium pinnatum grassland CG5 Bromus erectus – Brachypodium pinnatum grassland CG6 Avenula pubescens grassland CG7 Festuca ovina – Hieracium pilosella – Thymus praecox/pulegioides grassland Structure and Vegetation: Maintain and, in places, A high cover of characteristic herbs, including sedges (Carex species) is strongly NATURAL function proportion of restore the proportion of typical of the structure of this habitat type. ENGLAND. (including its herbs herbaceous species typical 2016.Salisbury typical of the H6210/11 feature at or The exact targets will vary between localities and NVC types as presented in the Plain SSSI species) to within the range 40-90%. SSSI Favourable Condition Tables. Integrated Site Assessment 2014-15. Natural England.

WILSON, PW AND REED,M. 2009. Porton Down SSSI Condition Assessment 2009. Natural England, 2009.

Page 8 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available) Structure and Key structural, Maintain and, in places, Some plant or animal species (or related groups of such species) make a function influential restore the abundance of the particularly important contribution to the structure, function and/or quality of an (including its and/or species listed below to Annex I habitat feature at a particular site. These species will include; typical distinctive enable each of them to be a species) species viable component of the − Structural species which form a key part of the habitat’s structure or help to Annex 1 habitat; define an Annex I habitat on a site (see also the attribute for ‘vegetation community composition’). Constant and preferential − Influential species which are likely to have a key role affecting the structure vascular plants associated and function of the habitat (such as bioturbators (mixers of soil/sediment), with the CG2 – CG7 grazers, surface borers, predators or other species with a significant communities at this site functional role linked to the habitat). − Site-distinctive species which are considered to be a particularly special Assemblage of rare chalk and distinguishing component of an Annex I habitat on a particular site. grassland plants; Astragalus danicus Purple There may be natural fluctuations in the frequency and cover of each of these Milk-vetch; Cirsium species. The relative contribution made by them to the overall ecological integrity of tuberosum Tuberous thistle; a site may vary, and Natural England will provide bespoke advice on this as Carex humilis Dwarf Sedge; necessary. Cerastium pumilum Dwarf Mouse ear; Dianthus armeria The list of species given here for this Annex I habitat feature at this SAC is not Deptford Pink; Galeopsis necessarily exhaustive. The list may evolve, and species may be added or deleted, angustifolia-Red Hemp- as new information about this site becomes available. nettle; Galium pumilum- Slender Bedstraw; Burnt orchid – Neotinea ustulata- the SAC Citation says: ‘largest UK population’. Gentianella anglica-Early The species is widespread across much of Parsonage Down (SSSI units 2 and 3), Gentian, Iberis amara-Wild although there is no good estimate of the population number but in the order of tens Candytuft, Minuartia hybrida- of thousands flowering in a good year. On Salisbury Plain, the species is less Fine-leaved Sandwort, frequent, being recorded as scattered individuals or small groups, in nine (out of Neotinea ustulata-Burnt 100) SSSI units on the West, Centre and East. On Porton Down, there is a small Orchid, Phyteuma orbiculare- population in Roche Court Down, SSSI Unit 12. Round-headed Rampion, Salvia pratensis-Meadow Lady orchid – Orchis purpurea is now present on Porton Down, possibly as an Clary; Tephroseris introduction, although this is not certain. It is not mentioned on the SAC Citation. integrifolia-Field Fleawort and Thesium humifusum- The fairy shrimp Chirocephalus diaphanus is dependent on temporary pools created Bastard Toadflax and Vulpia by military training on the Plain. unilateralis – mat-grass Page 9 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available) fescue The rabbit population on Porton Down is important, being relied on for grazing rather than farmed livestock. The close cropped grazing, bio-perturbation, nutrient Assemblage of chalk depletion and bio-deposition services of the rabbit have been found to aid not only grassland invertebrates the maintenance of open, short-swards and areas of bare ground but also nutrient cycling, mineralisation and water infiltration in desert and dry grassland habitats Population of fairy shrimp Chirocephalus diaphanus

Population of European or common rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus

Structure and Vegetation: Maintain the frequency/cover There will be a range of undesirable or uncharacteristic species which, if allowed to function undesirable of the following undesirable colonise and spread, are likely to have an adverse effect on the feature's structure (including its species species to within acceptable and function, including its more desirable typical species. These may include typical levels and prevent changes invasive non-natives such as Cotoneaster species, or coarse and aggressive native species) in surface condition, soils, species which may uncharacteristically dominate the composition of the feature. nutrient levels or hydrology which may encourage their spread:

Thistles Cirsium arvense, Cirsium vulgare, docks Rumex crispus, Rumex obtusifolius, ragwort Senecio jacobaea, common nettle Urtica dioica.

Tor-grass Brachypodium pinnatum on all grassland types except CG4 and 5.

Upright brome Bromopsis erecta on CG2 grassland.

Rank grasses e.g. false oat-

Page 10 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available) grass Arrhenatherum elatius, cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata and Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus that indicate under-grazing.

On CG7c, the cover of mat- like branching (pleurocarpous) mosses Structure and Vegetation Maintain the full range and Transitions/zonations between adjacent but different vegetation communities are NATURAL function community pattern of zonations and usually related to naturally-occurring changes in soil, aspect or slope. ENGLAND. (including its transitions transitions across vegetation 2016. Salisbury typical types associated with the Such 'ecotones' retain characteristics of each bordering community and can add Plain SSSI species) H6210 feature. value in often containing species not found in the adjacent communities. Retaining Integrated Site such transitions can provide further diversity to the habitat feature, and support Assessment additional flora and fauna. 2014-15. Natural Bare ground, the different chalk grassland communities and scrub, and ecotones England, 2016. between these, tend to flux naturally on Salisbury Plain and Porton Down (which are large sites), less so on Parsonage Down, with conservation management varying on NATURAL a temporal and spatial scale, using a ‘landscape-scale ecology’ approach. ENGLAND, 2016. Porton Down SSSI Site Checks 2016, Natural England, November 2016.

Soils, Maintain the properties of the Soil is the foundation of basic ecosystem function and its properties strongly Contact substrate and underlying soil types, influence the colonisation, growth and distribution of those plant species which Defence nutrient including structure, bulk together form vegetation types, and therefore provides a habitat used by a wide Infrastructure cycling density, total carbon, pH, soil range of organisms. Organisation for nutrient status and Salisbury Plain, fungal:bacterial ratio, to Soil biodiversity has a vital role to recycle organic matter. Dstl for Porton within typical values for the Down, Natural H6210/11 habitat. Changes to natural soil properties may therefore affect the ecological structure, England for function and processes associated with this Annex I feature. Parsonage

Page 11 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available) Down, for past soil sample results.

Structure and Supporting off- Maintain the extent, quality The structure and function of the qualifying habitat, including its typical species, may LARGE, R. & function site habitat and spatial configuration of rely upon the continued presence of areas which surround but are outside of the HALES, S. (including its land or habitat surrounding or designated site boundary (‘functionally-linked land’). 2015. Mapping typical adjacent to the site which is connectivity of species) known to support the Changes in surrounding land-use may adversely (directly/indirectly) affect the species-rich H6210/11 feature. functioning of the feature and its component species. This supporting habitat may grassland be critical to the typical species of the feature to support their feeding, breeding, habitat roosting, population dynamics ('meta-populations'), pollination or to in the Wiltshire prevent/reduce/absorb damaging impacts from adjacent land uses e.g. pesticide Chalk drift, nutrient enrichment. landscape. Natural England Salisbury Plain SSSI and surrounding SSSIs and County Wildlife Sites on the chalk, are considered to be multiple ‘grassland ecological networks’ at a 250m species dispersal level e.g. marsh fritillary butterfly, and a single, much larger network at the 2,500m dispersal level (Large & Hales, 2015).

As part of this model, Porton Down and surrounds are a separate network, at either dispersal scale; whilst Parsonage Down and surrounds are an individual network at the 250m dispersal scale, and part of the single much larger network at the 2,500m scale. For further detail see Large and Hales, 2015.

Large and Hales (2015) reviewed previous studies and suggest that chalk downland plants have very limited dispersal due to animal vectors being limited by fencing, although some are wind dispersed e.g. grasses. Six butterfly species - marsh fritillary, small blue, dingy skipper, Duke of Burgundy, chalkhill blue and adonis blue – were estimated to travel 250m in a majority of dispersal events in optimum habitat, but much less than this (12.5m) in ‘impermeable’ habitats e.g. arable. For rare, long-distance dispersal events, the model used 2,500m, but much

Page 12 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available) less (125m) in arable land.

Structure and Functional Restore the overall extent, This recognises the potential need at this site to maintain or restore the connectivity LARGE, R. & function connectivity quality and function of any of the site to its wider landscape in order to meet the conservation objectives. These HALES, S. (including its with wider supporting features within the connections may take the form of landscape features, such as habitat patches, 2015. typical landscape local landscape which hedges, watercourses and verges, outside of the designated site boundary which species) provide a critical functional are either important for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of those connection with the site. typical species closely associated with qualifying Annex I habitat features of the site.

These features may also be important to the operation of the supporting ecological processes on which the designated site and its features may rely. In most cases increasing actual and functional landscape-scale connectivity would be beneficial. Where there is a lack of detailed knowledge of the connectivity requirements of the qualifying feature, Natural England will advise as to whether these are applicable on a case by case basis.

Large & Hales (2015), in their modelled scenarios, predicted that Salisbury Plain – East is currently disconnected from the Centre and West, for average butterfly dispersals; similarly, Parsonage Down SSSI/NNR and the SSSIs on the northern perimeter of the military training area are disconnected from Salisbury Plain SSSI, for average butterfly dispersals. The land between these sites may provide critical functional connection for marsh fritillary butterfly and should be restored.

Similarly, the northern edge of Porton Down has scope for connecting to the nearby RSPB reserve, Winterbourne Downs, where extensive chalk grassland creation is already underway.

Adaptation and Maintain the feature's ability, This recognises the increasing likelihood of a need for natural habitat features to LARGE R. AND resilience and that of its supporting absorb or adapt to wider environmental changes. Resilience may be described as HALES, S. processes, to adapt or evolve the ability of an ecological system to cope with, and adapt to environmental stress 2015. to wider environmental and change whilst retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning. change, either within or NATURAL external to the site. Such environmental changes may include changes in sea levels, precipitation and ENGLAND, temperature for example, which are likely to affect the extent, distribution, 2015. composition and functioning of a feature within a site. The vulnerability and response of features to such changes will vary.

Page 13 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available) The overall vulnerability of this SAC to climate change has been assessed by Natural England as being low, taking into account the sensitivity, fragmentation, topography and management of its habitats. This means that this site is considered to be vulnerable overall but is a lower priority for further assessment and action. Individual species may be more or less vulnerable than their supporting habitat itself. In many cases, change will be inevitable so appropriate monitoring would be required.

Using best available information, any necessary or likely adaptation or adjustment by the feature and its management in response to actual or expected climatic change should be allowed for, as far as practicable, in order to ensure the feature's long-term viability.

The chalk grassland feature is maintained by the right balance of grazing, rainfall/drought and scrub management; and on Salisbury Plain, military vehicle disturbance, shell craters and wild fires.

Changing precipitation and/or temperature are likely to affect vegetation structure and ultimately community type, along with associated species populations and distributions. As above, increasing the connectivity of the component sites to each other and surrounds, is likely to increase resilience to environmental change.

Supporting Air quality Maintain the concentrations This habitat type is considered sensitive to changes in air quality. Exceedance of More processes and deposition of air these critical values for air pollutants may modify the chemical status of its information (on which the pollutants at or below the substrate, accelerating or damaging plant growth, altering its vegetation structure about site- feature relies) site-relevant Critical Load or and composition and causing the loss of sensitive typical species associated with it. relevant Critical Level values given for this Loads and feature of the site on the Air Critical Loads and Levels are recognised thresholds below which such harmful Levels for this Pollution Information System effects on sensitive UK habitats will not occur to a significant level, according to SAC is available (www.apis.ac.uk). current levels of scientific understanding. There are critical levels for ammonia by using the (NH3), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and sulphur dioxide (SO2), and critical loads for ‘search by site’ nutrient nitrogen deposition and acid deposition. These levels are currently not tool on being exceeded for these features at this site. www.apis.ac.uk

There are currently no critical loads or levels for other pollutants such as Halogens, Heavy Metals, POPs, VOCs or Dusts. These should be considered as appropriate on a case-by-case basis. Ground level ozone is regionally important as a toxic air Page 14 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available) pollutant but flux-based critical levels for the protection of semi-natural habitats are still under development. It is recognised that achieving this target may be subject to the development, availability and effectiveness of abatement technology and measures to tackle diffuse air pollution, within realistic timescales.

Supporting Conservation Maintain the management Active and ongoing conservation management is needed to protect, maintain or NATURAL processes measures measures (either within restore this feature at this site. Further details about the necessary conservation ENGLAND, (on which the and/or outside the site measures for this site can be provided by contacting Natural England. This 2015. feature relies) boundary as appropriate) information will typically be found within, where applicable, supporting documents which are necessary to such as Natura 2000 Site Improvement Plan, Site Management Strategies or Plans, maintain or restore the the Views about Management Statement for the underpinning SSSI and/or DEFENCE structure, functions and management agreements. INFRASTRUCT supporting processes URE associated with the The chalk grassland feature is maintained by the right balance of grazing, ORGANISATIO H6210/11 feature. rainfall/drought and scrub management; and on Salisbury Plain, military vehicle N (DEO), 2010. disturbance, shell craters and wild fires. DEFENCE Military vehicle disturbance must be kept at the right balance, with both a lower and SCIENCE & upper threshold for bare ground, currently agreed as 2-4% cover. Bare ground is TECHNOLOGY valuable in its own right and leads to early successional habitats e.g. CG7, with LABORATORY, important plant populations e.g. Fine-leaved sandwort Minuartia hybrida and Dwarf 2016. mouse-ear Cerastium pumilum. NATURAL The coverage and intensity of grazing must ideally reflect the chalk grassland ENGLAND, communities and associated species present, and respond to annual variation in 2016. rainfall and drought, although the ease of achieving these varies between the component sites. Parsonage Down is a National Nature Reserve managed by Natural England, with its own livestock; Salisbury Plain is a military training area, with farming tenants; and Porton Down is a defence experimental site, with a generally large rabbit population but no other grazing livestock.

Scrub control and management will be an on-going requirement, particularly on Salisbury Plain and Porton Down where the grazing pattern tends not to control scrub.

Page 15 of 30

Version Control Advice last updated: n/a Variations from national feature-framework of integrity-guidance: n/a

Page 16 of 30

Table 2: Supplementary Advice for Qualifying Features: H5130 Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands.

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) Extent and Extent of the Maintain the total See the supporting/explanatory notes for this attribute in Table 1. ASH D. (2000) distribution feature within extent of the H5130 of the feature the site feature. Maintaining the coverage of juniper is central to this attribute. Juniper tends to occur DEFENCE ESTATES, on shallow soils, on steep slopes and on north to west aspects (Ward, 1973). On 2005. Salisbury Plain, there were 11,100 juniper bushes in 2002, with the distribution and frequency of bushes compared to 1996 not appearing to show any significant SALISBURY PLAIN differences - no systematic count has been done since 2002. Juniper is present in CONSERVATION SSSI units 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 138, 155 and 171 i.e. mainly Beacon GROUP. Hill and Bulford Ranges, also A303 Road Verge. WARD, L.K. (1973). On Porton Down, a survey by Dr. Lena Ward in 1969-71 estimated 15,870 live juniper bushes (pers comm). A Wiltshire Botanical Society survey was completed in 2012/13, which found 12,306 juniper bushes; the plant has undergone a significant reduction on Battery Hill, from 700 in the 1970s down to about 50 bushes now.

There is no juniper present on Parsonage Down.

Extent and Spatial Maintain the Distribution includes the spatial pattern or arrangement of this habitat feature, and its As above distribution distribution of distribution and component vegetation types, across the site. Changes in distribution may affect the of the feature the feature configuration of the nature and range of the vegetation communities present, the operation of the within the site H5130 feature, physical, chemical, and biological processes in the system and the resiliency of the including where site and its features to changes or impacts. applicable its component Ward (1977) found that the size of gaps between juniper stands is likely to be vegetation types, important for invertebrate dispersal, suggesting a maximum distance of 200m to aid across the SAC. movement between stands.

This habitat type occurs as part of chalk grassland communities and as part of W21d Crataegus monogyna – Hedera helix scrub, Viburnum lantana sub-community, with juniper.

Juniper is found across the site, in nearly all the SSSI units – not units 4, 6 and 22. Structure and Vegetation Ensure the This habitat feature will comprise a number of associated semi-natural vegetation function community component types and their transitional zones, reflecting the geographical location of the site, (including its composition vegetation altitude, aspect, soil conditions (especially base-status and drainage) and vegetation typical communities of the management. In the UK these have been categorised by the National Vegetation species) H5130 feature are Classification (NVC). Page 17 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) referable to and characterised by the Maintaining or restoring these characteristic and distinctive vegetation types, and the following National range of types as appropriate, will be important to sustaining the overall habitat Vegetation feature. This will also help to conserve their typical plant species (i.e. the constant Classification type and preferential species of a community), and therefore that of the SAC feature, at (s): appropriate levels (recognising natural fluctuations). CG2 Festuca ovina – Avenula pratensis grassland; CG3 Bromus erectus grassland; CG7 Festuca ovina – Hieracium pilosella – Thymus praecox/pulegioides grassland; and W21d Crataegus monogyna – Hedera helix scrub, Viburnum lantana sub-community, with juniper.

Structure and Key structural, Maintain the See the supporting and explanatory notes for this attribute in table 1 above. WARD L.K. (1977) function influential abundance of the (including its and/or site- species listed below Large juniper populations such as the one present at this SAC are more likely to WARD L. K. AND K. typical distinctive to enable each of support a juniper-specific invertebrate fauna. Ward (1977) listed 27 species in H. LAKHANI (1977) species) species them to be a viable southern England, of which eight were introduced. component of the WILKINS T.C. & J.C. Annex 1 habitat: Over 40 species of fungi are entirely or partially dependant on juniper (Wilkins, 2011). DUCKWORTH (2011). . Population of Juniper

Assemblage of invertebrates associated with juniper

Page 18 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) Vegetation: Maintain the Undesirable non-woody and woody vascular plants species may require active undesirable frequency/cover of management to avert an unwanted succession to a different and less desirable state. species the following Often they may be indicative of a negative trend relating to another aspect of a site's undesirable species structure and function. These species will vary depending on the nature of the to within acceptable particular feature, and in some cases these species may be natural/acceptable levels and prevent components or even dominants. changes in surface condition, soils, nutrient levels or hydrology which may encourage their spread:

Cirsium arvense, Cirsium vulgare, Rumex crispus, Rumex obtusifolius, Senecio jacobaea, Urtica dioica.

Brachypodium pinnatum on all grassland types except CG4 and 5.

Bromopsis erecta on CG2 grassland.

Rank grasses e.g. Arrhenatherum elatius, Dactylis glomerata and Holcus lanatus that indicate under- grazing.

Page 19 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) Structure and Vegetation Maintain an This structure objective seeks to ensure some areas of open ground are provided DEFENCE ESTATES. function structure: appropriate balance germination and establishment sites for juniper. 2005 (including its canopy cover between scrub typical canopy and open On Porton Down, juniper occurs with scrub, pine and as almost pure stands. ASH D. (2000), species) field layer, with no more than 75% On Salisbury Plain, the densest areas of juniper are in units: 155, 136 and 138. In comprising closed 2014-15, the condition assessment found that in the southern half of unit 136, the juniper scrub. large block of juniper (2-3000 bushes) is approaching closed scrub (also at the expense of chalk grassland).

Structure and Vegetation Ensure that juniper is Juniper is vulnerable to shading, especially from trees with a dense foliage e.g. yew WARD, L.K. (1973). function structure: promoted at the and beech, whilst those with lighter shade e.g. Pinus sylvestris may allow it to persist (including its shading expense of any for longer (Ward, 1973). typical surrounding scrub, species) and not over-topped Over-topping species should be no more than occasional within juniper stands. by scrub or trees casting heavy shade.

Vegetation Maintain a population As a pioneer species, juniper regeneration can be infrequent and episodic, resulting SALISBURY PLAIN structure - age of Juniper comprising in populations with few age classes. Populations with full and wider age range tend CONSERVATION and sex ratios plants at all of its to be associated with conditions providing regular opportunities for establishment, GROUP. of juniper different life stages such as continual exposure of bare soils on steep slopes. These will be more self- (old growth (>100 sustaining in the longer term. years old), building to mature, and Pollination of juniper occurs by wind in the spring: male bushes produce small pollen pioneer/seedling cones whilst the cones of female bushes carry receptive droplets of fluid. Fertilised (<5cm girth). cones develop into berry-like fruits. Dispersal is mainly via migrant thrushes in the autumn. To sustain itself, a population therefore requires a balanced composition of Maintain the ratio of male and female plants. Where one sex is predominant, this can reduce the male to female opportunity for reproduction where populations are sparsely spread juniper bushes at across a landscape. less than 2:1. On Salisbury Plain, in 2005, the population was mostly mature individuals (20-48 years old); and over-mature, senile and collapsing bushes were rare throughout the survey area. Young bushes were recorded in only one compartment. Since 2005, regeneration has been occurring in most of the juniper exclosures identified in the management plan (numbered 1 to 18, with nos. 2 and 3 discontinued), although not in the two recently installed ones (16a and b). At least 50 seedlings and young trees

Page 20 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) are now well established. In addition, some regeneration has occurred at the back of B Range, where grazing is light.

On Porton Down, in 2012, the population was mostly mature (c.50%), senile (c.20%) and dead (c.30%), with no pioneer/seedlings recorded. In 2000, there were two cohorts: an old cohort at Blakes Firs established in the late 1800s and a younger one established between 1956-65.trffoi. On Porton Down, in 2014-16, an investigation by several members of Porton Down Conservation Group, has recorded 50+ seedlings in an area east and south-east of ‘Hard Target’ (SSSI units 19, 14). Through careful marking, they have shown that there have been survivors, casualties and new germination within this period – and hypothesise that germination might be less of an issue than the on-going survival of seedlings.

On Porton Down, the provision of rabbit exclosures for juniper regeneration was recommended by Ash in 2000 but this has not yet been implemented due to the practical challenges of controlling the rabbits. The ‘Dstl juniper population rejuvenation project’ has taken >2000 cuttings; in 2016, 700 cuttings had survived, with the mature ones being planted out in Bottom Met Field and Townend Field (off the SSSI and SAC), and the smaller plants put into a nursery bed.

Structure and Vegetation Maintain expected Transitions/zonations between adjacent but different vegetation communities are As above. function community patterns of natural usually related to naturally-occurring changes in soil, aspect or slope. Such 'ecotones' (including its transitions vegetation zonations retain characteristics of each bordering community and can add value in often typical or transitions containing species not found in the adjacent communities. species) Retaining such transitions can provide further diversity to the habitat feature, and support additional flora and fauna.

Regenerative Maintain areas of Although its seed is deeply dormant, requiring two cold winters to germinate, DEFENCE SCIENCE potential disturbed and Juniper seeds appear only to remain viable in the soil for a few years. Seedlings take & TECHNOLOGY eroding bare ground 4-9 years to reach sexual maturity. LABORATORY. 2016 at a level which is compatible with Having the ability to provide some areas of exposed bare ground may be required to WILKINS T.C. & J.C. maintaining or encourage natural regeneration of juniper plants in order to sustain the feature into DUCKWORTH (2011). restoring the the longer-term. Episodes of intense bare ground creation need to be followed by regenerative periods of little or no disturbance (Wilkins, 2011). potential of the H5130 feature.

Page 21 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) Structure and Functional Maintain the overall This recognises the potential need at this site to maintain or restore the connectivity DEFENCE SCIENCE function connectivity extent, quality and of the site to its wider landscape in order to meet the conservation objectives. & TECHNOLOGY (including its with wider function of any LABORATORY. 2016 typical landscape supporting features These connections may take the form of landscape features, such as habitat patches, species) within the local hedges, watercourses and verges, outside of the designated site boundary which are PLANTLIFE, 2007. landscape which either important for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of those typical provide a critical species closely associated with qualifying Annex I habitat features of the site. These functional connection features may also be important to the operation of the supporting ecological with the site. processes on which the designated site and its features may rely. In most cases increasing actual and functional landscape-scale connectivity would be beneficial.

Where there is a lack of detailed knowledge of the connectivity requirements of the qualifying feature, Natural England will advise as to whether these are applicable on a case by case basis.

Juniper populations in Britain retain a high degree of genetic variability, probably related to the mobility of the populations, due to colonisation through seed dispersed by birds (Plantlife Juniperus communis Species Dossier, 2007).

On Porton Down, the ‘Dstl juniper population rejuvenation project’ has taken >2000 cuttings; in 2016, 700 cuttings had survived, with the mature ones being planted out in Bottom Met Field and Townend Field (off the SSSI and SAC), and the smaller plants put into a nursery bed.

Adaptation and Maintain the H5130 See the supporting/explanatory notes for this attribute in table 1 above. WILKINS, T.C. & J.C. resilience feature's ability, and DUCKWORTH (2011). that of its supporting Juniper requires two cold winters to break seed dormancy and germinate; therefore, processes, to adapt increasingly mild winters pose a risk to this process (Wilkins, 2011). or evolve to wider environmental Young seedlings are highly susceptible to summer drought. change, either within or external to the On Salisbury Plain, in 2015, approximately 50 mature bushes were found dying or site. dead on Beacon Hill. Phytophthora austrocedri was subsequently diagnosed by Forest Research as being present in the soil, potentially connected with the die-off. DIO have received a Plant Health Notice and are putting in place precautions for avoiding or minimising further spread on the Plain.

Supporting Air quality Restore the See the supporting/explanatory notes for this attribute in table 1 above. More information processes concentrations and about site-relevant Page 22 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) (on which the deposition of air For Salisbury Plain SAC, APIS currently provides the following figures: Critical Loads and feature relies) pollutants to below Levels for this SAC is the site-relevant For Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands, the Critical available by using the Critical Load or Level Load is 15-25 kg N/ha/yr; with actual N deposition averaging 27.9 kg N/ha/yr i.e. the ‘search by site’ tool on values given for this Critical Load is being exceeded. the Air Pollution feature of the site on Information System the Air Pollution Exceedance impacts are: increase in tall grasses, decline in diversity, increased (www.apis.ac.uk). Information System mineralization, N leaching and surface acidification. (www.apis.ac.uk).

Conservation Maintain the Active and ongoing conservation management is needed to protect, maintain or ASH D. (2000), measures management restore this feature at this site. Further details about the necessary conservation measures (either measures for this site can be provided by contacting Natural England. DEFENCE SCIENCE within and/or outside & TECHNOLOGY the site boundary as This information will typically be found within, where applicable, supporting LABORATORY. 2016 appropriate) which documents such as Natura 2000 Site Improvement Plan, Site Management are necessary to Strategies or Plans, the Views about Management Statement for the underpinning DEFENCE ESTATES maintain the SSSI and/or management agreements. 2005 structure, functions and supporting For this feature, conservation measures include grazing, cutting, scrub management, DEFENCE ESTATES. processes weed control. Retention of suitable land use infrastructure/patterns to enable site 1996. associated with the management e.g. pastoral livestock farming. H5130 feature. DEFENCE ESTATES. On Salisbury Plain, on Beacon Hill, with steep slopes and thin soils, the predominant 2004 grazing animal is the rabbit, which maintains the chalk grassland and prevents scrub re-growth but at the same time inhibits juniper establishment. On the Bulford Ranges, DEFENCE ESTATES. cattlegrazing is now established. Since 1996, 16 exclosures were installed for juniper 2004 and marsh fritillary butterflies, covering 10.8 ha. These are now generally successful in excluding rabbits and cattle, and along with favourable conditions for seed survival DEFENCE ESTATES. and germination in certain years, have resulted in a new cohort of seedlings and 2005 AND 2009 young trees. DEFENCE On Salisbury Plain, Super Unit Management Plans 28 (Bulford Ranges) and 27 INFRASTRUCTURE (Beacon Hill) cater for the juniper population, including ‘improvement maps’ which ORGANISATION. identify areas for clearing scrub and treating stumps, whilst retaining juniper bushes. 2011

On Porton Down, the ‘Dstl juniper population rejuvenation project’ has taken >2000 cuttings and collected and planted berries in mammal-proof cages.

Page 23 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) In 2016, 700 cuttings had survived, with the mature ones being planted out in Bottom Met Field and Townend Field (off the SSSI), and the smaller plants put into a nursery bed. Whilst some of the planted berries germinated (x84 in 2013) they failed later due to climate.tThe provision of rabbit exclosures for juniper regeneration was recommended by Ash in 2000 but this has not yet been implemented due to the practical challenges of controlling the rabbits.

Version Control Advice last updated: n/a Variations from national feature-framework of integrity-guidance: Inserted a row for ‘shading’ as this is a key problem for juniper.

Page 24 of 30

Table 3: Supplementary Advice for Qualifying Features: S1065 marsh fritillary butterfly Euphydryas aurinia

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) Supporting Vegetation Maintain appropriate The larval food-plant grows on calcareous, as well as neutral, grassland, but this BOTHAM M.S. et al. habitat: structure - grassland sward habitat is drier and more prone to drought; so the sward height should be longer to (2010). structure/ sward conditions, with a typical ensure the Succisa is usable by the larvae. function height sward height of (calcareous approximately 20 cm Botham et al. (2010) found that a sward height of 20cm, plus or minus, was optimal grassland) (during summer months). in the unfragmented landscape of Salisbury Plain for creating the right microclimate for larvae.

The main marsh fritillary population occurs on Salisbury Plain, with only a small colony on the edge of The Bowl, near Tower Hill, on Porton Down, and occasional records for Parsonage Down.

Supporting Extent of Maintain the total extent In order to contribute towards the objective of achieving an overall favourable habitat: extent supporting of the habitat which conservation status of the feature at a UK level, it is important to maintain or if and habitat supports the marsh appropriate restore the extent of supporting habitats and their range within this distribution fritillary feature at: SAC. 13,247.86 ha on Salisbury Plain and 855 ha on The information available on the extent and distribution of supporting habitat used Porton Down. by the feature may be approximate depending on the nature, age and accuracy of data collection, and may be subject to periodic review in light of improvements in Restore the total extent of data. the habitat which supports the marsh fritillary feature to: 186.27 ha on Parsonage Down.

Supporting Vegetation Maintain an abundance of The feature's larval foodplant Succisa, should be common enough in the sward that DEFENCE habitat: composition devil’s-bit scabious there will always be a good and continuous number of suitable plants for egg-laying; INFRASTRUCTURE structure/ - presence Succisa pratensis within this is particularly important on calcareous grassland sites, which are more prone to ORGANISATION. function of food- supporting grassland drought. Unpublished Succisa plants habitat. pratensis and Providing both the sward structure to protect the butterfly and grazing sufficiently to butterfly distribution promote species-richness, including occasional or localised bare ground for devil’s- maps – including bit scabious regeneration, is needed. core areas and potential areas. ‘Core’ marsh fritillary habitat has been identified and mapped on Salisbury Plain, based on Succisa abundance. PYWELL R.F. et al. Page 25 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) 2012. The grazing system on the Plain involves temporary eight-hectare pennings with a high stocking density, in place for two to three weeks before moving onto the next patch. The Farm Management Plans also cater for ‘Grazing Special Restrictions’ where some areas are grazed less frequently, only once every two or three years.

Pywell et al. (2012) observed a varying density and seeming cyclicity of Succisa, changing from rare to abundant and vice versa in the monitoring plots, especially within burnt areas, during the relatively short study period (2007 -11).

Supporting Ground Maintain high levels of Sward height should be long enough during spring/ summer months that the larval habitat: moisture ground moisture during food-plant does not become excessively dry or dessicated (especially important on structure/ the summer months to calcareous grassland sites). function avoid dessication of the Succisa plants on which the larvae feed. Supporting Grazing Maintain a cattle- Cattle grazing is known to be preferable as it produces a less uniform sward; also processes (on pressure dominated grazing regime sheep tend to selectively graze the Succisa, which is likely to be detrimental to which the on core areas for marsh marsh fritillary populations. Providing both the sward structure to protect the feature and/or fritillary. butterfly and grazing sufficiently to promote species-richness, including occasional its supporting or localised bare ground for devil’s-bit scabious regeneration, is needed. habitat relies) The grazing system on the Plain involves temporary eight-hectare pennings with a high stocking density, in place for two to three weeks before moving onto the next patch.

DIO’s Farm Management Plans set three levels of grazing: ‘without restriction’, ‘within guidelines’ and ‘special restrictions’. The first requires long grass margins, otherwise no constraint on timing or stocking levels; the second requires long grass margins and specifies stocking levels; and the third requires long grass margins and sets specific management within mapped polygons e.g. grazing may be restricted to only 30 or 50% of that area per year. The basic stocking rate used is 0.3 LSU per ha per year, on the chalk grassland. Ultimately, grazing pressure depends on the number of temporary pennings the farmers have out over the year, which is specified in the Farm Management Plans.

Population (of Population Maintain the abundance This will ensure there is a viable population of the feature which is being maintained HOBSON R. AND T. the feature) abundance of the SAC’s marsh at or increased to a level that contributes as appropriate to its Favourable WIGGLESWORTH. fritillary population at the Conservation Status across its natural range in the UK. 2001. Page 26 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) levels below, whilst BULMAN CR. 2002. avoiding deterioration Due to the dynamic nature of population change, the target-value given for the PYWELL, R.F. et al. from its current level as population size or presence of this feature is considered to be the minimum 2012. indicated by the latest standard for conservation/restoration measures to achieve. This minimum-value mean peak count or may be revised where there is evidence to show that a population’s size or equivalent. presence has significantly changed as a result of natural factors or management measures and has been stable at or above a new level over a considerable period The Centre = Extra large (generally at least 10 years). The values given here may also be updated in future population (>10,000 larval to reflect any strategic objectives which may be set at a national level for this webs) feature. The West = Very large population (>1,000 larval Given the likely fluctuations in numbers over time, any impact-assessments should webs) focus on the current size of the site’s population, as derived from the latest known The East = Large or estimated level established using the best available data. This advice accords population (>100 larval with the obligation to avoid deterioration of the site or significant disturbance of the webs) species for which the site is designated, and seeks to avoid plans or projects that may affect the site giving rise to the risk of deterioration. Similarly, where there is evidence to show that a feature has historically been more abundant than the stated minimum target and its current level, the ongoing capacity of the site to accommodate the feature at such higher levels in future should also be taken into account in any assessment.

Unless otherwise stated, the population size or presence will be that measured using standard methods, such as peak mean counts or breeding surveys. This value is also provided recognising there will be inherent variability as a result of natural fluctuations and margins of error during data collection. Whilst we will endeavour to keep these values as up to date as possible, local Natural England staff can advise that the figures stated are the best available.

For this feature counting the conspicuous larval webs is a good measure of population density; as well as the more standardised transect counts of adults. Natural England is of the opinion that an investigative approach is more valuable than attempting wide-scale counts, given the size of the site and variation in population levels year on year. Population (of Supporting Maintain the connectivity Marsh fritillaries survive in ‘meta-populations’ formed by a number of BOTHAM, M.S. et al, the feature) meta- of the marsh fritillary SAC subpopulations (linked by occasional migration) which may frequently die out and 2010. populations population to its re-establish. Marsh fritillary colonies will move between sites or to different habitat associated meta- patches within sites in response to changing ecological conditions. populations (either within

Page 27 of 30

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site- based evidence (where available) or outside of the site These meta-populations are reliant on the conservation of a cluster of suitable sites boundary) in close proximity to enable this (re)colonisation.

Adult butterflies tend to be sedentary but some individuals will disperse and have been known to move up to 15-20km away; and remain in a series of linked meta- populations, forming numerous temporary sub-populations, which frequently die out and re-colonise. Where unable to do this, populations do not seem to be able to persist in habitat fragments. It is therefore essential to conserve a cluster of sites in close proximity.

The connectivity of the wider local landscape to the SAC may therefore be important as this may help to ensure the survival of the overall population even if sub-populations are temporarily affected.

Version Control Advice last updated: not applicable Variations from national feature-framework of integrity-guidance: Sward height target increased based on Botham et al (2010). Grazing pressure: Text amended to better fit the temporary grazing pennings system on Salisbury Plain.

Page 28 of 30

References

ASH D., 2000. Species Action Plan for Juniper - component plan for Integrated Land Management Plan, CBD, DERA Porton Down.

BOTHAM M.S. et al. 2010. The effects of habitat fragmentation on niche requirements of the marsh fritillary, Euphydryas aurinia (Rottemburg, 1775) on calcareous grasslands in southern UK. J. Insect Conserv. 15, (1-2), 269-277.

BULMAN, C.R. 2002. Historical and current records of marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia) on Salisbury Plain and Pewsey Down (pre 1970 to 2001) Butterfly Conservation Report, Defence Estates, May 2002.

DEFENCE ESTATES, 2005. Juniper Management Plan Review & Update 2005, June 2005

DEFENCE ESTATES ORGANISATION, 2005. Juniper Management Plan - Review & Update. Defence Estates.

DEFENCE INFRASTRUCTURE ORGANISATION (DEO), 2010. Salisbury Plain Nature Conservation Super Unit Management Plans 2010-2015, DIO.

DEFENCE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, 2016. Dstl Porton Down Site Ecological Plan, Dstl (and annually).

DEFENCE ESTATES ORGANISATION, 1996. Juniper Management Plan, September 1996.

DEFENCE ESTATES ORGANISATION, 2004. Beacon Hill Woodland Management Plan, July 2004

DEFENCE ESTATES ORGANISATION, 2004. The Bulford Ranges Scots Pine Management Plan, July 2004

DEFENCE ESTATES ORGANISATION, 2005 & 2009. Bulford and Beacon Hill Rabbit Exclosure Reports 2005 and 2009, September 2005 and March 2009

DEFENCE INFRASTRUCTURE ORGANISATION, 2011. Super Unit Management Plans 2010-2015, April 2011.

HOBSON R. & WIGGLESWORTH, T. 2001. The marsh fritillary in Wiltshire: site dossier. Butterfly Conservation Report to English Nature.

LARGE, R. & HALES, S. 2015. Mapping connectivity of species-rich grassland habitat in the Wiltshire Chalk landscape. Report to Natural England

NATURAL ENGLAND, 2015. Climate Change Theme Plan and supporting National Biodiversity Climate Change Vulnerability assessments (NBCCVAs) for SACs and SPAs in England [Available at http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4954594591375360

NATURAL ENGLAND, 2015. Site Improvement Plan for Salisbury Plain SAC (SIP209) http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5384236060114944

NATURAL ENGLAND, 2016. Parsonage Down National Nature Reserve Management Plan 2015-2020, Natural England

PLANTLIFE, 2007. Juniperus communis Species Dossier.

PYWELL, R.F. et al., 1998. Ecological survey of Salisbury Plain Training Area 1996-7. NERC contract report to MoD and Defence Estates Organisation.

PYWELL, R.F. et al. 2012. Ecological monitoring of the Defence Training Estate Salisbury Plain: 2007 – 2011. NERC CEH, 2012. See Chapter 9 – Management to conserve the marsh fritillary butterfly.

RODWELL, J.S. (Ed) 1992. British Plant Communities Volume 3 - Grasslands and montane communities Cambridge University Press.

SALISBURY PLAIN CONSERVATION GROUP. Porton Down Juniper survey 2011-13.

WARD, L.K. (1973). The conservation of juniper: The present status of juniper in southern England. J. Appl. Ecol., 10, 165-188.

WARD L.K. (1977). The conservation of juniper: the associated fauna with special reference to southern England. J. Appl. Ecol. 14, 81-120.

WARD L. K. AND K. H. LAKHANI (1977) The conservation of juniper: the fauna of foodplant island sites in southern England. J. Appl. Ecol. 14, 121-135.

WILKINS T.C. & J.C. DUCKWORTH (2011). Breaking new ground for juniper – a management handbook for lowland England. Plantlife, UK

WILSON, P.J. & REED, M.E., 1991. A botanical survey and assessment of the calcareous grassland of the Porton Ranges, Wiltshire and Hampshire. Report to English Nature, South Region, 1991.

WILSON, P.J. & REED, M.E. 2007. NVC Survey of Porton Down SSSI. Report to Natural England.

WILD R.,1998. Parsonage Down NNR, National Vegetation Classification survey. Report to Nature Conservancy Council.

Page 30 of 30

APPENDIX 5

Conservation Objectives for Bath and Bradford on Avon Bats SAC

European Site Conservation Objectives for Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bats Special Area of Conservation Site Code: UK0012584

With regard to the SAC and the natural habitats and/or species for which the site has been designated (the ‘Qualifying Features’ listed below), and subject to natural change;

 The extent and distribution of the habitats of qualifying species  The structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species  The supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely  The populations of qualifying species, and,  The distribution of qualifying species within the site.

Qualifying Features:

S1303. Rhinolophus hipposideros; Lesser horseshoe bat S1304. Rhinolophus ferrumequinum; Greater horseshoe bat S1323. Myotis bechsteinii; Bechstein`s bat

Explanatory Notes: European Site Conservation Objectives

Publication date: 27 November 2018 (version 3). This document updates and replaces an earlier version dated 30 June 2014 to reflect the consolidation of the Habitats Regulations in 2017.

APPENDIX 6

European Site Conservation Objectives: Draft Supplementary Advice for conserving and restoring site features, Bath and Bradford on Avon Bats SAC

European Site Conservation Objectives: Draft Supplementary advice on conserving and restoring site features

Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bats Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Site Code: UK0012584

Date of Publication: February 2019

Page 1 of 19 About this document

This document provides Natural England’s supplementary advice about the European Site Conservation Objectives relating to Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bats SAC.

This advice should therefore be read together with the SAC Conservation Objectives available here.

This advice is draft pending comments from the site’s stakeholders. In the interim you should use the Conservation Objectives, this Supplementary Advice and any case-specific advice given by Natural England, when developing, proposing or assessing an activity, plan or project that may affect this site.

These tables do not give advice about SSSI features or other legally protected species which may also be present within the European Site.

If you have any comments or queries about this Supplementary Advice document please contact your local Natural England adviser or email [email protected]

Page 2 of 19 About this site

European Site information

Name of European Site Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bats Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

Location Avon and Wiltshire

Site Map The designated boundary of this site can be viewed here on the MAGIC website. There are 10 separate areas each with its own boundary. Some areas are very small and require zooming-in to be able to see them

Designation Date 1 April 2005

Qualifying Features See section below

Designation Area 107.16 ha

Designation Changes N/A

Feature Condition Status Details of the feature condition assessments made at this site can be found using Natural England’s Designated Sites System

Names of component Box Mine SSSI Sites of Special Scientific Brown’s Folly SSSI Interest (SSSIs) Combe Down and Bathampton Down Mines SSSI Winsley Mines SSSI

The SSSI boundaries and the SAC boundary are the same.

Relationship with other N/A European or International Site designations

Site background and geography

The ten discrete areas of the SAC are distributed over a wide geographical area crossing the county boundary between Avon and Wiltshire, to the south and east of Bath in the triangle specifically between Bath and Corsham in the north and Winsley in the south. The SAC sits within National Character Area 107: Cotswolds. The local landscape setting is one of steep scarp slopes of usually grazed pasture, with incised river valleys and thin, limey soils on bedrock; high open wold which is often cultivated as arable land with thin, brashy soils and fields divided by stone walls; and a long and rolling dip slope facing broadly towards the south-east with deeper, less lime-rich soils, hedgerows dividing the fields, and with more varied, mixed farming. These landforms have developed on the underlying oolitic Jurassic Limestone which stretches in a swathe from the Jurassic Coast of Dorset to Lincolnshire. The limestone is famed in the area as a building material for buildings and stone walls, and the mining of it has created the underground voids used by bats for hibernation. The SAC has three qualifying bat features: lesser horseshoe bat, greater horseshoe bat and Bechstein’s bat.

The SAC sites are all abandoned limestone mines and some include areas of supporting habitat: broadleaved woodland and species rich calcareous grassland. The surrounding landscape provides feeding and commuting opportunities for the bats between the component sites of this SAC, between this and other bat SAC sites (the closest bat SAC sites are Mells Valley SAC, Chilmark Quarries SAC, and North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC), and other undesignated roosts, vital in supporting the bats throughout the different phases of their life cycle. There is known to be movement and interchange of Page 3 of 19 greater horseshoe bats between Winsley Mines and undesignated roosts at Bradford-on-Avon 2.5km away, and a ringed greater horseshoe bats from Woodchester Park SSSI in Gloucestershire has been re-captured at Winsley Mines, nearly 40km away. Successful breeding, hibernation, swarming and dispersal are all critical in sustaining the bat populations; these rely on an interconnected landscape for ease of movement, and linked sites for mixing of genepools. Features of significance within the wider landscape are watercourses, woodland, grazed pasture, parkland, hay meadows, hedgerows, linear trees, scrub and individual feature trees.

In the past, caving groups and other interested parties would visit and explore the mines infrequently. Today, the mines and mine entrances are all in private ownership, and in view of their dangerous and collapsing states, are almost exclusively grilled to prevent unauthorised human access whilst still providing openings for bats to fly through. Many people and groups still try to access the mines and the risk of disturbance to the bats both inside the mines and immediately outside the entrances, is high. There is also a revival in mining some of the stone mines in the wider area, with the risk of reducing the number of sites available to bats.

The SAC as a whole supports 15% of the UK population of Greater Horseshoe bats.

Page 4 of 19 About the qualifying features of the SAC

The following section gives you additional, site-specific information about this SAC’s qualifying features. These are the natural habitats and/or species for which this SAC has been designated.

Qualifying Habitats:

None.

Qualifying Species:

• S1303. Lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros

The lesser horseshoe bat is one of the smallest bats in the UK, found exclusively in Wales, the West Midlands and South West England. In winter they hibernate in caves, mines and other cave-like places, ideally selecting places where the temperature remains stable during the prolonged hibernation period. During the summer they form maternity colonies in old buildings and emerge to hunt in nearby woodland. The species prefers to hunt in sheltered valleys with extensive deciduous woods or dense scrub, along woodland edges and field margins, and over wetland, riparian habitats and pasture. Where habitat is fragmented, linear features such as hedgerows, tree lines and stone walls are important corridors between roosts and foraging areas. Summer and winter roosts are usually less than 5-10 km apart. The bats are vulnerable to the loss or disturbance of both summer and winter roost sites and the removal of linear habitat corridors.

This complex of sites straddling the county boundaries of east Avon and west Wiltshire contains a proportion of the hibernating lesser horseshoe bats totalling about up to 2% of the UK population. The bats also hibernate in lower numbers in many other disused mines in the area and rely on the surrounding extensive woodland and grazed pastures with good quality hedgerows for their flightlines and feeding grounds.

• S1304. Greater horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum

The greater horseshoe bat is one of the largest bats in the UK, found in Wales and South West England. In winter they depend on caves, abandoned mines and other underground sites for undisturbed hibernation. A system or series of sites is required, offering a range of temperatures and air-flow patterns. During the summer, the bats form maternity colonies, generally in large old buildings, and forage in pasture, edges of mixed deciduous woodland and hedgerows. Such mixed land-use, especially on south-facing slopes, favours the beetles, moths and other insects on which the bats feed. Summer and winter roosts are usually less than 20-30 km apart. The bats are vulnerable to the loss of insect food supplies due to insecticide use, changing farming practices and the loss of broad-leaved tree-cover, and to the loss or disturbance of underground roost sites.

This complex of hibernation sites juxtaposed between the counties of Avon and Wiltshire in the central part of its range, supports up to 15% of the UK population. The SAC contains at least one maternity roost for these bats, but only the hibernating population is a qualifying feature of the SAC and a principal known maternity roost is at Iford Manor SSSI, several kilometres to the south of the site. The bats also hibernate in many of the other disused mines in the area that lie outside of the SAC and rely on the surrounding extensive woodland and grazed pastures with good quality hedgerows for their flightlines and feeding grounds.

• S1323. Bechstein’s bat Myotis bechsteinii

Bechstein’s bat is one of the UK’s rarest bats, found in central southern England and the southern Welsh borders. Its ecology is relatively poorly-known. Caves and abandoned mines may be used for hibernation, though it is possible that the bats also remain in woodland roosts during the winter.

Page 5 of 19 Maternity roosts are typically in woodpecker nest holes, generally in old growth, ancient semi-natural, deciduous woodlands of at least 25 ha and ideally above 50 ha in size. This might equally well be composed of a network of well-connected smaller woodlands. Woods tend to have a closed canopy and a dense, “cluttered” understorey, ideal for foraging. They are particularly sensitive to intensive woodland management and woodland removal, and artificial light, seeking out dark corridors along which to commute.

In relation to this SAC site certain of the abandoned stone mines are known to be particularly important for swarming in late summer and autumn, but due to their crevice-dwelling nature and extremely quiet and difficult to differentiate echo-locating sound, Bechstein’s bats have not been recorded in large numbers hibernating within the SAC. Considerably more is known about the maternity roost sites (found for example to the south east of Trowbridge) than the specific attributes and locations of the bats’ hibernation sites, but these are not a qualifying feature of the SAC.

All UK bat species and their roosts are fully protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as ‘European Protected Species’. A Licence may therefore be required for any activities likely to harm or disturb bats.

Page 6 of 19 Site-specific seasonality of SAC features The table below highlights in grey those months in which significant numbers of each mobile qualifying feature are most likely to be present at the SAC during a typical calendar year. This table is provided as a general guide only.

Unless otherwise indicated, the months shown below are primarily based on information relating to the general months of occurrence of the feature in the UK. Where site-based evidence is available and has been used to indicate below that significant numbers of the feature are typically present at this SAC outside of the general period, the site-specific references have been added to indicate this.

Applicants considering projects and plans scheduled in the periods highlighted in grey would benefit from early consultation with Natural England given the greater scope for there to be likely significant effects that require consideration of mitigation to minimise impacts to qualifying features during the principal periods of site usage by those features. The months which are not highlighted in grey are not ones in which the features are necessarily absent, rather that features may be present in less significant numbers in typical years. Furthermore, in any given year, features may occur in significant numbers in months in which typically they do not. Thus, applicants should not conclude that projects or plans scheduled in months not highlighted in grey cannot have a significant effect on the features. There may be a lower likelihood of significant effects in those months which nonetheless will also require prior consideration.

Any assessment of potential impacts on the features must be based on up-to-date count data and take account of population trends evident from these data and any other available information.

Feature Season Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lesser horseshoe bat, Hibernation Rhinolophus hipposideros Greater horseshoe bat, Hibernation Rhinolophus ferrumequinum Bechstein's bat, Hibernation Myotis bechsteini

Page 7 of 19 Table 1: Supplementary Advice for Qualifying Features: S1303. Rhinolophus hipposideros; Lesser horseshoe bat S1304. Rhinolophus ferrumequinum; Greater horseshoe bat S1323. Myotis bechsteinii; Bechstein’s bat

Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available)

Population Population Maintain the abundance of the This will ensure there is a viable population of the feature which NATURAL ENGLAND, March (of the abundance - populations above the baseline is being maintained at or increased to a level that contributes 2009. Box Mine SSSI Favourable features) hibernation population-sizes at the time of as appropriate to its Favourable Conservation Status across its Condition Tables. Available from site SAC designation, whilst avoiding natural range in the UK. Due to the dynamic nature of Natural England on request. deterioration from current levels. population change, the target-value given for the population size of this feature is considered to be the minimum standard NATURAL ENGLAND, March Baseline population levels are for conservation/restoration measures to achieve. This 2009. Winsley Mines SSSI not currently available for any of minimum-value may be revised where there is evidence to Favourable Condition Tables. the qualifying bat species (see show that a population’s size or presence has significantly Available from Natural England ‘Supporting and Explanatory changed as a result of natural factors or management on request. Notes’ section). measures and has been stable at or above a new level over a considerable period (generally at least 10 years). The values STEBBINGS, R.E., 1992. The given here may also be updated in future to reflect any Greywell Tunnel: An strategic objectives which may be set at a national level for this Internationally Important Haven feature. for Bats. Peterborough. English Nature. Given the likely fluctuations in numbers over time, any impact- assessments should focus on the current size of the site’s Monitoring data held by Natural population, as derived from the latest known or estimated level England. established using the best available data. This advice accords with the obligation to avoid deterioration of the site or significant disturbance of the species for which the site is designated, and seeks to avoid plans or projects that may affect the site giving rise to the risk of deterioration. Similarly, where there is evidence to show that a feature has historically been more abundant than the stated minimum target and its current level, the ongoing capacity of the site to accommodate the feature at such higher levels in future should also be taken into account in any assessment.

The population size or presence will be that measured using standard methods, such as peak mean counts at component sites where entry to the mines/roost spaces is feasible. At sites where entry to roost spaces is not possible, other recording methods will need to be developed, that are likely to be less Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available)

accurate. Any population size value is also provided recognising there will be inherent variability as a result of natural fluctuations and margins of error during data collection. Whilst we will endeavour to keep these values as up to date as possible, local Natural England staff can advise whether the figures stated are the best available.

Monitoring visits can only provide an indication of abundance. The overall number of bats using the SAC will be higher. Only selected areas of the extensive mine systems are surveyed. For example, at Box Mine prior to 1997 the whole system was surveyed for bats; from 1997 onwards only 10-15% of the mine system was surveyed along specific transects which were selected as representative because they incorporated the highest densities of bats. At Winsley Mines the whole system is surveyed, but the survey coverage has expanded over time as new parts of the mine were rediscovered. Numbers of bats seen on a particular visit will depend on many factors including weather conditions at the time. In-hand identification is required to confirm Bechstein’s from other Myotis/crevice- dwelling species, further limiting the coverage of cave surveys. In addition, for underground stone mines it is estimated as few as 5-8% of crevice-using bats might be seen, while the remainder are hidden (Stebbings, 1992).

Baseline population levels are not currently available for any of the qualifying bat species due to the extensive nature of the SAC and the considerable logistical difficulties of surveying the sites. Robust surveys are available for some of the component sites and these are summarised below.

Lesser horseshoe bat Box Mine SSSI: • 1983-1985: Mean peak count = 3, Highest count = 10 (Dec 1983) • 1997-2014: Mean peak count = 197, Highest count = 452 (Jan 2014)

Winsley Mine SSSI: • 1977-1988: Mean peak count = 1-2, Highest count = 6

Page 9 of 19 Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available)

(Dec 1984)

Greater horseshoe bat Box mine SSSI: • 1983-1985: Mean peak count = 79, Highest count = 125 (Dec 1984) • 1997-2014: Mean peak count = 145, Highest count = 281 (winter 2006/2007)

Winsley Mines SSSI: • 1977-1988: Mean peak count = 38 (1977-1988), Highest count = 56 (April 1985)

Bechstein’s bat Numbers of hibernating Bechstein’s recorded are low. The species has not been recorded at every component site (records are from Box Mine and Brown’s Folly), nor during every survey, but this does not necessarily mean it was not present. Bechstein’s have regularly been recorded during autumn swarming surveys at Box Mine and Brown’s Folly suggesting that these sites may be used for hibernation. Supporting Extent of Maintain the total extent of the In order to contribute towards the objective of achieving an NATURAL ENGLAND, March habitat: supporting habitats which support the overall favourable conservation status of the feature at a UK 2009. Box Mine SSSI Favourable extent and habitat features. level, it is important to maintain or if appropriate restore the Condition Tables. Available from distribution extent of supporting habitats and their range within this SAC. Natural England on request. The information available on the extent and distribution of supporting habitat used by the feature may be approximate NATURAL ENGLAND, March depending on the nature, age and accuracy of data collection, 2009. Brown’s Folly SSSI and may be subject to periodic review in light of improvements Favourable Condition Tables. in data. Available from Natural England on request. The total area of the SAC is 106.45 ha comprising above- ground land containing the mine entrances at each site and NATURAL ENGLAND, March most (but not all) of the underground extent. The habitats which 2009. Combe Down and support the feature are proportioned approximately as follows: Bathampton Down Mines SSSI Favourable Condition Tables. • Broadleaved deciduous woodland: 44 ha Available from Natural England • Mines: 59 ha on request. • Semi-natural grassland and scrub mosaic: 4 ha NATURAL ENGLAND, March

Page 10 of 19 Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available)

2009. Winsley Mines SSSI Favourable Condition Tables. Available from Natural England on request. Supporting Distribution of Maintain the distribution and A contraction in the range, or geographic spread, of the feature habitat: supporting continuity of the features and (and its component vegetation) across the site will reduce its extent and habitat their supporting habitats, overall area, the local diversity and variations in its structure distribution including where applicable the and composition, and may undermine its resilience to adapt to component vegetation types and future environmental changes. Contraction may also reduce associated transitional vegetation and break up the continuity of a habitat within a site and how types, across the site well the species feature is able to occupy and use habitat within the site. Such fragmentation may have a greater amount of open edge habitat which will differ in the amount of light, temperature, wind, and even noise that it receives compared to its interior. These conditions may not be suitable for this feature and this may affect its viability. Supporting External Maintain the structural integrity of Changes in air flow conditions at the entrances are likely to CHALKHILL ENVIRONMENTAL habitat: condition of the entrances, with no recent have a negative effect on the temperature and humidity of the CONSULTANTS, 2001. Box Mine structure/ underground collapses/falls or signs of roost within the underground part of the site, and increases in SSSI: baseline assessment of function site - geological instability. light levels at the entrances may affect bat usage, and/or cause underground bat roost SSSI hibernation disturbance to bats roosting within. entrances. Report for English Maintain the external condition of Nature. Available from Natural the site, with vegetation (where There should be no recent collapses/falls or new signs of England on request. present) close to entrances, but geological instability at roost entrances, as collapses could not obstructing them. No artificial obstruct bat access, and alter air flows into the mines CHALKHILL ENVIRONMENTAL lights shining on entrances. CONSULTANTS, 2001. Winsley Vegetation is required close to the entrances to enable bats to Mines SSSI: baseline feel secure enough to leave at dusk rather than delaying until assessment of underground bat fully dark. Any lights shining on the entrances are likely to deter roost SSSI entrances. Report for the bats from leaving. English Nature. Available from Natural England on request. Vegetation (grassland/scrub/woodland) directly surrounding the entrances is important for the maintenance of optimal humidity NATURAL ENGLAND, March conditions inside the mine systems and also as foraging areas. 2009. Box Mine SSSI Favourable The structure of surrounding woodland should be maintained. Condition Tables. Available from Natural England on request.

NATURAL ENGLAND, March 2009. Brown’s Folly SSSI Favourable Condition Tables. Available from Natural England Page 11 of 19 Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available)

on request.

NATURAL ENGLAND, March 2009. Combe Down and Bathampton Down Mines SSSI Favourable Condition Tables. Available from Natural England on request.

NATURAL ENGLAND, March 2009. Winsley Mines SSSI Favourable Condition Tables. Available from Natural England on request.

This attribute will be periodically monitored as part of Natural England’s site condition assessments. Supporting Internal Maintain appropriate light levels, Lesser horseshoe bat NATURAL ENGLAND, March habitat: condition of humidity, temperature and The preferred temperature of lesser horseshoe hibernation 2009. Box Mine SSSI Favourable structure/ underground ventilation. sites is a stable 6-7⁰C, with humidity approaching 100% Condition Tables. Available from function site - (Schofield, 2008). Natural England on request. hibernation Maintain the structural integrity of the roost space. Greater horseshoe bat, Bechstein’s bat NATURAL ENGLAND, March There is currently insufficient information available in the 2009. Brown’s Folly SSSI academic press to provide specific targets on humidity, Favourable Condition Tables. temperature, light levels and ventilation preferred by the Available from Natural England species during the hibernation period. Maintain stable cool and on request. dark conditions. NATURAL ENGLAND, March 2009. Combe Down and Bathampton Down Mines SSSI Favourable Condition Tables. Available from Natural England on request.

NATURAL ENGLAND, March 2009. Winsley Mines SSSI Favourable Condition Tables. Available from Natural England Page 12 of 19 Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available)

on request.

SCHOFIELD, H. 2008. The Lesser Horseshoe Bat Conservation Handbook. Vincent Wildlife Trust. Supporting Roost access Maintain the number of access This will prevent any negative internal climatic changes within Access point locations are held habitat: points to the roosts, at an optimal the roost and maintain the ability of bats to freely enter and by Natural England. This structure/ size and in an unlit and leave the roost as necessary. Normal minima dimensions: information is sensitive and function unobstructed state, with • lesser horseshoe bats: 300 x 200mm requirements for it must be surrounding vegetation providing • greater horseshoe bats: 400 x 300mm discussed with NE. Surveys are sheltered flyways without carried out by licenced persons. obstructing accesses CHALKHILL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, 2001. Box Mine SSSI: baseline assessment of underground bat roost SSSI entrances. Report for English Nature. Available from Natural England on request.

CHALKHILL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, 2001. Winsley Mines SSSI: baseline assessment of underground bat roost SSSI entrances. Report for English Nature. Available from Natural England on request.

This attribute will be periodically monitored as part of Natural England’s site condition assessments. Supporting Supporting Maintain the presence, structure Flightlines will extend beyond the designated site boundary into DIETZ, C., VON HELVERSEN, habitat: off-site and quality of any linear the wider local landscape, and are also important for the O. & NILL, D. 2009. Handbook structure/ habitat landscape features which commute between summer and winter roost sites. of the Bats of Europe and function (flightlines) function as flightlines. Flightlines northwest Africa. A & C Black. should remain unlit, functioning Lesser horseshoe bat as dark corridors. Lesser horseshoes tend to forage within 2.5km of their roost, PARK K.J., JONES G. & though they can travel up to 4km from their roosts to suitable RANSOME R.D. 2000. Torpor, foraging grounds (Schofield, 2008). arousal and activity of hibernating Page 13 of 19 Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available)

Greater Horseshoe Bats Lesser horseshoes commute and forage along linear features (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). over wet grassland and woodland. Permanent pasture and Functional Ecology 14: 580-588. ancient woodland linked with an abundance of tall bushy hedgerows is ideal supporting habitat for this species. SCHOFIELD, H. 2008. The Lesser Horseshoe Bat Greater horseshoe bat Conservation Handbook. Vincent Non-breeding greater horseshoe adults can forage up to 4km Wildlife Trust. from roost sites. For breeding females and juveniles, the distance tends to be roughly half this i.e. 2km. NATURAL ENGLAND (2014). Unpublished bat survey, During the winter greater horseshoe bats emerge every couple assessment and management of weeks for food and water, therefore habitat within the plan: land to the east of, and immediate vicinity of hibernation sites is important (Park, Jones including, Box Quarry Wood, & Ransome 2000). Wadswick. Available from Natural England on request Greater horseshoes commute and forage along linear features, over grazed pasture and in woodland. Permanent pasture and ancient woodland linked with an abundance of tall bushy hedgerows is ideal supporting habitat for this species.

Bechstein’s bat Bechstein's bats don't tend to range far from their roosts, generally up to a maximum distance of 1-2.5km, usually closer to 1km (Dietz et al. 2009). Though, a few breeding females may choose to roost in hedgerow trees, which have connections to the main woodland habitat. Generally forages within deciduous woodland which contain water bodies, occasionally feeding along woodland edge, treelines and hedgerows. Bechstein's bat generally commutes along linear landscape features such as woodland edge and hedgerows, however, they will cross open fields to reach roost sites and foraging areas. Supporting Supporting Maintain any core areas of Roost choice, and the presence of bats within the SAC, is likely DIETZ, C., VON HELVERSEN, habitat: off-site feeding habitat outside of the to be influenced by the site’s ability to provide bats with food O. & NILL, D. 2009. Handbook structure/ habitat SAC boundary that are critical to and shelter. Key feeding areas around a roost, and the of the Bats of Europe and function (foraging the bat features during their commuting routes (or flightlines) between them, will be an northwest Africa. A & C Black. areas) hibernation period important element of sustaining the SAC population. PARK K.J., JONES G. & Feeding areas used by SAC bats may be outside of the SAC RANSOME R.D. 2000. Torpor, boundary but be critical to successful hibernation (these arousal and activity of hibernating Page 14 of 19 Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available)

undesignated areas are sometimes referred to as ‘sustenance Greater Horseshoe Bats zones’ or ‘functionally-linked land’). (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). Functional Ecology 14: 580-588. Lesser horseshoe bat Lesser horseshoes tend to forage within 2.5km of their summer SCHOFIELD, H. 2008. The roost, though they can travel up to 4km from these roosts to Lesser Horseshoe Bat suitable foraging grounds (Schofield, 2008). Within the winter, Conservation Handbook. Vincent their foraging range is reduced, with a mean foraging radius of Wildlife Trust. 1.2 km around hibernation sites reported. Lesser horseshoes commute and forage along linear features over wet grassland and woodland. Permanent pasture and ancient woodland linked with an abundance of tall bushy hedgerows is ideal supporting habitat for this species.

During the winter, lesser horseshoes emerge from hibernacula about once every two weeks for water / food, therefore condition of habitat in the immediate vicinity of hibernacula is very important. Winter prey (e.g. crane-flies, winter gnats, midges, dung flies) is often associated with damp woodland with decaying wood, and grazed pasture with abundant dung.

Greater horseshoe bat Non-breeding greater horseshoe adults can forage up to 4km from roost sites. For breeding females and juveniles, the distance tends to be roughly half this i.e. 2km.

During the winter greater horseshoe bats emerge every couple of weeks for food and water, therefore habitat within the immediate vicinity of hibernation sites is important (Park, Jones & Ransome 2000).

Greater horseshoes commute and forage along linear features, over grazed pasture and in woodland. Permanent pasture and ancient woodland linked with an abundance of tall bushy hedgerows is ideal supporting habitat for this species.

Bechstein’s bat Bechstein's bats don't tend to range far from their roosts, generally up to a maximum distance of 1-2.5km, usually closer to 1km (Dietz et al. 2009). Generally forages within deciduous woodland which contain water bodies, occasionally feeding Page 15 of 19 Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available)

along woodland edge, treelines and hedgerows. Supporting Adaptation Maintain the feature's ability, and This recognises the increasing likelihood of supporting habitat NATURAL ENGLAND. 2015. processes and resilience that of its supporting habitat, to features to absorb or adapt to wider environmental changes. Climate Change Theme Plan and (on which the adapt or evolve to wider Resilience may be described as the ability of an ecological supporting National Biodiversity feature and/or environmental change, either system to cope with, and adapt to environmental stress and Climate Change Vulnerability its supporting within or external to the site change whilst retaining the same basic structure and ways of assessments (‘NBCCVAs’) for habitat relies) functioning. Such environmental changes may include SACs and SPAs in England. changes in sea levels, precipitation and temperature for Available at: example, which are likely to affect the extent, distribution, http://publications.naturalengland. composition and functioning of a feature within a site. The org.uk/publication/495459459137 vulnerability and response of features to such changes will 5360 vary. Using best available information, any necessary or likely adaptation or adjustment by the feature and its management in SHERWIN, H.A., response to actual or expected climatic change should be MONTGOMERY, W.I. & LUNDY, allowed for, as far as practicable, in order to ensure the M.G. 2013. The Impact and feature's long-term viability. Implications of Climate Change for Bats. Mammal Review 43: The overall vulnerability of this SAC to climate change has 171-182. been assessed by Natural England (2015) as being low, taking into account the sensitivity, fragmentation, topography and VOIGT, C.C., SCHNEEBERGER, management of its supporting habitats. This means that this K., VOIGT-HEUCKE, S. & site is considered to be vulnerable overall but is a lower priority LEWANZIK, D. 2011. Rain for further assessment and action. Individual species may be Increases the Energy Cost of Bat more or less vulnerable than their supporting habitat itself. In Flight. Biology Letters 7: 793- many cases, change will be inevitable so appropriate 795. monitoring would be advisable.

Increasing winter temperatures may result in less time in torpor/hibernation e.g. more frequent awakening or earlier spring emergence, requiring more frequent winter feeding and food to be available earlier in the year.

Climate change resilience will be aided by the protection and maintenance of quality feeding habitat close to the roosts.

Increase in the number and spread of tree diseases may lead to a widespread death of trees and/or decline in quality of woodland habitats e.g. ash dieback, acute oak decline, requiring potential replacement of trees both within the SAC and across the SAC landscape.

Page 16 of 19 Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available)

Supporting Air quality Restore concentrations and The supporting habitat of this feature is considered sensitive to More information about site- processes deposition of air pollutants to at changes in air quality. Exceedance of these critical values for relevant Critical Loads and Levels (on which the or below the site-relevant Critical air pollutants may modify the chemical status of its substrate, for this SAC is available by using feature and/or Load or Level values given for accelerating or damaging plant growth, altering its vegetation the ‘search by site’ tool on the Air its supporting this feature of the site on the Air structure and composition (including food-plants) and reducing Pollution Information System habitat relies) Pollution Information System supporting habitat quality and population viability of this feature. (www.apis.ac.uk). (www.apis.ac.uk). Critical Loads and Levels are recognised thresholds below which such harmful effects on sensitive UK habitats will not occur to a significant level, according to current levels of scientific understanding. There are critical levels for ammonia (NH3), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and sulphur dioxide (SO2), and critical loads for nutrient nitrogen deposition and acid deposition. There are currently no critical loads or levels for other pollutants such as Halogens, Heavy Metals, POPs, VOCs or Dusts. These should be considered as appropriate on a case-by-case basis. Ground level ozone is regionally important as a toxic air pollutant but flux-based critical levels for the protection of semi-natural habitats are still under development.

The current levels of nitrogen deposition on the SAC (min. 28.1 kg/ha/yr; max. 35.3 kg/ha/yr; average 29.3 kg/ha/yr, APIS accessed 15 January 2019) exceeds the Critical Load range of 10-20 kg/ha/yr for the supporting habitat (broadleaved deciduous woodland), indicating that restoration is necessary.

It is recognised that achieving this target may be subject to the development, availability and effectiveness of abatement technology and measures to tackle diffuse air pollution, within realistic timescales. Supporting Conservation Maintain the management Active and ongoing conservation management is needed to NATURAL ENGLAND, 2015. processes measures measures (either within and/or protect, maintain or restore this feature at this site. Further Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bats (on which the outside the site boundary as details about the necessary conservation measures for this site SAC Site Improvement Plan feature and/or appropriate) which are necessary can be provided by contacting Natural England. This (SIP). Available at: its supporting to maintain the structure, information will typically be found within, where applicable, http://publications.naturalengland. habitat relies) functions and supporting supporting documents such as Natura 2000 Site Improvement org.uk/publication/456411977246 processes associated with the Plan, site management strategies or plans, the Views about 3104 feature and its supporting Management Statement for the underpinning SSSI and/or habitats. management agreements. ENGLISH NATURE, 2004. A statement of English Nature’s Management for this site includes installing/maintaining grilles views about the management of Page 17 of 19 Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available)

at hibernation roost entrances, preventing disturbance, Box Mine Site of Special maintaining appropriate internal conditions including Scientific Interest (SSSI). temperature, humidity and airflow, maintaining appropriate Available at: vegetation cover around entrances, and ensuring supporting https://designatedsites.naturaleng woodland and nearby foraging areas are optimised. land.org.uk/PDFsForWeb/VAM/1 005600.pdf

ENGLISH NATURE, 2005. A statement of English Nature’s views about the management of Brown’s Folly Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Available at: https://designatedsites.naturaleng land.org.uk/PDFsForWeb/VAM/1 002510.pdf

ENGLISH NATURE, 2004. A statement of English Nature’s views about the management of Combe Down and Bathampton Down Mines SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Available at: https://designatedsites.naturaleng land.org.uk/PDFsForWeb/VAM/1 005602.pdf

ENGLISH NATURE, 2004. A statement of English Nature’s views about the management of Winsley Mines Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Available at: https://designatedsites.naturaleng land.org.uk/PDFsForWeb/VAM/1 005675.pdf Supporting Disturbance Control and minimise human Site should be secured against unauthorised access, which can NATURAL ENGLAND, March processes from human access to roost sites. result in disturbance to bats at critical times of year and which 2009. Box Mine SSSI Favourable (on which the activity can affect their population viability and use of the site. Grilles Condition Tables. Available from feature and/or on site access points should be maintained where present and Natural England on request. Page 18 of 19 Attributes Targets Supporting and Explanatory Notes Sources of site-based evidence (where available) its supporting additional grilles should be installed where necessary. habitat relies) NATURAL ENGLAND, March 2009. Brown’s Folly SSSI Favourable Condition Tables. Available from Natural England on request.

NATURAL ENGLAND, March 2009. Combe Down and Bathampton Down Mines SSSI Favourable Condition Tables. Available from Natural England on request.

NATURAL ENGLAND, March 2009. Winsley Mines SSSI Favourable Condition Tables. Available from Natural England on request.

This attribute will be periodically monitored as part of Natural England’s site condition assessments. Version Control Advice last updated: Variations from national feature-framework of integrity-guidance: 1) Attribute: ‘External condition of building - maternity colony’ – removed as not a maternity colony. 2) Attribute: ‘External condition of building - hibernation site’ – removed as hibernation site is not a building. 3) Attribute: ‘Internal condition of building or underground roost – hibernation’ – the internal condition attributes and targets are relevant but added the word “underground” and deleted the words “building” and “maternity”. Under Supporting and Explanatory Notes, deleted section referring to maternity roosts as not relevant. 4) Attribute: ‘External condition of underground site - maternity and hibernation’ – deleted “maternity” as not relevant. Under Target changed “roost spaces” for “entrances” because these are relevant to the external part of the site whereas roost spaces are relevant to the attribute ‘Internal condition of underground site’. Also added target relating to habitat/vegetation directly surrounding the entrances. 5) Attribute: ‘Population abundance – maternity colony’ – deleted as the SAC is designated for hibernating bats. 6) Attribute: ‘Soils, substrate and nutrient cycling’ – removed as not directly relevant to this bat site. 7) Attribute: ‘Water quantity/quality’ – removed as not directly relevant to this bat site.

Page 19 of 19

APPENDIX 7

NE Consultation Response

17/03269/OUT

Dear Sir/Madam,

Further to our consultation response of the 11th May (our ref: 213399), it has been drawn to my attention that information gathered as part of the Ashton Park development has a bearing on the potential impact of this development, and we would like to revise our advice.

Recent evidence, which the council ecologists are aware of, shows that Biss and Green Lane woods support a large colony of Bechstein’s bats associated with the Bath and Bradford on Avon SAC. These bats and/or their supporting habitat are thought to be easily disturbed through recreation pressure. The development concerned has the potential to increase to recreational pressure in these woods through the uplift in population, and through the loss of recreational amenity of the site being built upon, potentially displacing recreational activity to these woods. We therefore advise that a Habitats Regulation Assessment is undertaken to assess the effect of the development on the SAC.

Apologies for the confusion.

Regards,

Charles Routh Lead Advisor, Planning & Licencing, Somerset, Avon and Wiltshire Area Team

APPENDIX 8

Suitable Examples of Bat Boxes

APPENDIX 9

Suitable Examples of Bird Boxes

Bird Boxes

Schwegler bird boxes have the highest rates of occupation of all types of box. They are designed to mimic natural nest sites and provide a stable environment with the right thermal properties for chick rearing and winter roosting. Boxes are made from ‘Woodcrete’. This 75% wood sawdust, clay and concrete mixture is breathable and very durable making these bird boxes extremely long lasting.

1B Bird Box

This is the most popular box for garden birds and appeals to a wide range of species. The box can be hung from a branch or nailed to the trunk of a tree with a ‘tree-friendly’ aluminium nail.

Available in four colours and three entrance hole sizes. 26mm for small tits, 32mm standard size and oval, for redstarts.

2H Bird Box

This box is attractive to robins, pied wagtails, spotted flycatcher, wrens and black redstarts. Best sited on the walls of buildings with the entrance on one side. Schwegler boxes have the highest occupation rates of all box types. They are carefully designed to mimic natural nest sites and provide a stable environment for chick rearing and winter roosting. They can be expected to last 25 years or more without maintenance.

2M Bird Box

A free-hanging box offering greater protection from predators. Supplied complete with hanger which loops and fastens around a branch. With standard general-purpose 32mm diameter entrance hole. Schwegler boxes have the highest occupation rates of all box types. They are carefully designed to mimic natural nest sites and provide a stable environment for chick rearing and winter roosting. They can be expected to last 25 years or more without maintenance.