EAVES GREEN CHORLEY, LANCASHIRE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

Document Title Ecological Assessment Prepared for Taylor Wimpey/HCA Prepared by TEP - Warrington Document Ref 5170.008

Author Lindsey Roberts Date August 2016 Checked Marjorie Nadouce Approved Marjorie Nadouce

Amendment History Check / Modified Version Date Approved Reason(s) issue Status by by Amendments as per NLP and 2.0 05/08/16 AMB KS Issued TW comments Amendments as per NLP and 3.0 12/08/16 AL KS Issued TW comments

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

CONTENTS PAGE

Executive Summary ...... 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 5 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 8 3.0 METHODS ...... 9 4.0 RESULTS...... 14 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 22 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 26

TABLES

Table 1: Ecological information and consultations...... 9 Table 2: Categorisation of HSI scores...... 10 Table 3: Tree roost assessment criteria...... 12

Table 4: Biological Heritage Sites located within 1km of the site...... 14

APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Desk Based Ecology Assessment APPENDIX B: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Technical Report APPENDIX C: HSI and Amphibian Survey Technical Report APPENDIX D: Ecological DNA Sampling Methodology APPENDIX E: Bat Survey Technical Report APPENDIX F: Breeding Bird Survey Technical Report APPENDIX G: Biodiversity Enhancement Bat and Bird Box Examples

DRAWINGS

Drawing G5170.001 – Breeding Bird Survey Visit 1 Drawing G5170.002 – Breeding Bird Survey Visit 2 Drawing G5170.003 – Breeding Bird Survey Visit 3 Drawing G5170.004 Bat Transect Visit 1 Drawing G5170.005 Bat Transect Visit 2 Drawing G5170.006 Bat Transect Visit 3 Drawing G5170.007 Phase 1 Habitat Survey Drawing G5170.008 Pond Location Plan Drawing G5170.009 Locations of Static Bat Detectors

5170.008 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

5170.008 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

Executive Summary 1. TEP was commissioned in April 2012 by Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd to undertake an ecological assessment of land at Eaves Green located immediately to the south of Chorley, Lancashire to the west of the A6. Taylor Wimpey recommissioned TEP in 2015 to undertake further ecological surveys due to proposals to develop the site with the purpose of providing residential housing.

2. The Application Site is predominantly semi-improved grassland with scattered scrub and trees in addition to some arable habitat and intact hedgerows central to the site. Semi-natural broad-leaved woodland bounds the Application Site to the east and west. 3. The Application Site adjoins areas of ancient semi-natural broad-leaved woodland of high conservation value to the south, east and west. The central area of dense/continuous scrub and the outgrown hedgerows within the site have connectivity with the surrounding established broad-leaved woodland. The habitats present act as important resources for wildlife, particularly in the form of corridors between the Application Site and the surrounding landscape. Connectivity with the wider landscape will need to be taken into consideration and enhanced through planting design and the introduction of buffer zones within the development proposals.

4. An Arboricultural Impact Assessment (TEP Report Ref: 5170.002) has been created to inform plans for development in order assess potential impacts on trees and to identify trees and tree groups for retention and removal. 5. The hedgerows on the Application Site are a habitat of principal importance under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Subsequently where possible these should be retained as important foraging and nesting habitat and as wildlife corridors to maintain connectivity between habitats. Where development proposals involve any loss of native hedgerow, replacement planting of species-rich native hedgerow will be undertaken. 6. Three Schedule 9 invasive species are present on the Application Site: Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera), Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) and rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum). The Japanese knotweed will require removal and treatment during development to prevent continued growth and dispersal of the species. A non-native invasive species method statement will be required to ensure appropriate management and removal of Schedule 9 plants present on the Application Site.

7. Areas of native bluebell (Schedule 8 species) (Hyacinthoides non-scripta) are scattered throughout the Application Site. Native bluebells are protected and a mitigation strategy will be required pertaining to their removal or translocation during development.

8. Great crested newts (GCN) (Triturus cristatus) were identified within 100m of the Application Site during surveys in 2012 and subsequently in 2015. Habitats within the Application Site provide suitable areas for GCN in terms of foraging, refuge and for

5170.008 Page 3 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

hibernation. Consequently a Natural England GCN licence will be required to develop the site and an exclusion exercise will be carried out, under licence, to remove newts from the working area. Site design will need to ensure that habitat connections are maintained between breeding ponds and sufficient foraging, refuge and hibernation habitat remains available. 9. There are seven mature trees present within the Application Site identified as having bat roost potential. These trees are being retained within the development plans though possible impacts of lighting and building within the vicinity will need to be considered and a lighting strategy adhered to. The lighting strategy will also take into account a 15m buffer zone between the development boundary and the surrounding broad-leaved woodland edge.

10. No Schedule 1 bird species were recorded during the 2015 breeding bird survey and only five Schedule 41 (S.41) species. However, all bird species are protected during the breeding season and subsequently any vegetation removal should be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season (March-August inclusive). Where this is not possible a nesting bird check must be undertaken by an ecologist immediately prior to removal of vegetation (within 24 hours). 11. It is recommended that measures are taken to further enhance site biodiversity within the development proposals. Incorporation of broad-leaved woodland, species rich hedgerows and areas of species rich grassland within the Application Site to create corridors of wildlife habitat with connectivity to surrounding broad-leaved woodland is recommended to provide suitable habitat for birds, amphibians, invertebrates and small mammals. Seeding and planting in wildlife habitats should be native, preferably of local provenance. Bird and bat boxes should be included around the Application Site to provide additional features for enhancement.

5170.008 Page 4 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

1.0 INTRODUCTION Background 1.1 We are instructed by Taylor Wimpey UK Limited (Taylor Wimpey) and the Homes and Community Agency (HCA) (The Applicants) to prepare this Ecological Assessment in relation to 3 planning applications for the development of land at Eaves Green, Lower Burgh Way. The Applicants propose 289 dwellings, associated landscaping, access and infrastructure.

Application A 1.2 Application A comprises a full planning application submitted on behalf of Taylor Wimpey UK Limited for the erection of 201 dwellings, associated access, drainage and the provision of public open space and landscaping.

Application B 1.3 Application B comprises a full application submitted on behalf of Taylor Wimpey UK Limited for 88 dwellings, associated access and the provision of public open space and landscaping. Application C 1.4 Application C comprises an outline planning application on behalf of the HCA for up to 100 dwellings including access and associated landscaping and public open space. This application is submitted in outline with layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved. Permission is sought for means of access as part of this application.

5170.008 Page 5 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

1.5 Application A relates to a parcel of land controlled in its entirety by Taylor Wimpey (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1: Location Plan from Application A

1.6 Applications B and C relate to a parcel of land owned and controlled in its entirety by the HCA (see Figure 2 below).

Figure 2: Location Plan from Applications B and C

5170.008 Page 6 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

1.7 The two parcels of land to which the applications relate form part of a larger 18.5 ha site that is allocated for residential development by Policy HS1 of the Adopted Chorley Local Plan 2012-2026. The allocated land also includes land that has already been developed by Miller Homes (Birkacre Park), and land owned by Chorley Council. 1.8 For clarity, this report relates only to the two parcels of land under the control of the applicants and identified in Figures 1 and 2. In the remainder of this report, the parcels are referenced as the ‘HCA parcel’ and ‘Taylor Wimpey parcel’ respectively and where ‘the Application Site’ is referenced, it relates to both parcels together. Report Objectives

1.9 This report has the following objectives:  to describe the existing vegetation and give an overview of the habitats present within the Application Site;  to identify whether there are any features of conservation value such as legally protected species or habitats of biodiversity importance;  to advise of further surveys or mitigation requirements that might be needed prior to development of the Application Site; and  to outline opportunities to provide biodiversity enhancement within the Application Site proposals.

5170.008 Page 7 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The Application Site lies immediately south of the residential area of Chorley, off Lower Burgh Way, within an area of agricultural pasture and woodland between the A6 and A49 just south of the B5252. The River Yarrow runs through woodland to the south, east and west of the Application Site and Yarrow Valley Country Park lies to the west. 2.2 The proposed development includes the construction of up to 289 residential units with associated infrastructure, parking and gardens. 88 of these residential units will occupy the HCA parcel and the remaining 201 units within the Taylor Wimpey parcel. Access to both parcels will be off Lower Burgh Way.

2.3 The development proposals are shown on the Planning Layouts (Drawing References: PL01 and PL02) supplied by Astle Planning & Design Limited (APD).

5170.008 Page 8 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

3.0 METHODS Desktop Study

3.1 Information regarding historic species records and protected sites within a 1km radius of the Application Site was obtained from the sources listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Ecological information and consultations.

Consultee/Source of Information Nature of Information

S.41 Natural Environment and Rural Habitats and Species of Principal Communities Act 2006 Importance

Lancashire Biodiversity Action Plan Local BAP priority habitats/species

Magic Map Designated sites & priority habitats

Lancashire Environmental Records Protected sites and species records Network (LERN)

Phase 1 Habitat Survey

3.2 The Phase 1 habitat survey of the Application Site was undertaken by Val Gateley MCIEEM, FISC Level 5 botanist on 27th May 2015. The survey was carried out in accordance with the Phase 1 habitat assessment methods (JNCC 2010) (audit)1 and Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (CIEEM 2012)2. 3.3 During the Phase 1 habitat survey, the habitats present were assessed for their potential to support species of conservation concern, particularly statutorily protected species or Schedule 41 (S.41) species of principal importance, as listed under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act, 20063. Observations made provide an overview of key habitats and wildlife corridors and indicate opportunities to maintain and enhance connectivity between the Application Site and the wider landscape through appropriate planning proposals. Invasive Species

3.4 During the Phase 1 habitat survey care was taken to observe the presence of any species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)4. Any invasive species identified were noted on Phase 1 habitat maps to allow advised action to be undertaken where necessary.

1 JNCC (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey – a technique for environmental audit. Peterborough, JNCC. 2 CIEEM (2012). Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. 3 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006). London: The Stationery Office. 4 Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). London: The Stationery Office

5170.008 Page 9 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

Amphibian Survey 3.5 Prior to amphibian surveys in 2015, a habitat suitability index (HSI) assessment was carried out at ponds within the 500m buffer zone around the Application Site to provide an indication as to pond potential to support GCN. No ponds or suitable ditches were present within the Application Site.

3.6 The HSI for GCN incorporates ten suitability indices, all of which are factors thought to affect GCN presence. In general, ponds with high HSI scores are more likely to support GCN than those with low scores. Table 2 sets out a simple system for using HSI scores to define pond suitability for GCN.

Table 2: Categorisation of HSI scores.

Pond suitability for Great crested HSI score newts

<0.5 poor

0.5 – 0.59 below average

0.6 – 0.69 average

0.7 – 0.79 good

>0.8 excellent

3.7 The HSI assessment of all ponds located within the 500m buffer zone around the Application Site were undertaken by Val Gateley on 27th May 2015. Details of the HSI assessments can be found within the HSI and amphibian survey technical report (TEP Report Ref: 5170.004) at Appendix C. 3.8 Amphibian surveys of seven off-site ponds within 500m of the Application Site were undertaken by TEP between May and August 2015. Previous surveys had been conducted by TEP in 2012 on ponds within 250m of the Application Site between 20th March and 29th May.

3.9 Amphibian survey methods included three survey techniques used for each pond during each visit; bottle trapping, torch lit surveys and terrestrial and egg searches and followed Natural England survey guidelines (English Nature 2001)5. The minimum four surveys were undertaken at all ponds surveyed and a further two surveys were undertaken on ponds where GCN were found to be present in order to obtain population estimates.

5 English Nature (2001). Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. 5170.008 Page 10 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

3.10 Of the ponds within 500m of the Application Site, seven were subject to full amphibian surveys (Drawing G5170.008 shows pond locations). Pond 7 was not surveyed with "traditional" methods but was surveyed on 10th June 2015 using eDNA (environmental DNA) sampling. Pond 7 had previously been outside the 500m buffer zone of the Application Site. However, the Application Site was extended to include land east of Burgh Lane South and extending north towards Chorley, which caused Pond 7 to fall within the 500m buffer zone around the revised boundary. The GCN survey season was too advanced at the point of the Application Site extension for "traditional" survey methods to be undertaken. Consequently, eDNA testing was carried out to ensure knowledge of current GCN presence or absence was possible. 3.11 eDNA sampling for GCN presence involves collecting six 50ml test tubes per pond, each containing water extracted from a minimum of 20 combined water samples taken from at least 80% of the pond perimeter. The test tubes are sent off under controlled conditions to a laboratory for analysis which determines the presence or absence of GCN by testing for DNA. The full method for sampling can be found at Appendix D. 3.12 Ponds identified through eDNA analysis as containing GCN are recommended to be subjected to "traditional" GCN surveys consisting of bottle trapping, torch survey and egg searching if GCN populations are going to be effected by proposals.

Bat Survey 3.13 There are no buildings within the Application Site to provide roosting habitat for bats. 3.14 During the Phase 1 habitat survey, trees within and around the Application Site boundary were assessed from ground level for their potential to support roosting bats. This involved a ground based assessment using binoculars where appropriate to look for evidence of features which could support roosting bats such as;

 Old woodpecker holes;  Splits or rot holes in trunk, bough or large branches;  Holes formed by two boughs or branches growing in contact;  Loose or lifting bark;  A covering of dense latticed creeper, usually ivy (Hedera helix). 3.15 In line with the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) survey guidelines (2012)6 trees are categorised as to their bat roost potential. Table 3 lists the criteria for roost assessment.

6 Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) (2012). Good Practice Guidelines. 5170.008 Page 11 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

Table 3: Tree roost assessment criteria.

Category Description Designation

A tree where positive signs are found; e.g. emerging bats, Confirmed droppings found or pre-emergence sounds heard.

Potential to support larger roosts and is situated in or near Category 1* good foraging habitat or near a good commuting route leading to such habitat.

A tree that has definite features of potential for roosting bats, Category 1 supporting fewer suitable features than Category 1* trees (above) or with potential for use by single bats but are less than ideal in some way, for example, may have cluttered access.

A tree that has no obvious potential, although the tree is of a Category 2 size and age that elevated surveys may result in cracks or crevices being found; or the tree supports some features that may have limited potential to support bats.

A tree that has no potential to support roosting bats. Category 3

3.16 In addition to the ground-based assessment of trees, evening bat activity transect surveys were undertaken in line with current Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) guidelines (2012)6. These surveys aimed to identify species of bat present and levels of bat activity across the Application Site. Walked dusk transect surveys were undertaken in June, July and August to sample bat activity during the peak active season (May to August inclusive). All data relating to the transect route is presented in the bat survey technical report (TEP Report Ref: 5170.005) at Appendix E.

3.17 Survey teams variously led included experienced bat surveyors Katy Allan, Shaun Allan, Val Gateley and Mike Penney (all with a minimum of at least five years survey experience with TEP and TEP in-house bat surveyor training). Surveyors recorded any bat activity at point counts along the transect route, as well as between point counts using both heterodyne and frequency division bat detectors and making notes as to commuting or foraging routes/areas.

5170.008 Page 12 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

3.18 To complement the activity transect method, two static detectors were placed on the Application Site on three occasions to coincide with each transect survey and remained there for a minimum of three days after each visit. The location of the statics is set out in Drawing G5170.009. Static detectors were attached to features which potentially acted as important linear structures used by bats for foraging and commuting. Detectors were positioned in two different habitats within the Application Site; one in a hedgerow in the centre of the Application Site, another in a tree at the edge of a belt of semi-natural broad-leaved woodland to the south. The locations were chosen to determine any variation in bat activity across the Application Site dependent on habitat type or important features such as intact hedgerows and mature trees. 3.19 Sonogram analysis was then carried out using Analook W4.1d software 2 on recorded data from the static detectors and transect surveys to determine species composition and activity.

Breeding Bird Survey 3.20 The breeding bird surveys were undertaken in accordance with the BTO methods for Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) transect method, supplemented by the mapping of birds seen or heard using the BTO Common Bird Census techniques.

3.21 Three breeding bird surveys were carried out across the Application Site and within the 100m buffer zone extending from the Application Site boundary by TEP ornithologist Tim Ross CEnv MCIEEM in 2015. Visits were undertaken in accordance with BBS methods within the optimum breeding bird survey period. The surveys were conducted on the mornings of 27th April, 28th May and 29th June 2015. All data relating to the breeding bird survey is presented in the breeding bird survey technical report (TEP Report Ref: 5170.003) at Appendix F. Limitations to Surveys 3.22 There were no limitations to the Phase 1 habitat survey, bat surveys or breeding bird surveys. 3.23 GCN surveys were limited for Pond 7 due to the timing of extensions to the proposed development boundary. However, eDNA sampling was undertaken to compensate for this and provide evidence as to current GCN presence or absence in Pond 7. 3.24 Access to the Application Site was not restricted. Therefore, there were no significant constraints with regard to undertaking the surveys.

5170.008 Page 13 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

4.0 RESULTS Desktop Survey

4.1 A summary of the results of the desktop study are set out below. Further details, including maps, are provided in the desk based ecology assessment at Appendix A.

4.2 No internationally or nationally designated sites are present within the Application Site or within 1km of the Application Site.

4.3 Ten Biological Heritage Sites (BHS) are present within 1km of the Application Site (with three being immediately adjacent to the Application Ste boundary) as listed in Table 4 below. No designated sites are present within the Application Site,

Table 4: Biological Heritage Sites located within 1km of the Application Site.

Distance from Application Site Biological Heritage Site boundary

Darlington Sidings and Clancutt Brook 700m west (East)

Dob Brow Pastures (South) 900m northwest

Yarrow Valley Park 160m west

Dob Brow Swamp 800m west

Pond near Holy Cross High School 800m north

Drybones and Burgh Woods 200m south

Spring Wood Immediately adjacent to the south

Burgh Wood Immediately adjacent to the west

Plock Wood 400m north

Duxbury Woods Immediately adjacent to the east

4.4 There are no habitat connections between Clancutt Brook (East), Dob Brow Pastures (South), Dob Brow Swamp and Pond near Holy Cross High School. 4.5 Spring Wood BHS, directly adjoining the Application Site at the southern boundary, comprises ancient semi-natural woodland and streams with a characteristic woodland ground flora. 4.6 Burgh Wood BHS, located on the north-western boundary, comprises ancient semi- natural woodland with characteristic woodland ground flora species and supports a good assemblage of woodland birds. Touch-me-not balsam (Impatiens noli-me- tangere) a nationally scarce plant, also occurs here.

5170.008 Page 14 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

4.7 Duxbury Woods BHS adjoins the eastern boundary of the Application Site and comprises a large complex of semi-natural woodlands, conifer and exotic plantation, ponds and open glades along the Yarrow Valley. Big Wood also contains an extensive flush system with tufa deposits. The BHS is noted for the presence of prickly snail (Acanthinula aculeta) and brown snail (Perforatella subrufescens). The woods support a good assemblage of breeding birds. Brown long-eared bats (Plecotus auritus) have also been recorded in the wood and GCN, smooth newts (Lissotriton vulgaris) and palmate newts (Lissotriton helveticus) have all been recorded in one of the ponds.

4.8 Yarrow Valley Park, Drybones and Burgh Woods and Plock Woods BHSs are all connected to the Application Site via hedgerow and/or woodland connections. These BHSs are interconnected and designated for their woodland and scrub habitats or habitat mosaics, as well as flowering plants and ferns and bird population. 4.9 The S.41 Habitat of Principal Importance lowland mixed deciduous woodland is immediately adjacent to the Application Site to the east, west and southwest, as well as 200m to the southwest and 300m to the northeast. The S.41 Habitat of Principal Importance reed bed is located approximately 250m southwest of the Application Site boundary.

4.10 Records of GCN, water vole (Arvicola amphibious), common toad (Bufo bufo), noctule bat (Nyctalus noctule) and unspecified bat species were noted within 1km of the Application Site.

4.11 The closest GCN record to the Application Site is approximately 250m to the north- east.

4.12 The closest water vole record to the Application Site is approximately 100m to the north-east.

4.13 Unspecified bat species records are shown approximately 800m to the north of the Application Site. Records were obtained for noctule bat approximately 1.3 km to the north-east. The citation for Duxbury Woods BHS located immediately to the east of the Application Site refers to records of brown long-eared bats within the wood. 4.14 The closest common toad record to Application Site is approximately 400m south- west. 4.15 Records since 2000 within 1km of the Application Site or within the same tetrad include S.41 species lesser spotted woodpecker (Dendrocopos minor), song thrush (Turdus philomenos) and willow tit (Parus montanus), amber listed swallow (Hirundo rustica) and red listed starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and spotted flycatcher (Muscicapa striata). Citations for Burgh Wood BHS and Duxbury Woods BHS which adjoin the Application Site refer to good assemblages of woodland/breeding birds.

5170.008 Page 15 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

Phase 1 Habitat Survey 4.16 Habitats identified on the Application Site during the Phase 1 Habitat survey are illustrated in Drawing G5170.007. Target Notes referenced and extended habitat descriptions are presented in the Phase 1 habitat survey technical report (TEP Report Ref: 5170.009) at Appendix B.

4.17 The Application Site is predominantly semi-improved grassland bordered by areas of semi-natural broad-leaved woodland with outgrown hedge boundaries and a central area of scattered scrub, intact hedgerow and arable land. Habitats present within the Application Site are:  Semi-natural broad-leaved woodland  Broad-leaved plantation woodland  Scattered broad-leaved trees  Species-poor intact hedgerows  Dense, continuous scrub  Scattered scrub and broad-leaved trees  Semi-improved neutral grassland  Species-poor semi-improved neutral grassland  Marshy grassland  Tall ruderal vegetation  Standing water (ditch)  Arable fields  Ephemeral Pool  Bare ground Land West of Burgh Lane South 4.18 The western part of the Application Site is comprised of several previously farmed/grazed compartments of semi-improved neutral grassland dominated by grass species (TN11) and a more central compartment of species poor semi- improved neutral grassland which contained pigs at the time of survey.

4.19 A short ditch lies to the north-west within the semi-improved neutral grassland and adjacent to semi-natural broad-leaved woodland. The ditch does not provide suitable habitat for GCN or any other protected species such as, water vole. 4.20 Semi-natural broad-leaved woodland bounds the north-west of the Application Site including a variety of tree, shrub and ground flora species (TN12) and provides connectivity to Yarrow Valley Country Park and the wider landscape. 4.21 Areas of dense scrub onsite are predominantly associated with field boundaries. Scattered scrub was frequent within the pig field in the centre of the Application Site (west of Burgh Lane South). Additionally an area of scattered hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) and elder (Sambucus nigra) scrub borders the northern edge of the east Application Site boundary adjacent to broad- leaved woodland.

4.22 In the central part of the Application Site within the species poor semi-improved neutral grassland there is a small area of broad-leaved semi-natural woodland (TN3).

5170.008 Page 16 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

4.23 In addition to this the central compartment contains areas of scattered scrub and two patches of marshy grassland in wetter areas to the south (TN6) including abundant soft rush (Juncus effusus). 4.24 An ephemeral pool is present within the area of marshy grassland adjacent to a belt of broad-leaved woodland extending south within the western half of the Application Site. However, aquatic vegetation was not noted and due to the shallow depth of water, obvious poaching by livestock and the probability of drying, this pool was considered unlikely to support amphibians. Land East of Burgh Lane South 4.25 The eastern part of the Application Site contains an area of species poor semi- improved grassland extending to the north, which is adjacent to a more central compartment of arable land which extends to the south.

4.26 Semi-natural broad-leaved woodland bounding the east and extending along the south-east of the Application Site (TN3) is adjacent to the River Yarrow connecting with the natural wildlife corridor which the river provides and the woodland extending into the wider landscape. 4.27 A dry ditch runs north to south through the centre of the arable grassland compartment. 4.28 A native hedgerow (S.41 priority habitat) dominated by hawthorn, although with intermittent stretches of beech (Fagus sylvatica) is present along Burgh Lane South which divides the Application Site centrally (TN5, TN9 and TN10). The track extending south from Burgh Lane South is bounded either side by hedgerows. As Burgh Lane South extends towards the southern Application Site boundary the hedgerow is only present along sections of the track with interspersed broad-leaved tree species (TN5). The hedgerows in this area of the Application Site contained bluebell. 4.29 Bluebell was also noted in the hawthorn hedgerow present along the south-east Application Site boundary. 4.30 An intact hedgerow along the northern boundary of arable habitat to the east (TN1) consisted of hawthorn and bounded a public footpath which continues east across the Application Site.

4.31 A strip of plantation broad-leaved woodland consisting of a row of beech and oak trees is present at the north-east corner of the Application Site (TN4).

Noted Across Site

4.32 Scattered broad-leaved trees including, alder (Alnus glutinosa), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), elder, grey willow (Salix cinerea), hawthorn, silver birch (Betula pendula), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) and oak (Quercus robur) are present across the Application Site (Drawing G5170.007).

5170.008 Page 17 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

4.33 Patches of bluebells (Schedule 8 species) are scattered throughout the Application Site, with the majority being located along the hedgerows and within the semi-natural broad-leaved woodland bounding the site perimeter. Bluebells are also present occasionally along compartment boundaries. 4.34 The boundary to the east of the Application Site between the species poor semi- improved grassland and arable land includes four oak trees considered to have bat roost potential. Two oaks were classed as being Category 1 and another two as Category 2 (Drawing G5170.007). Two beech trees (Fagus sylvatica) within the hedgerow along the northern boundary of the arable compartment of land (east of Burgh Lane South) were also considered to be Category 2 in terms of their bat roost potential. In addition to an ash tree to the far west of the Application Site along a fenced boundary opposite the broad-leaved woodland, which was recorded as being Category 1 in terms of bat roost potential. 4.35 The Application Site provides potential habitat opportunities for a range of species including amphibians, bats, birds, small mammals and invertebrates. Species of conservation concern 4.36 The Application Site provides potential habitat opportunities for a range of species including amphibians, bats, birds, invertebrates and small mammals. No priority species or signs of protected species were recorded on the Application Site during the Phase 1 habitat survey. However, the woodland bounding the Application Site provides suitable habitat for badger (Meles meles) and the site itself offers foraging habitat. Though no evidence of badger was observed on the Application Site during the Phase 1 survey and no records returned within the surrounding 2km buffer zone from the desktop study. However, signs may have been hidden due to areas of the Application Site being used by pigs and having been recently flailed. Invasive Species 4.37 Himalayan balsam was found along the fenced boundary where trees with bat roost potential lie in the east of the Application Site and within the small area of semi-natural broad-leaved woodland within the centre of the site. Further stands were located along the woodland fringes in the west of the Application Site and along the double hedgerow bounding Burgh Lane South.

4.38 Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) is present within the small area of broad- leaved woodland in the centre of the Application Site (TN8).

4.39 Rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum) is present at the woodland edge in the west, south-west and east of the Application Site. 4.40 The approximate locations of non-native invasive plants on Application Site are illustrated in Drawing G5170.007.

5170.008 Page 18 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

Connectivity with the wider landscape 4.41 The Application Site is surrounded to the south, east and west by semi-natural broad- leaved woodland, much of which forms part of a complex of woodland, species-rich grassland and wetland habitats within a network of locally designated Biological Heritage Sites. Hedgerows and pockets of naturally regenerating woodland within the Application Site provide direct habitat connectivity with the surrounding mature semi- natural broad-leaved woodland. Young regenerating broad-leaved woodland species are present towards the woodland edge of grassland compartments within the north- west of the Application Site. Amphibian Survey

4.42 The HSI assessments concluded that of the seven ponds located within the 500m buffer zone around the Application Site, one had a HSI rating as being poor, three average, two good and one excellent (Appendix C). 4.43 Of the eight ponds within 500m of the Application Site boundary seven were subject to full amphibian surveys. During the first four surveys in 2015 no GCN were recorded in Pond 1 or Pond 5 and subsequently a further two surveys were not required. 4.44 Pond 7 was not surveyed with "traditional" methods but was surveyed using eDNA sampling which returned results negative for GCN presence. 4.45 During the 2015 surveys GCN, smooth and palmate newts were found in off-site ponds 1a, 2, 3, 4 and 6 with GCN eggs being recorded in ponds 2, 3 and 4. Common frog (Rana temporaria) was also found in off-site ponds 1a, 2, 3 and 4, with tadpole presence recorded in pond 6. Common toad (S.41 priority species) tadpoles were found in off-site ponds 1a, 2 and 6 however, no adults were recorded during surveys. 4.46 The 2015 surveys indicated that for ponds 1a, 2, 3, 4 and 6 medium populations of great crested, smooth and palmate newts were present. A combined maximum count of 29 GCN were found during the surveys on 20th May 2015. Pond 1a had the highest peak adult count of GCN during a single survey on 28th April 2015 and also had the highest HSI score. Detailed results can be found in the HSI and amphibian survey technical report (Appendix C).

4.47 The population of GCN in Pond 1a has increased substantially since 2012, from a peak count of 1 to a peak count of 17. Pond 2 has also increased from a peak count of 5 to a peak count of 10. The 2015 surveys therefore indicate a GCN population. 4.48 Previous results from the 2012 amphibian surveys found GCN in six off-site ponds, five of which are within 250m of the Application Site boundary. A medium population size was recorded in both clusters of ponds, with a maximum count of 20 recorded during the March 2012 torch surveys of the ponds to the north (Ponds 1a, 2, 3 and 6) and a maximum count of 12 recorded from bottle trapping in the ponds to the south (Ponds 4 and 5). The ponds closest to the Application Site boundary (Ponds 4 and 5) in which GCN were identified during the survey are approximately 60m to the south-west of the site boundary. Smooth newt and palmate newt were identified in all ponds surveyed. Common toad was recorded in Ponds 1, 1a 2, 4, 5 and 6 and common frog recorded in all ponds surveyed.

5170.008 Page 19 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

Bat Survey 4.49 There are no buildings on the Application Site. However, some mature trees within the boundary were identified during the Phase 1 habitat survey as having potential to support roosting bats. 4.50 Three evening activity surveys during the peak activity season (May to August inclusive) were conducted using transect walks and point counts to record activity. 4.51 Over the three evening visits activity levels increased from June to August. 4.52 During the June visit a low level of activity was recorded in the west and centre of the Application Site with no activity recorded in the east. Common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and myotis species (Myotis sp.) were recorded (Drawing G5170.004). 4.53 July activity was at low to medium levels with the majority of activity being recorded in the east of the Application Site particularly along the boundary with semi-natural broad-leaved woodland (Drawing G5170.005).

4.54 The highest proportion of contacts during a point count for the July survey was observed in the central area within the Application Site near the hedgerows and scrub along Burgh Lane South, with three species of bat being recorded. 4.55 In total across all three surveys four species of bat were recorded; common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), myotis species and big bat species, all of which were observed during the July survey. 4.56 Surveyors recorded activity in all areas of the Application Site during the August transect with the exception of the transect route between Stop 1 and Stop 3 where no activity was recorded. However, it is likely that this was due to the fact that it was at the start of the survey and only just after sunset. Low, medium and high levels of activity were observed during the August survey, though only two species of bat were recorded (Drawing G5170.006). High activity was recorded between Stop 7 and Stop 8 where the route passes along the edge of the semi-natural broad-leaved woodland in the east of the Application Site and through arable habitat. 4.57 During the transect surveys in 2012 only very low bat activity was recorded in the western part of the Application Site and low to moderate activity in the eastern part of the site. Only common pipistrelle species was recorded, associated with the existing linear features such as hedgerows and the woodland edge throughout the site. 4.58 Conversely, static detectors showed highest bat activity levels in June and lowest bat activity levels in August with common pipistrelle consistently being recorded the most out of all species present.

4.59 In June the overall bat activity index for location 1 was 21.48 bat passes per hour (bpph) compared to 42.13 bpph for location 2. July bat activity indexes demonstrated a similar correlation between location activity with a bat activity index of 2.60 bpph at location 1 and 14.5 bpph at location 2. August had the lowest activity levels with a bat activity index of 3.71 bpph for location 1 and 0.90 bpph at location 2. Full details of results can be viewed within the bat survey technical report (Appendix E).

5170.008 Page 20 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

Breeding Bird Survey 4.60 As suggested in the 2012 report (TEP Report Ref: 3437.004) breeding bird surveys were undertaken at the Application Site during March, April and May 2015. No Schedule 1 bird species were recorded during the 2015 breeding bird survey and only five Schedule 41 (S.41) priority species were recorded across all visits; bullfinch (Pyrrhula pyrrhula), dunnock (Prunella modularis), herring gull (Larus argentatus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and song thrush. 4.61 An additional 9 BoCC species which are not listed as S.41 priority species were recorded across all visits at the Application Site and within a 100m buffer of the site boundary. Breeding was not confirmed in any of the BoCC species recorded.

4.62 A single pair of bullfinch were observed near a hedgerow on the Application Site indicating probable breeding of this species. Male dunnock were recorded singing in the same locations on consecutive visits in 5 places, 2 of which were within the Application Site boundary, also indicating probable breeding. Probable breeding was detected for song thrush, though this was located in the woodland to the west of the site boundary. 4.63 A total of 41 bird species were recorded within the Application Site boundary and the 100m buffer area surrounding it across all visits; 19 species were recorded in the first visit, 31 in the second visit and 34 during the third visit. Detailed results can be found in the breeding bird survey technical report at Appendix F.

5170.008 Page 21 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

5.0 CONCLUSIONS Designated Sites

5.1 No internationally or nationally designated sites are present within the Application Site, nor within 1km of the site boundary. There are ten locally designated BHSs within 1km, three of which are immediately adjacent to the Application Site, and a further five which have direct habitat connections to the site. These comprise areas of ancient semi-natural woodland (S.41 priority habitat) forming part of a complex of woodland, scrub, grassland and wetland habitats of high conservation value along the Yarrow valley. Connectivity between the development area and the wider landscape should be enhanced and maintained where possible.

5.2 A number of these sites support a diverse woodland ground flora and bird populations. There should be no direct impacts on local sites but to avoid the potential for indirect impacts during clearance and construction works on the Application Site, protection measures should be put in place to protect these valuable habitats from accidental damage.

Habitats 5.3 Hedgerows on the Application Site were surveyed during the Phase 1 habitat survey as to their species diversity and quality and consequently an individual hedgerow survey was not required (optimum timing is during May). Although the hedgerows have poor species diversity, they are intact and provide connectivity across the Application Site. Therefore, the hedgerows are particularly important, acting as wildlife corridors and offering refuge, nesting, foraging and hibernation habitat to a variety of wildlife. 5.4 Regardless of species diversity hedgerows are considered a S.41 priority habitat. Additionally presence of bluebells within several of the hedgerows elevate the importance of such features despite poor species diversity due to bluebell status as a Schedule 8 species. These features should be retained within designs for the Application Site otherwise impacts on them will need to be mitigated and/or losses compensated for. 5.5 Native bluebells (Schedule 8 species) are scattered throughout the Application Site, with the majority being located along the edges and within the semi-natural broad- leaved woodland around the site perimeter. It will be necessary to design a strategy to maintain and where possible translocate the bluebell population to surrounding areas.

5170.008 Page 22 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

5.6 There are significant stands of non-native invasive plants on Application Site. Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and Rhododendron are all present within the Application Site and are listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Under provisions made within the Wildlife and Countryside Act, it is an offence to cause Schedule 9 plants to grow in the wild. Liability may also extend in situations where a landowner has knowingly permitted the spread of Schedule 9 plants onto neighbouring land. The developer should be mindful of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2012 particularly when dealing with Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam as any plant material and surrounding soil must be transported by a licenced waste carrier and deposited at an authorised landfill. Fauna

The Application Site provides potential habitat opportunities for a range of species including amphibians, bats, birds, invertebrates and small mammals.

Amphibians 5.7 During the 2015 surveys GCN, smooth and palmate newts were found in off-site ponds 1a, 2, 3, 4 and 6 with GCN eggs being recorded in ponds 2, 3 and 4. Common frog and common toad were also recorded during surveys. The 2015 surveys indicated that for ponds 1a, 2, 3, 4 and 6 medium populations of great crested, smooth and palmate newts were present. Furthermore, the 2015 surveys indicated an increasing GCN population around the Application Site.

5.8 There are no ponds on the Application Site to provide suitable breeding habitat for GCN. However, areas within the Application site represent suitable foraging, refuge and hibernation habitat for GCN and other amphibians. Additionally, there is connectivity between habitats surrounding breeding ponds where GCN were identified and suitable foraging habitat within the Application Site via hedgerows and scrub. Therefore the site is of value to amphibian populations for dispersal and migration outside of the breeding season. 5.9 In the 2012 amphibian surveys, surveyors recorded medium GCN populations in ponds 1a, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. No GCN were found in pond 5 in 2015, one of the two ponds closest to the site boundary (ponds 4 and 5, approximately 60m to the south- west). Pond 5 was recorded as drying and forming a vegetation mat. Consequently, in relation to the reduction in suitable breeding habitat for GCN to the south of the Application Site since 2012, it is of increased importance to maintain habitat connectivity across the site. 5.10 The ponds are widely spaced around the boundary of the Application Site and due to the distance between pond clusters it is assumed that two meta-populations are present. Connectivity must be maintained between ponds to the north and those to the south to enable amphibian migration and dispersal and to prevent the two populations from becoming isolated. 5.11 Due to the size and proximity of the breeding GCN populations and the areas within the Application Site which represent suitable foraging, refuge and hibernation habitat, the development will have implications for GCN and other amphibian species. A Natural England GCN licence will therefore be required to develop the site.

5170.008 Page 23 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

5.12 Furthermore, retention/replacement of terrestrial foraging, shelter and connective habitats will be required in any design proposals in order to ensure the favourable conservation status of GCN will be maintained as an outcome of any proposed development.

Bats 5.13 There are seven trees on the Application Site with potential for roosting bats. These will require further inspection and survey if they are to be removed within or affected by the development proposals once finalised. 5.14 Varying levels of bat foraging activity were recorded and several different species were utilising the Application Site. Therefore, development proposals will have an impact on bats. Overall activity was highest along the boundary of the broad-leaved woodland to the east of the Application Site. Though in general bat species were utilising the linear features provided by the woodland edge along the Application Site boundaries and the hedgerows within the centre of the site. 5.15 Building boundaries and lighting will need to be designed with consideration as to the effects on bats using the woodland edge and hedgerows as linear features for foraging and commuting in order to minimise implications for these species.

Birds 5.16 As suggested in the 2012 report (TEP Report Ref: 3437.004) breeding bird surveys were undertaken at the Application Site during March, April and May. No Schedule 1 bird species were recorded during the 2015 breeding bird survey and only five Schedule 41 (S.41) priority species were recorded across all visits. 5.17 The Application Site is considered of low importance for breeding birds on account of the low species diversity and limited range of habitats present. The majority of species detected during the surveys were associated with the woodland and the woodland edge that bounds the site. Within the Application Site boundary, most evidence suggestive of probable breeding for species was associated with the hedgerows along Burgh Lane South. 5.18 There are no confirmed breeding S.41 species or BoCC species present within the Application Site boundary. Although evidence of probable breeding was detected within the 100m buffer zone for three S.41 species and for a further two BoCC species that are not S.41 species. 5.19 The trees, scrub and grassland on the Application Site represent potential nesting habitats for birds. Any loss of habitat within the Application Site as a result of development will reduce nesting potential for birds, although a limited number of species will be affected and very few species of high conservation value are likely to be affected.

5170.008 Page 24 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

5.20 All wild UK nesting birds, their nests and eggs are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and subsequently any vegetation removal should be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season (March-August inclusive). In circumstances where this is not possible a nesting bird check must be undertaken by an ecologist immediately prior to removal of vegetation (within 24 hours) and there will be restrictions on the methods of vegetation clearance works on the Application Site.

Other notable species 5.21 Though no evidence of badger was observed on the Application Site during the Phase 1 survey and no records returned for the surrounding 2km buffer zone from the desktop study, the woodland bounding the Application Site and the habitats present within the site offer suitable habitat for badger. Therefore, before works commence it would be advisable to undertake a pre-development survey for badger.

5170.008 Page 25 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Habitats

Trees 6.1 A Tree Protection Plan will be required to inform plans for development in order to clearly identify trees and tree groups for retention and removal. Where trees or tree groups are being retained, tree protection measures should be clearly indicated on the Tree Protection Plan. A buffer will be put in place to ensure no damage to the root systems of mature trees in the adjacent BHS sites. 6.2 Where possible, trees should be retained within the final landscape. In areas where trees are to be lost, there should be replacement tree planting to compensate for losses.

Hedgerows 6.3 The native hedgerows (S.41 priority habitat) within the Application Site should be retained in the final landscape to maintain connectivity between areas by remaining as wildlife corridors. The native hedgerows bounding Burgh Lane South and the extending track where possible should be maintained as they are of particular importance for GCN dispersal from the north of the Application Site to the south and also for breeding birds. In addition to containing native bluebell, a Schedule 8 species.

6.4 If the hedgerow along Burgh Lane South requires removal in sections, it is advised that the removal should be staggered either side of the track. This will maintain cover and habitat for use as a wildlife corridor along the length of the track. Retention of this hedgerow will also contribute to the proposed 3m buffer which will be retained along this track in order to maintain connectivity for GCN (See 6.9).

6.5 If development proposals involve any loss of native hedgerow, there should be replacement planting of species-rich native hedgerow in other areas around the Application Site. This should include berry and nectar bearing species to enhance the foraging opportunities for wildlife. 6.6 There is an opportunity to enhance woodland and hedgerow habitats within the survey site particularly as they already have connectivity with the adjacent ancient semi-natural woodland. Allowing natural regeneration or undertaking new planting of native woody species to increase hedgerow and tree cover along existing field boundary lines may be incorporated into design proposals to enhance the extent and connectivity of existing hedgerow and woodland habitats. All seeding and planting should be native, preferably of local provenance.

Invasive and Protected Plant Species 6.7 A non-native invasive species method statement will be required to ensure appropriate management and removal of Schedule 9 plants on the Application Site.

5170.008 Page 26 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

6.8 Native bluebells (Schedule 8 species) are scattered throughout the Application Site, located along the edges of the semi-natural broad-leaved woodland around the site perimeter and within hedgerows. Due to the protected status of native bluebells it will be necessary to design a strategy to maintain and where possible translocate the bluebell population to surrounding areas.

Amphibians 6.9 Burgh Lane South will be maintained as a track to provide connectivity between habitats to the north and south of the Application Site. A 3m buffer zone either side of the track will be created to provide a natural corridor for wildlife dispersal throughout the Application Site. The track will allow continuity of movement to more favourable habitat south of the development and will be supplemented by the creation of a GCN mitigation area where suitable planting and creation of hibernacula will enhance terrestrial habitat for GCN. This is of particular importance for maintaining connectivity between GCN populations in breeding ponds around the Application Site and GCN ponds to the north of the site. Within the built area of the proposed development, amphibian underpasses will be created at road crossing points where necessary to allow for movement of GCN. 6.10 The proposals for the Application Site will result in the loss of areas of suitable terrestrial habitat for GCN and other amphibians. The habitats within the Application Site represent intermediate terrestrial habitat for amphibians breeding in the surrounding ponds, i.e. between 50m and 250m. Partial destruction of intermediate terrestrial habitat is assessed as a low level impact on GCN, according to the Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines 2001. However, site clearance works could result in harm or injury to GCN so an exclusion exercise i.e. a fencing and pitfall trapping programme, will need to be carried out to remove newts from the working area. A Natural England GCN licence will therefore be required to develop the Application Site.

6.11 Site design will need to ensure that habitat connections are maintained between breeding ponds and sufficient foraging, refuge and hibernation habitat remains available to GCN to ensure their favourable conservation status in the long-term. The creation of a swale within the GCN mitigation area combined with appropriate planting around the 3 proposed SuDS ponds, will ensure that this is implemented.

6.12 Full mitigation proposals will be developed as part of the Natural England licensing process. A GCN Method Statement has also been produced (TEP ref. 5170.014) which provides further detail of these proposals. This includes appropriate timing of works to minimise impacts along with construction and operational phase mitigation. 6.13 If development plans are not implemented within two years of existing GCN surveys, further surveys will be required before development commences to monitor populations using the site habitats.

5170.008 Page 27 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

Bats 6.14 A 15m buffer between adjacent woodland and the development will be maintained to allow for lighting impacts on wildlife particularly in reference to bats utilising the woodland edge for foraging and commuting purposes. This will be included in a lighting strategy which will be imposed to minimise the effects of the development on adjacent woodland and species using the wildlife corridors around the Application Site. 6.15 If development proposals are going to impact any of the seven trees on the Application Site identified as having bat roost potential, further emergence and re- entry surveys to confirm if roosts are present will be required.

6.16 Hedgerows should also be maintained where possible to provide connectivity across the Application Site for bats as they require such linear features for navigation whilst foraging and commuting.

Birds 6.17 The majority of recordings of bird species during the breeding bird survey were from just outside the Application Site in the woodland areas. Nevertheless, if clearance or removal of habitat is proposed then this should be compensated for by including planning of sufficient habitat creation to mitigate for the loss of breeding habitat. 6.18 Any vegetation removal should be undertaken outside the bird nesting season (March-August inclusive). Where this is not possible an inspection must be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist immediately prior to removal of vegetation. If no nests are found, removal must be carried out within 24 hours of the inspection. If any active nests are found, a buffer zone will need to be implemented, the size of which is dependent upon the species present. The nest will need to be monitored by the ecologist who will confirm when any young have fledged and works can continue in this area.

Other notable species 6.19 A RAMS method statement will be produced and implemented should any scrub require removal during development in order to ensure potential injury of small mammals is avoided. This would include appropriate timing of works to minimise impacts, including avoidance of disturbance to animals during the hibernation period as they would be unlikely to survive and removal to alternative suitable habitat by an ecological watching brief. 6.20 Though no evidence of badger was observed on the Application Site during the Phase 1 survey, the woodland bounding the site and the habitats present within the site offer suitable habitat for badger. Therefore, before works commence it would be advisable to undertake a pre-development site survey for badger.

5170.008 Page 28 August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Ecological Assessment

Biodiversity enhancement 6.21 Under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) there is a requirement to minimise impacts on biodiversity, and seek to provide net gains in biodiversity where possible. The following features where possible can be incorporated into the future design to enhance biodiversity:

 If any trees or scrub are to be removed to facilitate development, opportunities for birds and bats could be provided through the use of bird and bat boxes on remaining suitable trees or housing. Boxes would need to be sited at appropriate height and aspect, making best use of position in respect of the surrounding vegetation. Examples of box designs are presented in Appendix 7.

 Biodiversity can also be enhanced through the creation of habitat appropriate grassland using a mix of native and wildlife friendly species where reinstatement planting is required.

 Where possible planting of trees or hedgerows should be implemented and all seeding and planting should be native, preferably of local provenance.

 Any perimeter fencing should be installed in such a way as to allow free passage through the Application Site for species such as hedgehog in order to improve connectivity and maintain foraging area.

5170.008 Page 29 August 2016 Version 3.0

5170.008 Appendices January 2016 Version 3.0

APPENDIX A: Desk Based Ecology Assessment

5170.008 Appendices January 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecology Assessment

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Approximate Central Grid Reference: SD 57839 14931

Contents

 Site location plan

 Extract from local plan

 Extracts of relevant planning policies

 Local site designations

 Local species records

 National site designations

 Habitat inventory records

 Wildlife site citations

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Site Location Plan

Approximate Central Grid Reference: SD 57839 14931

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2016

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Extract of Chorley Borough Local Plan (adopted August 2003) and supporting key

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Extracts of relevant planning policies and supplementary planning guidance

DC1 In the Green Belt, as shown on the Proposals Map, planning permission will not be granted, except in very special circumstances, for development other than: (a) agriculture and forestry; (b) essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, for cemeteries or other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with its purposes; (c) limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings providing it is in accordance with Policy DC8A; (d) the re-use of existing buildings providing it is in accordance with Policy DC7A; (e) limited infilling in accordance with Policy DC4; (f) to provide affordable housing for local needs in accordance with Policy DC5; (g) the re-use, infilling or redevelopment of Major Developed Sites in accordance with policy DC6.

DC2 In the Area of Other Open Countryside, as shown on the Proposals Map, development will be limited to: (a) that needed for the purposes of agriculture or forestry or other uses appropriate to a rural area; (b) the rehabilitation and re-use of existing rural buildings where their form, bulk and general design are in keeping with the character of the surrounding countryside;

DC3 Development other than that permissible in the countryside under Policies DC1 or DC2 will not be permitted on Safeguarded Land at: 1. Babylon Lane, Heath Charnock 2. South east of Belmont Road and Abbey Grove, Adlington 3. Harrison’s Farm, Adlington 4. North of Bond’s Lane, Adlington 5. West of Blackburn Road, Great Knowley, Chorley 6. Chorley Rugby Club, Chancery Road, Euxton 7. North of Euxton Lane, Chorley 8. East of A49, Clayton-le-Woods 9. Clancutt Lane, Coppull 10. Coppull Moor Lane/Chapel Lane, Coppull 11. Blainscough Hall, Coppull 12. North of Hewlett Avenue, Coppull 13. Between Bradley Lane and Parr Lane, Eccleston 14. East of Tincklers Lane, Eccleston 15. Pear Tree Lane, Euxton 16. South of Daisy Hill, Euxton 17. East of M61, Chorley 18. West of M61, Whittle-le-Woods 19. Gale Moss, Chorley 20. Eaves Green, Chorley

EP1 Proposals for development in or likely to affect SSSI’s will be subject to special scrutiny. Development will not be permitted if it may have an adverse effect, either directly or indirectly, on the SSSI unless the reasons for development outweigh the harm to the special conservation value of the SSSI. Should development be permitted planning conditions or

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment agreements will be used to ensure the protection and enhancement of the site’s special scientific value. EP2 Development likely to have an adverse effect on a Local Nature Reserve, a Biological Heritage Site or Geological Heritage Site, (or a site shown to meet the published criteria for selection as such a site) will not be permitted unless the reasons for development are sufficient to override the nature or geological conservation considerations. Should development be permitted planning conditions or agreements may be used to secure appropriate safeguards or compensatory measures.

EP3 Sites of local nature and geological importance not listed in Policies EP1 and EP2 will be protected from the adverse impact of development to the extent that is justified bearing in mind the following criteria: (a) the intrinsic importance of the site or feature that is threatened; (b) the amount of harm to the site that would be caused; (c) the importance of the proposed development; (d) the possibility and feasibility of mitigating or compensatory measures.

EP4 Planning permission will not be granted for development which would have an adverse effect on a protected species unless the benefits of the development outweigh the need to maintain the population of the species in situ. Should development be permitted that might have an effect on a protected species planning conditions or agreements will be used to: (a) facilitate the survival of the individual species affected; (b) reduce the disturbance to a minimum; and (c) provide adequate alternative habitats to sustain the viability of the local population of that species

EP5 Development will not be permitted where it would prejudice the integrity of a Wildlife Corridor. Should development be permitted planning conditions and agreements will be used to provide safeguards and compensatory measures where appropriate. New development will be expected to provide, where appropriate, enhancement and extension of Wildlife Corridors.

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Map provided by Lancashire Environmental Record Network of site designations and species records within 2km

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Extract of species data provided by Lancashire Environmental Record Network

TAXONNAM COMMONNA TXGROUP GRIDREF NERC_S41 WCA_158 BAP2007 PLANNLEG LKS YEAR UKPROT EURPROT Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD579142 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD571153 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD576146 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD571152 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD571153 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD578145 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD578144 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD579145 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58161540 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58161540 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58381544 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58421589 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD58301545 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD58381544 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58161540 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58381544 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58161540 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD58291572 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58301545 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD58301545 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58301545 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58291572 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58161540 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58301545 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58421589 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58421589 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD58421589 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58421589 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58421589 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58161540 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58381544 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58421589 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58421589 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58161540 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD58421589 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58381544 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58421589 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58381544 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD57771545 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58291572 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58421589 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58381544 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58301545 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD58301545 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58301545 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58301545 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58161540 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58421589 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58161540 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58161540 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58381544 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58161540 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD58291572 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD58301545 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58381544 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58161540 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58161540 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58161540 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58381544 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD58381544 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58381544 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58421589 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58161540 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58161540 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58421589 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58291572 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58381544 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD58161540 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58421589 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58381544 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58381544 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD58381544 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58161540 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58161540 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58381544 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58421589 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58421589 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58381544 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58421589 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD58381544 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58301545 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58291572 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58161540 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58421589 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58301545 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD58421589 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD58421589 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD58421589 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD58381544 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD58301545 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD58301545 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD58291572 Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD5816815407Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2002 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD5816815407 Yes No Yes Yes 2002 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD5816815407 Yes No Yes Yes 2002 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD5807115157 Yes No Yes Yes 2002 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD5816815407Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2002 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD5816815407 Yes No Yes Yes 2002 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD5816815407Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2002 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD5807115157Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2002 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD5807115157Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2002 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD5807115157 Yes No Yes Yes 2002 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD5816815407 Yes No Yes Yes 2002 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD5816815407 Yes No Yes Yes 2002 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD5816815407Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2002 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD5807115157Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2002 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD584152 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD5816815407 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD5816815407Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD5807115157Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD5807115157 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD5816815407 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD5807115157 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD5807115157 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD5816815407 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD5816815407 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD5816815407 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD5807115157 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD5816815407 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD5807115157 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD5816815407Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD5807115157Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD5816815407 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD5816815407Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD5807115157 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD5807115157Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD5816815407Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD5816815407Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD5816815407 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD5816815407 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD5807115157 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD5816815407 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD5807115157 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD5816815407Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD5816815407Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD5807115157 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD5816815407 Yes No Yes Yes 2003 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD5592814429Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2004 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD577153 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD581152 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD581152 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD577153 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD577153 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD577153 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD577154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD577153 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD577153 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD581152 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD581152 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD582154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD581152 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD577153 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD577154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD577153 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD577153 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD581152 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD577153 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD581152 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD581152 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD577154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD581152 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD577153 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD581152 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD577153 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD581152 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD577154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD577153 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD581152 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD577153 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD577153 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD581152 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD577153 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD577153 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD577154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD581152 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD577154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD577153 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD582154 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD5690316972 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD5690316972 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD5690316972 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD5691916816Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD5691916816Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD5691916816Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD5690316972Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD5690316972Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD5691916816 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD5690316972 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Bufo bufo Common Toad amphibian SD5690316972Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD5690316972 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD55911618 Yes No Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD55911618 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD55911618 Yes No Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD55831587 Yes No Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt amphibian SD55911618 Yes No Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD55831587 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD55851582 Yes No Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD55911600 Yes No Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt amphibian SD583164 Yes No Yes Yes 2011 Yes Yes Rana temporaria Common Frog amphibian SD583164 Yes No Yes Yes 2011 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD5933014491Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2013 Yes Yes Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt amphibian SD5863813970Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2013 Yes Yes Acanthis cabaret Lesser Redpoll bird SD51S Yes No Yes Yes No 2000 No No Dendrocopos minor Lesser Spotted Woodpecker bird SD51X No No Yes Yes 2000 No Yes Alcedo atthis Kingfisher bird SD51T Yes No Yes Yes 2000 Yes Yes Poecile montana Willow Tit bird SD51S No No Yes Yes 2000 No Yes Passer montanus Tree Sparrow bird SD51S Yes No Yes Yes No 2000 No No Dendrocopos minor Lesser Spotted Woodpecker bird SD5715 No No Yes Yes 2001 No Yes Dendrocopos minor Lesser Spotted Woodpecker bird SD565162 No No Yes Yes 2001 No Yes Turdus philomelos Song Thrush bird SD565162 No No Yes No 2001 No Yes Pyrrhula pyrrhula Bullfinch bird SD565162 No No Yes No 2001 No No Falco tinnunculus Kestrel bird SD565162 No No Yes Yes 2001 No Yes Alcedo atthis Kingfisher bird SD569170 Yes No Yes Yes 2002 Yes Yes Ardea cinerea Grey Heron bird SD5616 No No Yes No 2007 No Yes Prunella modularis Dunnock bird SD571171 No No Yes Yes 2007 No Yes Ardea cinerea Grey Heron bird SD569169 No No Yes No 2007 No Yes Perdix perdix Grey Partridge bird SD5813 Yes No Yes Yes No 2011 No Yes Sturnus vulgaris Starling bird SD5916 No No Yes No 2011 No Yes Hirundo rustica Swallow bird SD5916 No No Yes Yes 2011 No Yes Chroicocephalus ridibundus Black-headed Gull bird SD5714 No No Yes No 2011 No Yes Turdus philomelos Song Thrush bird SD5916 No No Yes No 2011 No Yes Vanellus vanellus Lapwing bird SD589133 Yes No Yes Yes No 2011 No Yes Vanellus vanellus Lapwing bird SD581131 Yes No Yes Yes No 2011 No Yes Vanellus vanellus Lapwing bird SD589134 Yes No Yes Yes No 2011 No Yes Vanellus vanellus Lapwing bird SD583130 Yes No Yes Yes No 2011 No Yes Vanellus vanellus Lapwing bird SD581130 Yes No Yes Yes No 2011 No Yes Falco peregrinus Peregrine bird SD5793217028 Yes No Yes Yes 2011 Yes Yes Hirundo rustica Swallow bird SD5958714244 No No Yes Yes 2012 No Yes Hirundo rustica Swallow bird SD5967015471 No No Yes Yes 2012 No Yes Ardea cinerea Grey Heron bird SD5958714244 No No Yes No 2012 No Yes Ilybius guttiger Ilybius guttiger insect - beetle (Coleoptera)SD58291572 No No Yes No 2000 No No Cercyon (Dicyrtocercyon) ustulatus Cercyon (Dicyrtocercyon) ustulatus insect - beetle (Coleoptera)SD58421589 No No Yes No 2000 No No Arvicola amphibius European Water Vole terrestrial mammal SD567141 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes No Arvicola amphibius European Water Vole terrestrial mammal SD56681414 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes No Arvicola amphibius European Water Vole terrestrial mammal SD56761425 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes No

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Arvicola amphibius European Water Vole terrestrial mammal SD56711417 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes No Arvicola amphibius European Water Vole terrestrial mammal SD56711421 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes No Arvicola amphibius European Water Vole terrestrial mammal SD56741417 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes No Arvicola amphibius European Water Vole terrestrial mammal SD56751423 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes No Arvicola amphibius European Water Vole terrestrial mammal SD56941384 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 Yes No Arvicola amphibius European Water Vole terrestrial mammal SD574146 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2001 Yes No Arvicola amphibius European Water Vole terrestrial mammal SD588129 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2001 Yes No Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrelle terrestrial mammal SD558156 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrelle terrestrial mammal SD558142 Yes No Yes Yes 2005 Yes Yes Arvicola amphibius European Water Vole terrestrial mammal SD58901602 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Yes No Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrelle terrestrial mammal SD577167 Yes No Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrelle terrestrial mammal SD580160 Yes No Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Pipistrellus Pipistrelle Bat species terrestrial mammal SD585159 Yes No Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Pipistrellus pipistrellus Common Pipistrelle terrestrial mammal SD577167 Yes No Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrelle terrestrial mammal SD565150 Yes No Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrelle terrestrial mammal SD5920415809 Yes No Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Neovison vison American Mink terrestrial mammal SD5685816921 No No No No 2009 No No Vespertilionidae Bats terrestrial mammal SD5920515967 Yes No Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Vespertilionidae Bats terrestrial mammal SD5915416085 Yes No Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Vespertilionidae Bats terrestrial mammal SD5922016049 Yes No Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Vespertilionidae Bats terrestrial mammal SD5905915819 Yes No Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Vespertilionidae Bats terrestrial mammal SD5907915842 Yes No Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Vespertilionidae Bats terrestrial mammal SD5913515852 Yes No Yes Yes 2009 Yes Yes Pipistrellus Pipistrelle Bat species terrestrial mammal SD561143 Yes No Yes Yes 2010 Yes Yes Chiroptera Bats terrestrial mammal SD561143 No No Yes No 2010 No No Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrelle terrestrial mammal SD562145 Yes No Yes Yes 2010 Yes Yes Pipistrellus pipistrellus Common Pipistrelle terrestrial mammal SD56241429 Yes No Yes Yes 2010 Yes Yes Arvicola amphibius European Water Vole terrestrial mammal SD58161271 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2010 Yes No Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrelle terrestrial mammal SD56291456 Yes No Yes Yes 2010 Yes Yes Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrelle terrestrial mammal SD5915416085 Yes No Yes Yes 2010 Yes Yes Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrelle terrestrial mammal SD5907915842 Yes No Yes Yes 2010 Yes Yes Nyctalus noctula Noctule Bat terrestrial mammal SD5903915697Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2010 Yes Yes Nyctalus noctula Noctule Bat terrestrial mammal SD5904415701Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2010 Yes Yes Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrelle terrestrial mammal SD5915416085 Yes No Yes Yes 2010 Yes Yes Nyctalus noctula Noctule Bat terrestrial mammal SD5911515787Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2010 Yes Yes Vespertilionidae Bats terrestrial mammal SD5915416085 Yes No Yes Yes 2011 Yes Yes Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrelle terrestrial mammal SD5905915819 Yes No Yes Yes 2011 Yes Yes Vespertilionidae Bats terrestrial mammal SD5923815876 Yes No Yes Yes 2011 Yes Yes Nyctalus noctula Noctule Bat terrestrial mammal SD5908715745Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2011 Yes Yes Nyctalus noctula Noctule Bat terrestrial mammal SD5925615873Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2011 Yes Yes Vespertilionidae Bats terrestrial mammal SD5907915842 Yes No Yes Yes 2011 Yes Yes Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrelle terrestrial mammal SD5922016049 Yes No Yes Yes 2011 Yes Yes Vespertilionidae Bats terrestrial mammal SD5920415809 Yes No Yes Yes 2011 Yes Yes Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrelle terrestrial mammal SD5958714244 Yes No Yes Yes 2012 Yes Yes Nyctalus noctula Noctule Bat terrestrial mammal SD5925615873Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2012 Yes Yes Nyctalus noctula Noctule Bat terrestrial mammal SD5923915900Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2012 Yes Yes Nyctalus noctula Noctule Bat terrestrial mammal SD5924015854Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2012 Yes Yes Nyctalus noctula Noctule Bat terrestrial mammal SD5908415725Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2012 Yes Yes Plecotus auritus Brown Long-eared Bat terrestrial mammal SD5926015883Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2012 Yes Yes Nyctalus noctula Noctule Bat terrestrial mammal SD5913515852Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2012 Yes Yes Vespertilionidae Bats terrestrial mammal SD5925615873 Yes No Yes Yes 2012 Yes Yes Nyctalus noctula Noctule Bat terrestrial mammal SD5904415701Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2012 Yes Yes Nyctalus noctula Noctule Bat terrestrial mammal SD5907915842Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2012 Yes Yes Pipistrellus Pipistrelle Bat species terrestrial mammal SD59291561 Yes No Yes Yes 2014 Yes Yes

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Magic Map 1km search zone for designated wildlife sites - Map

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Magic Map 1km search zone for designated wildlife sites - Report

No designated sites within area.

Magic Map search for SSSI Impact Risk Zones for site only

SSSI Impact Risk Zones – to assess planning applications for likely impacts on SSSIs/SACs/SPAs & Ramsar sites (England) GUIDANCE – How to use the Impact Risk Zones /Metadata_for_magic/SSSI IRZ User Guidance v2.3 MAGIC 14Aug2015.pdf 1. DOES PLANNING PROPOSAL FALL INTO ONE OR MORE OF THE CATEGORIES BELOW? 2. IF YES, CHECK THE CORRESPONDING DESCRIPTION(S) BELOW. LPA SHOULD CONSULT NATURAL ENGLAND ON LIKELY RISKS FROM THE FOLLOWING: All Planning Applications Infrastructure Pylons and overhead cables. Airports, helipads and other aviation proposals. Wind & Solar Energy Solar schemes with footprint > 0.5Ha, all wind turbines. Quarry Rural Non Residential Residential Rural Residential Air Pollution Pig & Poultry Units. Any other development/ industrial or commercial process that could cause AIR POLLUTION. Combustion General combustion processes >20MW energy input. Incl: energy from waste incineration, other incineration, landfill gas generation plant, pyrolysis/gasification, anaerobic digestion, sewage treatment works, other incineration/ combustion. Waste Landfill. Incl: inert landfill, non-hazardous landfill, hazardous landfill. Composting Any composting proposal with more than 75000 tonnes maximum annual operational throughput. Incl: open windrow composting, in-vessel composting, anaerobic digestion, other waste management. Discharges Water Supply

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Magic Map 1km search zone for habitat inventory data

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Wildlife Site Citations

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Desk Based Ecological Assessment

Desk Based Ecological Assessment Version 1.0 November 2015

APPENDIX B: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Technical Report

5170.008 Appendices August 2016 Version 3.0

HABITAT SURVEY TECHNICAL REPORT 2015

1.0 GENERAL DETAILS

Site Name: Eaves Green

Job Number: 5170 Doc. Ref: 5170.009

Site Location: Eaves Green, Chorley, Lancashire

Date: 27th May

Surveyors: Val Gateley

Weather: Clear and bright

Seasonal None - The survey was undertaken within the optimum survey period for Phase 1 Constraints: habitat surveys. Methods: JNCC Phase 1 habitat survey (2010)

Drawing Ref: G5170.007 Phase 1 Habitat Survey

Target Notes: Within this document (Section 4.0)

Abbreviations: Section 41: Habitats and species which are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006.

LBAP: Local (Lancashire) Biodiversity Action Plan

Written Checked Authorised Initial VG MN MN

1.0 SCOPE OF WORKS TEP was commissioned in April 2012 by Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd to undertake an ecological assessment of a site at Eaves Green located immediately to the south of Chorley, Lancashire to the west of the A6. Taylor Wimpey recommissioned TEP in 2015 to update existing information and to undertake further ecological works to support planning proposals for residential development of the site. The Phase 1 habitat survey of the site was updated on 27th May 2015 as part of these works. The findings of which are detailed in the following sections.

5170.009 1 May 2015 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2015

2.0 HABITAT SURVEY RESULTS

2.1 Habitat Descriptions

Protection / Target Description Habitat Type Status Note(s) Three fields of semi-improved neutral grassland form the western portion of the site. These fields are no longer farmed/grazed and are currently managed by the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), it is likely that wildflower seed mixes have been sown on these fields as part of this Semi-improved management. neutral TN11 grassland Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus, meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis, sweet vernal-grass Anthoxanthum oderatum, red fescue Festuca rubra and rough meadow-grass Poa trivialis and yellow rattle Rhinanthus minor occur most frequently. A species-poor semi-improved grassland field lies in the centre of the site. The field was occupied by pigs during the survey and as such numerous areas of disturbed ground were present. Tall ruderal vegetation and occasional immature scattered scrub were noted amongst the sward. Species-poor Creeping bent creeping semi-improved Agrostis stolonifera, TN2 & TN7 buttercup Yorkshire-fog neutral Ranunculus repens, (TN7). grassland

A further two species-poor semi-improved grassland fields occur in the east of the site. Ryegrass Lolium perenne is abundant with frequent Yorkshire-fog Holcus lanatus and rough meadow-grass Poa trivialis (TN2). Two fields of ryegrass, cut for silage, are present within the eastern half of the site. Arable fields

5170.009 2 May 2015 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2015

Protection / Target Description Habitat Type Status Note(s) Occasional patches of tall ruderal herbs occur onsite. These are mostly associated with boundary features although one patch was noted within the semi-improved grassland fields in the west of the site. Cow parsley Anthriscus sylvatica and nettle Urtica dioica occur most frequently.

Invasive tall ruderal herb species Himalayan Tall ruderal Balsam Impatiens glandulifera and Japanese herbs knotweed Fallopia japonica were recorded onsite. Small stands of Japanese knotweed were noted within the small pocket of woodland within central field onsite along with scattered Himalayan balsam. Further scattered Himalayan balsam is present within a hedgerow bordering Burgh Lane South, within the tree line in the east of the site and amongst the woodland habitat bordering the east and west boundaries of the site. A small area of Semi-natural broad-leaved woodland is present within the centre of the site, with borders the eastern and western site boundaries with pockets of woodland also present adjacent to the western half the southern boundary.

Semi-natural broad-leaved woodland borders the eastern boundary forming a wooded section of the Semi-natural Section 41 TN3, TN8 & River Yarrow Valley. English oak broad-leaved Quercus robur, TN12 sycamore and beech woodland LBAP Acer pseudoplatanus Fagus sylvatica were the most abundant tree species with frequent bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scritpa present amongst the groundflora (TN3).

The western boundaries of the site are predominantly bounded by semi-natural woodland. With a similar species composition to the previously described area of woodland present (TN12). A band of broad-leaved plantation woodland is Broad-leaved present in the northeast corner of the site. Silver plantation LBAP TN4 birch Betula pendula dominated with alder Alnus woodland glutinosa, hazel Corylus avellana and rowan Sorbus aucuparia also noted.

5170.009 3 May 2015 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2015

Protection / Target Description Habitat Type Status Note(s) A line of mature English oak trees is present along a field boundary in the southeast of the site. Three mature trees, two beech and one English oak, are present at the eastern end of hedge along the north of the central area of the site (TN1).

A line of silver birch trees border Burgh Lane South in the southern half of the site, with a group of silver birch and English oak trees adjacent to Scattered broad- TN1 this within the eastern edge of the pig field. leaved trees

Occasional scattered trees (mostly planted and immature) are present within the semi-improved grassland fields in the, one mature ash Fraxinus excelsior tree is also present in this area. A number of sapling beech, silver birch and oak trees a present along the western edge of the site adjacent to the woodland.

Areas of dense scrub onsite are predominantly associated with field boundaries and were noted across much of the site, particular bordering the woodland habitat. Bramble Rubus fruticosus agg., raspberry Rubus ideaus elder Sambucus nigra and willow species occur most frequently.

Scattered scrub is frequent within the pig field in Dense and the centre of the site, dominated by grey willow scattered scrub Salix cinerea and bramble. An area of scattered hawthorn, bramble and elder scrub borders the northern edge of a hollow in the semi-improved grassland field in the northwest of the site.

Scattered hawthorn scrub was noted along amongst the mature trees along the field boundary in the east of the site. There are four sections of species-poor hedgerow onsite, three of which are along Burgh Lane South (TN5, TN9 and TN10). The hedges described in TN9 and TN10 looked relatively immature with the dominant woody species being hawthorn Crataegus monogyna with frequent beech also noted in the eastern hedge (TN9), bluebell was also recorded within this section of hedge. Section 41 Species-poor TN1, TN5, hedgerows TN9 & TN10 A short section of hedge and trees borders Burgh LBAP Lane South in the south of the site, again hawthorn is dominant with occasional English oak trees present (TN5).

Adjoining Burgh Lane South at the northern edge of the site, then running eastward forming a field boundary is a Hawthorn hedge described in TN1.

5170.009 4 May 2015 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2015

Protection / Target Description Habitat Type Status Note(s) There are two areas of marshy grassland onsite, both present within the semi-improved grassland Marsh/marshy fields in the centre of the site. Soft rush Juncus TN6 grassland effusus was found to be most abundant with frequent creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens and willowherb species Epilobium sp. A small area of shallow water was noted on the southern edge of the most westerly area of marshy grassland onsite. The ground in this area was Ephemeral pool poached and disturbed by pigs, with rush Juncus species present. This area is liable to drying and contained no aquatic vegetation. A short section of wet ditch is present in the north west of the site, the ditch was relatively thin and Standing water shallow with abundant soft rush.

An area of bare ground is present with the field in the northeast of the site, the area looked to have Bare ground been disturbed as part of the adjacent residential development that was under construction the survey.

3.0 DISCUSSION

3.1 Habitats Overall the site currently has moderate ecological value with some habitats providing low ecological value with the species-poor semi-improved grassland and arable fields west of the Burgh Lane South and area of bare ground offering limited potential for wildlife.

The most ecologically interesting features onsite are the semi-natural woodland, plantation woodland, native hedgerows, marsh, mature trees, dense scrub and semi-improved neutral grassland fields. These areas provide varied feeding, commuting and nesting/roosting habitats for a variety of wildlife.

The arable and semi-improved grassland fields (including the species-poor fields) offer some potential for ground nesting bird species such as skylark and lapwing.

A number of mature trees particularly in the southeast of the site and two beech trees along the northern edge of the central/eastern area of the site were highlighted as providing a mix of Category 1 and 2 bat roost potential (as described in the Bat Conservation Trust guidelines). Drawings G.5170.007 displays these trees. A mature ash tree in the west of the site was also noted as having Category bat roosting potential. Some trees within the areas of semi-natural woodland bordering the site also have potential for bat roosting, these are not identified individually on the drawings.

The semi natural woodlands and species-poor hedgerows within the survey area qualify as Section 41 and local BAP priority habitats. The hedgerow which contains native bluebell also qualify as Important under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. It is recommended that native hedgerows are retained where possible. If this is not possible, permission to remove hedgerow habitat will need to be sort from the Local Planning Authority.

The site is in a mostly rural setting with recent residential development to the north. It is well linked to the wider landscape to the south east and west via the adjacent areas bands of semi-natural woodland.

5170.009 5 May 2015 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2015

3.2 Notable Flora

Protected plant species Bluebell is noted in the base of some hedgerows and field boundaries on the site, it was also noted within the small area of woodland on site and the areas of woodland adjacent to the site (see Phase 1 drawing for locations). Native bluebell is protected under Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). If any works are to disturb an area populated by bluebell a translocation exercise is recommended.

3.3 Invasive Species

The species listed below are invasive non-native plant species and are listed under Part II of Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA), updated in April 2010. Section 14 of the WCA (1981) states: if any person plants or otherwise causes to grow in the wild any plant which is included in Part II of Schedule 9 he shall be guilty of an offence. Locations of these invasive plants are illustrated in Drawing G.5170.007. Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam are present. It is recommended that a management plan is produced detailing the control/eradication of these species. Rhododendron was recorded with woodland habitat adjacent to the site, care should be taken not to disturb this species during works.

4.0 Target Notes

Key: D = Dominant, A = Abundant, F = Frequent, O = Occasional, R = Rare Target Note 1 Species-poor hedge with oak and beech trees at east end. Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn D Dactylis glomerata Cock's-foot F Urtica dioica Nettle F Galium aparine Cleavers O Poa trivialis Rough Meadow-grass O Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble O Sambucus nigra Elder O Fagus sylvatica Beech R Ilex aquifolium Holly R

Target Note 2 Poor semi-improved grassland field. Lolium perenne Ryegrass A Holcus lanatus Yorkshire-fog F Poa trivialis Rough Meadow-grass F Alopecurus pratensis Meadow Foxtail O Cerastium fontanum Common Mouse-ear O Dactylis glomerata Cock's-foot O Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain O Ranunculus acris Meadow Buttercup O Rumex acetosa Common Sorrel O Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion O Bromus hordeaceus Soft Brome R

5170.009 6 May 2015 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2015

Target Note 3 Semi-natural broad-leaved woodland bordering eastern edge of survey area. Quercus robur English Oak A Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore F Fagus sylvatica Beech F Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bluebell F Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal-grass O Arum maculatum Lords-and-Ladies O Betula pendula Silver Birch O Circaea lutetiana Enchanter's Nightshade O Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn O Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted Hair-grass O Dryopteris filix-mas Male-fern O Equisetum telmateia Great Horsetail O Fraxinus excelsior Ash O Geum urbanum Wood Avens O Ilex aquifolium Holly O Impatiens glandulifera Himalayan Balsam O Juncus effusus Soft Rush O Rhododendron ponticum Rhododendron O Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble O Sambucus nigra Elder O Silene dioica Red Campion O Sorbus aucuparia Rowan O Sorbus aucuparia Mountain Ash O Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion O Ulex gallii Western Gorse O Urtica dioica Nettle O Aesculus hippocastanum Horse-chestnut R Caltha palustris Marsh-marigold R Dryopteris dilatata Broad Buckler-fern R Moehringia trinervia Three-veined Sandwort R Salix fragilis Crack Willow R Target Note 4 Broad-leaved plantation woodland bordering semi-natural woodland in the north east of the site. Betula pendula Silver Birch D Alnus glutinosa Alder O Corylus avellana Hazel O Sorbus aucuparia Rowan O Quercus robur English Oak R

Target Note 5 Southern end of old track with banks up to field. Grasses present along with trees + hedge Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn A Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore O Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard O Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal-grass O Anthriscus sylvestris Cow Parsley O Betula pendula Silver Birch O Conopodium majus Pignut O Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail O Ficaria verna Lesser Celandine O Galium aparine Cleavers O Geranium robertianum Herb-Robert O Geum urbanum Wood Avens O Hedera helix Ivy O Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed O

5170.009 7 May 2015 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2015

Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bluebell O Ilex aquifolium Holly O Impatiens glandulifera Himalayan Balsam O Poa trivialis Rough Meadow-grass O Quercus robur English Oak O Rosa canina agg. Dog Rose O Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble O Sambucus nigra Elder O Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion O Urtica dioica Nettle O Vicia sepium Bush Vetch O Centaurea nigra Knapweed R Dryopteris dilatata Broad Buckler-fern R Dryopteris filix-mas Male-fern R Epilobium sp. Willowherb species R Lathyrus pratensis Meadow Vetchling R Moehringia trinervia Three-veined Sandwort R

Target Note 6 Strip marsh through field. Juncus effusus Soft Rush A Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup F Cardamine flexuosa Wavy Bitter-cress O Cardamine pratensis Cuckooflower O Cirsium palustre Marsh Thistle O Epilobium hirsutum Great Willowherb O Epilobium sp. Willowherb species O Glyceria fluitans Floating Sweet-grass O Rumex crispus Curled Dock O

Target Note 7 Poor semi-improved grassland field (pigs in field) with lots of disturbed ground. Also scrub is scattered across much of field but is has been cut to stump and regrowth is occurring

Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bent F Holcus lanatus Yorkshire-fog F Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup F Anthriscus sylvestris Cow Parsley O Chamerion angustifolium Rosebay Willowherb O Cirsium arvense Creeping Thistle O Dactylis glomerata Cock's-foot O Epilobium sp. Willowherb species O Juncus effusus Soft Rush O Ranunculus acris Meadow Buttercup O Rosa canina agg. Dog Rose O Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble O Rumex acetosa Common Sorrel O Rumex obtusifolius Broad-leaved Dock O Salix cinerea Grey Willow O Senecio jacobaea Ragwort O Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion O Urtica dioica Nettle O Betula pendula Silver Birch R Cardamine flexuosa Wavy Bitter-cress R Cerastium glomeratum Sticky Mouse-ear R Dryopteris filix-mas Male-fern R Filipendula ulmaria Meadowsweet R Juncus inflexus Hard Rush R

5170.009 8 May 2015 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2015

Prunus avium Wild Cherry R Solanum dulcamara Bittersweet R

Target Note 8 Willow dominated scrubby woodland within linear hollow. Quite bare underneath

Also, 3 or 4 stems of Japanese Knotweed (Small) and some scattered Himalayan balsam.

Salix cinerea Grey Willow F Salix fragilis Crack Willow F Betula pendula Silver Birch O Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn O Epilobium sp. Willowherb species O Quercus robur English Oak O Sambucus nigra Elder O Urtica dioica Nettle O Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bluebell R Sorbus aucuparia Rowan R Sorbus aucuparia Mountain Ash R

Target Note 9 Species-poor hedge along east side of Burgh Lane South with bank dry ditch present. Hedge may be younger than 30 years. Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn A Fagus sylvatica Beech F Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore O Dryopteris dilatata Broad Buckler-fern O Epilobium hirsutum Great Willowherb O Ficaria verna Lesser Celandine O Geranium robertianum Herb-Robert O Hedera helix Ivy O Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bluebell O Impatiens glandulifera Himalayan Balsam O Mercurialis perennis Dog's Mercury O Pteridium aquilinum Bracken O Quercus robur English Oak O Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup O Rosa canina agg. Dog Rose O Rumex acetosa Common Sorrel O Silene dioica Red Campion O Stachys sylvatica Hedge Woundwort O Stellaria holostea Greater Stitchwort O Juncus inflexus Hard Rush R

Target Note 10 Species-poor hedge on west side of Burgh Lane South. Hedge looks to be immature. Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn D Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal-grass O Anthriscus sylvestris Cow Parsley O Dactylis glomerata Cock's-foot O Galium aparine Cleavers O Geranium robertianum Herb-Robert O Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed O Poa trivialis Rough Meadow-grass O Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup O Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble O

5170.009 9 May 2015 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2015

Sambucus nigra Elder O Silene dioica Red Campion O Urtica dioica Nettle O Vicia sepium Bush Vetch O Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail R

Target Note 11 Semi-improved neutral grassland, likely to have been spread with wildflower seed mix in the past. Alopecurus pratensis Meadow Foxtail F Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal-grass F Festuca rubra Red Fescue F Holcus lanatus Yorkshire-fog F Poa trivialis Rough Meadow-grass F Rhinanthus minor Yellow-rattle F Anthriscus sylvestris Cow Parsley O Cerastium fontanum Common Mouse-ear O Dactylis glomerata Cock's-foot O Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed O Lolium perenne Ryegrass O Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain O Poa annua Annual Meadow-grass O Ranunculus acris Meadow Buttercup O Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup O Rumex acetosa Common Sorrel O Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion O Trifolium pratense Red Clover O Trifolium repens White Clover O Cirsium arvense Creeping Thistle R Galium aparine Cleavers R Holcus mollis Creeping Soft-grass R Juncus effusus Soft Rush R Polygonum aviculare Knotgrass R Vicia sativa Common Vetch R

Target Note 12 Broad-leaved woodland bordering the west of the site. Quercus robur English Oak A Fagus sylvatica Beech F Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bluebell F Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore O Betula pendula Silver Birch O Rhododendron ponticum Rhododendron O Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble O Salix cinerea Grey Willow O Sorbus aucuparia Mountain Ash R Sorbus aucuparia Rowan R

5170.009 10 May 2015 Version 1.0

APPENDIX C: HSI and Amphibian Survey Technical Report

5170.008 Appendices August 2016 Version 3.0

Eaves Green Chorley AMPHIBIAN SURVEY RECORD

1.0 GENERAL DETAILS

Site Name Eaves Green Job Number 5170 Doc. Ref 5170.004 Site Location Chorley, Lancashire Date(s) Visit 1 - 28/04/2015 Visit 2 – 06/05/2015 Visit 3 – 20/05/2015 Visit 4 – 26/05/2015 Visit 5 – 05/06/2015 Visit 6 – 11/06/2015 Seasonal Constraints None Methods Torch Survey, Bottle Trap Survey, Egg Search Survey Constraints Ponds 1 & 5 became too dry to bottle trap Surveyors Val Gateley, James Cooper, Sally Cowley, Tom Squires, Mike Brown, David Monk Drawing Ref: G5170.008

2.0 PRE-EXISTING DATA

Date Survey Findings Pond 1: Absent Pond 1A: Present Pond 2: Present Pond 3: Present 2012 Great Crested Newt Pond 4: Present Pond 5: Present Pond 6: Present

Medium Population Recorded

3.0 SURVEY RESULTS

3.1 Aquatic Habitat Description

Pond Grid Reference Description Ref 1 SD 5780715445 Marshy Swamp. Has a shallow area of water under willow scrub

1a SD 5771915466 Trees around banks, wide vegetated edges

2 SD 5780715445 Trees surrounding pond, pond with lots of Typha

3 SD 5817215397 Pond in woodland area

4 SD 5773414749 Pond in field

5 SD 5775914753 Very small depression with dense gly flui

6 SD 5793715138 Landscaped pond with Miller development

5170.004 1 September 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Amphibian Survey Record

3.2 Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Assessment

The HSI for a pond is calculated according to ten diagnostic features, Suitability Indices (SI). Each SI is determined according to a set group of measures or categories as follows:

Ref SI Measure / Category

SI1 Geographic location location in UK is optimal (A), marginal (B) or unsuitable (C)

2 SI2 Pond size Pond area to nearest 50m – ponds <50m score 0.01 while for waterbodies >2,000m2 this SI is omitted and the calculation adjusted accordingly (multiplied by 1/9)

SI3 Pond permanence Pond never dries (N), rarely dries (R), sometimes dries (S) or dries annually (A)

SI4 Water quality Good, moderate, poor or bad (polluted) water quality, determined by aquatic invertebrate assemblage present (supplemented by aquatic vegation present, water colour, turbidity, sheen etc)

SI5 Degree of shading percentage of shade up to 1m from the shoreline (excluding marginal vegetation but including buildings, trees etc)

SI6 Presence of water Major impact (MJ), minor impact (MN) or absent (A) – the population fowl size and effect that ducks, geese and swans, excluding birds such as moorhen have upon the pond, including margins

SI7 Presence of fish Major affect (MJ), minor affect (MN), possibly present (P) or absent (A) – the population size and effect fish have upon the pond

SI8 Pond count Number of ponds within 1km (excluding those on the far sides of barriers such as main roads) divided by π (3.14)

SI7 Terrestrial habitats Good (G), moderate (M), poor (P), none (N) - quality, extent and proportion of terrestrials habitats within at least 250m radius (excluding habitats on far sides of major barriers)

SI10 Macrophyte content Percentage of plant cover (excluding marginals and duckweed) within pond to nearest 5%

The ten SIs are then converted into scores, on a scale from 0.01 to 1. The overall HSI for an individual pond is then calculated using the following equation:

1/10 HSI = (SI1 x SI2 x SI3 x SI4 x SI5 x SI6 x SI7 x SI8 x SI9 x SI10)

5170.004 2 September 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Amphibian Survey Record

SI1 SI2 SI3 SI4 SI5 SI6 SI7 SI8 SI9 SI10 Overall HSI Location Area Permanence Quality Shade Waterfowl Fish Density Habitat Vegetation

Pond

Ref Suitability HSI Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure

A 1.0 1. 1 1.00 50 0.10 Annually 0.10 Poor 0.33 90 0.40 Absent Absent 0.64 0.70 Good 1.00 0 0.30 Poor 0.44 (optimal) 0 00 A 0.6 0. 1a 1.00 750 0.99 Never 0.90 Good 1.00 30 1.00 Minor Minor 0.64 0.70 Good 1.00 60 0.90 Excellent 0.81 (optimal) 7 33 A 1.0 0. 2 1.00 100 0.20 Rarely 1.00 Moderate 0.67 50 1.00 Absent Minor 0.64 0.70 Good 1.00 40 0.70 Average 0.68 (optimal) 0 33 A 0.6 1. 3 1.00 200 0.40 Never 0.90 Poor 0.33 80 0.60 Minor Absent 4.14 1.00 Good 1.00 5 0.35 Average 0.66 (optimal) 7 00 A 0.6 0. Modera 4 1.00 500 1.00 Never 0.90 Moderate 0.67 0 1.00 Minor Minor 4.14 1.00 0.67 20 0.50 Good 0.73 (optimal) 7 33 te A Some 1.0 1. Modera 5 1.00 50 0.10 0.50 Moderate 0.67 0 1.00 Absent Absent 4.14 1.00 0.67 100 0.80 Average 0.67 (optimal) times 0 00 te A 0.6 0. Modera 6 1.00 200 0.40 Never 0.90 Good 1.00 0 1.00 Minor Minor 4.14 1.00 0.67 40 0.70 Good 0.72 (optimal) 7 33 te

5170.004 3 September 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Amphibian Survey Record

3.3 Torch / Bottle Trap Survey Results

Survey Conditions Maximum Adult Counts by Any Survey Method (extrapolated according to accessibility) Pond Date Temperature (°C) Turbidity Vegetation Survey affected by Survey affected by Great crested Smooth/ Palmate Ref Toad Frog Fish? Air Water (0-5) (0-5) rain? wind? newt adult newt adult 1 28/04/2015 8 11 1 1 No (dry) No (calm) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 1 06/05/2015 9 9 1 4 No (light shower) No (calm) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) No 1 20/05/2015 12 12 1 1 No (dry) No (calm) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 1 26/05/2015 9 11 1 1 No (dry) No (calm) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 1 05/06/2015 N/S N/S N/S N/S Yes (heavy shower) Yes (windy) N/S (Torch) N/S (N/S) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 1 11/06/2015 - N/S N/S N/S Yes (heavy shower) Yes (windy) N/S (Torch) N/S (N/S) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 1a 28/04/2015 8 11 2 3 No (dry) No (calm) 17 (Bottle) 36 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 1 (Bottle) 1a 06/05/2015 9 9 4 3 No (light shower) No (calm) 1 (Bottle) 26 (Torch) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) Yes 1a 20/05/2015 12 13 3 3 No (dry) No (calm) 3 (Torch) 8 (Torch) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 1a 26/05/2015 9 11 3 3 No (dry) No (calm) 0 (Bottle) 16 (Torch) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 1a 05/06/2015 13 17 3 3 No (dry) No (light breeze) 0 (Bottle) 9 (Torch) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 1a 11/06/2015 17 18 3 2 No (dry) No (light breeze) 0 (Bottle) 10 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 2 28/04/2015 8 11 1 3 No (dry) No (calm) 2 (Torch) 18 (Torch) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 2 06/05/2015 9 9 0 3 No (dry) No (calm) 5 (Bottle) 14 (Torch) 0 (Bottle) 3 (Torch) No 2 20/05/2015 12 13 2 3 No (dry) No (calm) 10 (Bottle) 14 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 2 26/05/2015 9 10 2 4 No (dry) No (calm) 0 (Bottle) 4 (Torch) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 2 05/06/2015 10 13 1 4 No (dry) No (light breeze) 3 (Bottle) 18 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 3 (Torch) 2 11/06/2015 17 18 3 4 No (dry) No (calm) 6 (Bottle) 10 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 2 (Bottle) 3 28/04/2015 7 11 1 0 No (dry) No (calm) 0 (Bottle) 2 (Torch) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 3 06/05/2015 9 9 1 0 No (dry) No (light breeze) 1 (Bottle) 16 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) No 3 20/05/2015 12 13 2 0 No (dry) No (calm) 4 (Bottle) 7 (Torch) 0 (Bottle) 1 (Torch) 3 26/05/2015 9 10 2 1 No (dry) No (calm) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 3 05/06/2015 13 14 2 3 No (dry) No (light breeze) 2 (Bottle) 2 (Torch) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 3 11/06/2015 15 17 3 1 No (dry) No (calm) 1 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 1 (Torch) 4 28/04/2015 8 11 3 2 No (dry) No (calm) 0 (Bottle) 11 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 1 (Bottle) 4 06/05/2015 9 9 0 0 No (dry) No (calm) 2 (Bottle) 3 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) No 4 20/05/2015 12 12 2 2 No (dry) No (calm) 6 (Bottle) 1 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 4 26/05/2015 9 10 3 3 No (dry) No (calm) 1 (Bottle) 1 (Torch) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 4 05/06/2015 8 15 3 3 No (dry) No (light breeze) 7 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 4 11/06/2015 15 17 1 1 No (dry) No (calm) 7 (Bottle) 1 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle)

5170.004 4 September 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Amphibian Survey Record

5 28/04/2015 8 11 1 4 No (dry) No (calm) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 5 06/05/2015 9 9 0 0 No (dry) No (calm) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) No 5 20/05/2015 12 12 2 4 No (dry) No (calm) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 5 26/05/2015 9 10 2 5 No (dry) No (calm) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 5 05/06/2015 N/S N/S N/S N/S Yes (heavy shower) Yes (windy) N/S (Torch) N/S (N/S) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 5 11/06/2015 N/S N/S N/S N/S Yes (heavy shower) Yes (windy) N/S (Torch) N/S (N/S) 0 (Torch) 0 (Torch) 6 28/04/2015 9 11 3 3 No (dry) No (calm) 0 (Bottle) 12 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 6 06/05/2015 9 9 0 1 No (dry) No (calm) 5 (Bottle) 5 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) Yes 6 20/05/2015 12 13 2 2 No (dry) No (calm) 5 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 6 26/05/2015 9 10 2 3 No (dry) No (calm) 4 (Torch) 20 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 6 05/06/2015 9 16 1 3 No (dry) No (light breeze) 5 (Torch) 9 (Torch) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle) 6 11/06/2015 16 17 0 3 No (dry) No (light breeze) 0 (Bottle) 2 (Torch) 0 (Bottle) 0 (Bottle)

*Ponds 1 and 5 became too dry to bottle trap.

3.4 Eggs & Larvae

Pond Ref Great Crested Newt Smooth / Palmate Newt Toad Frog 1 No eggs or larvae found No eggs or larvae found No eggs or larvae found No eggs or larvae found 1a No eggs or larvae found No eggs or larvae found No eggs, larvae found No eggs, larvae found 2 Eggs. Larvae not recorded No eggs or larvae found No eggs, larvae found No eggs, larvae found 3 Eggs. Larvae not recorded No eggs or larvae found No eggs or larvae found No eggs, larvae found 4 Eggs. Larvae not recorded No eggs or larvae found No eggs or larvae found No eggs, larvae found 5 No eggs or larvae found No eggs or larvae found No eggs or larvae found No eggs or larvae found 6 No eggs or larvae found No eggs or larvae found No eggs, larvae found No eggs, larvae found

3.5 eDNA Testing Results

An additional pond, Pond 7, was identified too late in the season to carry out standard GCN survey techniques. This pond is located at grid reference SD 58376 15445 within an area of woodland. As the traditional survey window had been missed this pond was subject to eDNA sampling, the results for which are presented as follows:-

Pond Ref Date Surveyor Score GCN (Y/N) 7 10/06/2015 David Monk 0/12 No

5170.004 5 September 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Amphibian Survey Record

4.0 SURVEY SUMMARY

4.1 Summary by Pond

The table below presents the peak adult counts of newts and toads or peak frog spawn counts on a pond by pond basis to determine each individual pond population size class and assemblage.

HSI Great Crested Newt Smooth Newt Palmate Newt Toad Frog

Fish Pond Ref Pond Visit Visit Visit Visit Visit Visit Count Class Count Class Count Class Count Class Count Class Score Number Number Number Number Number Measure Pond Size Size Pond Size Pond Size Pond Size Pond Size Pond Peak Adult PeakAdult PeakAdult PeakAdult PeakAdult Peak Spawn PeakSpawn 1 0.44 Poor 0 - Not Present 0 - Not Present 0 - Not Present 0 - Not Present 0 - Not Present Absent

1a 0.81 Excellent 17 Visit 1 Medium 21 Visit 1 Medium 15 42122 Medium 0 - Not Present 0 - Adults only Present

2 0.68 Average 10 Visit 3 Small 13 Visit 1 Medium 11 42160 Medium 0 - Not Present 0 - Adults only Present

3 0.66 Average 4 Visit 3 Small 9 Visit 2 Small 7 42130 Small 0 - Not Present 0 - Adults only Absent

4 0.73 Good 7 Visit 6 Small 6 Visit 1 Small 6 42122 Small 0 - Not Present 0 - Adults only Present

5 0.67 Average 0 - Not Present 0 - Not Present 0 - Not Present 0 - Not Present 0 - Not Present Absent 6 0.72 Good 5 Visit 3 Small 11 Visit 1 Medium 10 42150 Small 0 - Not Present 0 - Not Present Present

5170.004 6 September 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Amphibian Survey Record

4.2 Metapopulation Summary

The following table summarises the assemblage present and the metapopulation sizes of amphibian species across the site.

Peak Adult Count Peak Spawn Count Date Great Crested Newt Smooth Newt Palmate Newt Toad Frog

28/04/2015 19 53 27 0 0

06/05/2015 15 40 24 0 0

20/05/2015 29 Medium 18 Medium 13 Medium 0 0 Not Not Present Population Population Population Present 26/05/2015 5 18 24 0 0 05/06/2015 16 16 21 0 0

11/06/2015 15 13 11 0 0

5170.004 7 September 2015

Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Amphibian Survey Record

4.3 Site Summary

JNCC sets out a site scoring system for evaluating the importance of sites for amphibians. While this scoring system is primarily designed to identify sites for selection as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), it is a useful standardised system for the evaluation of a site’s general importance for amphibian species or an amphibian assemblage. The scoring system is presented below

Medium Small Population Large Population Population Species Count* Score 1* Score 2* Score 3*

Seen/netted during the <5 May-50 >50 day Great crested newt Counted at night <10 10-100 >100

Smooth Newt <10 10-100 >100 Netted during the day or counted at night Palmate Newt <10 10-100 >100

Estimated <500 500-500 >5000 Common Toad Counted <100 100-1000 >1000

Common Frog Spawn clumps counted <50 50-500 >500

Assemblage Number of species 4 5 present

The scores for the assemblage and overall site are therefore calculated from the survey findings as follows:

Medium Small Population Large Population Population Species Count* Score 1* Score 2* Score 3*

Great crested newt Counted at night 1 2 0

Smooth Newt 0 2 0 Counted at night Palmate Newt 0 2 0

Common Toad Counted 0 0 0

Common Frog Spawn clumps 0 0 0 counted

Assemblage Number of species 3 Score 0 present

SITE SCORE 7

5170.004 8 September 2015 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Amphibian Survey Record

5.0 EVALUATION

Pre-existing data

Previous great crested newt surveys were undertaken on ponds 1 to 6 by TEP in 2012. Great crested newts were recorded in all ponds with the exception of Pond 1.

Limitations

There were very few limitations to survey. Three survey methods were undertaken at all ponds with the exception of ponds 1 and 5 which became too shallow to bottle trap.

Results

A medium sized population of great crested newt occurs within the survey boundary, when peak counts observed are extrapolated according to the proportion of shoreline accessible to survey. The population is present in Ponds 1a, 2, 3, 4 and 6. Great crested newts were recorded in Pond 5 during the 2012 survey, however, this pond has dried out a lot and forms a vegetation mat. Great crested newts have never been recorded in Pond 1.

The population of great crested newts in Pond 1a has increased substantially since 2012, from a peak count of 1 to a peak count of 17. Pond 2 has also increased from a peak count of 5 to a peak count of 10. The population within Ponds 3, 4 and 6 has remained constant. The 2015 surveys therefore indicate an increasing great crested newt population.

Medium sized populations of both smooth and palmate newts are present within the survey boundary. These occupy all ponds except Ponds 1 and 5. Breeding was not confirmed through eggs or larvae in any of these ponds. Common frog is also present in the survey boundary but in low populations, occupying Ponds 1a, 2, 4 and 6 respectively.

There were no common toads recorded in any of the surveyed ponds. This is a decline since the 2012 survey when common toads were recorded in Ponds 2, 4 and 6.

Evaluation

Pond 4 is the only pond located to the south of the site, all others are located to the north. It will be important to maintain connectivity between Pond 4 and the other ponds to ensure this pond is not isolated which could lead to population decline at this location.

A great crested newt mitigation licence would be required for the development given the presence of a medium population in the survey boundary.

5170.004 9 September 2015

APPENDIX D: Ecological DNA Sampling Methodology

5170.008 Appendices August 2016 Version 3.0

ENVIRONMENTAL DNA ANALYSIS A METHOD TO DETERMINE GREAT CRESTED NEWT PRESENCE OR ABSENCE IN PONDS

Background On 28th March 2014, DEFRA published a report1 into the effectiveness of Environmental DNA testing to detect great crested newt (GCN) presence from samples of pond water. Shortly after Natural England European protected species (EPS) licensing department confirmed that they would accept quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR) analysis of eDNA from water samples as proof of presence or absence of GCN in a pond. Natural England also stated that for the 2014 survey season, sampling must take place between the 15th April and the 30th June and be undertaken by a licensed surveyor.

This eDNA technique does not provide a population estimate and if GCN are present in a waterbody and site proposals necessitate that a population estimate2 is required for Natural England licensing purposes then a six visits using traditional survey methods are required.

Sources of environmental DNA (eDNA) include shed skin cells, mucous, faeces and gametes. These sources are diluted and distributed within the aquatic environments and persist within the water column for 7-21 days.

The study was a collaborative effort led by the Freshwater Habitats Trust (formerly known as Pond Conservation) included an in-house study of 35 ponds to test the efficiency of the eDNA method against traditional survey methods. The study was then expanded to volunteers (including consultants and members of wildlife organisations) to provide a wider sample set, to test the practicality of the technique for use by volunteers and to determine reliability was affected by pond characteristics.

To determine the risk of obtaining a false negative result, the study included sampling known GCN breeding ponds. To determine the risk of obtaining a false positive result, the study also included sampling ponds outside the known range of GCN and ponds within the known range of GCN but where confidence of GCN absence was high. A subsection of the samples within the volunteer survey were resurveyed by professionals to assess if surveyor experience influenced reliability. In total over 270 ponds were included in the study.

No false positive results were obtained from the eDNA technique. A small number of false negative results were obtained from the eDNA technique and these were associated with difficulties collecting water samples from areas of the pond used by GCN, difficulties accessing around the entire perimeter of the pond, and very small GCN populations. The study concludes that false positives were most likely when more than one of these constraints occurred.

The study concluded that the eDNA technique was accurate 99.3% (91.2% in the wider volunteer survey) compared with 76% for bottle trapping 75% for torching and 44% for egg searching across the full survey period (April to June). However, when the results of bottle trapping and torching were combined, traditional methods were nearly as efficient as the eDNA technique. Professional surveyors obtained the same result as volunteers on 92% of occasions.

1 Biggs et al 2014. Analytical and methodological development for improved surveillance of the Great Crested Newt. Defra Project WC1067. Freshwater Habitats Trust: Oxford. 2 Calculations of the type and extent of temporary and permanent habitat impacts of proposals are required to determine if presence/absence or population estimates are required for licensing purposes. Up to date guidance can be found on Natural England’s GCN licence method statement template.

Statistical analysis of the various pond characteristics only found correlation between GCN detection (with the eDNA technique) and HSI and the study concludes that GCN presence is the major factor determining in the ability to detect GCN eDNA.

The eDNA analysis results in a score of zero to twelve. Zero is a negative result, anything from one to 12 is a positive result. The study found that newt abundance was weakly correlated with the eDNA score, so far as a low score was always associated with a low count using traditional methods. However, the same correlation was not true of high scores.

A small study (provided at Appendix 4 of the main report) has also been undertaken to determine the effectiveness of the eDNA technique outside the breeding season. This study (although of a very limited sample size) concluded that eDNA sampling outside the breeding season could not be relied upon to determine presence / absence.

Method The an extract of the field sampling protocol outlined in the published Defra funded study (Appendix 5 of the study) is provided at the end of this document. TEP followed this protocol in undertaking their sampling.

Training & Qualifications Principal TEP Ecologist Elizabeth Seal underwent training with Dr Jeremy Biggs of the Freshwater Habitats Trust (FHT) on the eDNA sampling method on 11th April 2014. A copy of the certificate of this training can be provided on request. Elizabeth has worked with GCN as a consultant ecologist since 2004 and has held a Natural England licence since late 2005.

Before commencing eDNA sampling GCN licensed TEP ecologists were personally trained by Elizabeth Seal on the eDNA sampling method, additional biosecurity measures and record keeping procedures. A record of this training can be provided for named surveyors on request.

Equipment All equipment for the collection of water samples was as detailed in the published protocol. The equipment was purchased from SpyGen, the laboratory in France who developed the test, supplied the equipment and who undertook all the analysis for the Defra funded study.

Chain of Custody and Storage All sterilised sampling equipment was received in sealed bags. A check to confirm all seals were intact was undertaken prior to issuing to surveyors. All sample preserving tubes were received in sealed boxes with a unique bar code. On receipt, all seals were checked and the kits were registered on a central database using the unique bar code.

Sample preserving tubes were issued to surveyors with unique individual Sample Forms. The unique bar code was used on each Sample Form to identify each sample. The following information was recorded on the Sample Form (and the central database) at the point of issuing the surveyor:  Unique bar code  Site name  Date of issue

Once in the field and at the ponds, the surveyor confirmed the appropriate field survey sheet was being completed, by checking the bar code on the box and double checking the

corresponding bar codes on the sample tubes. The surveyor then filled in the date of survey and the pond ID number (as well as other information relating to survey conditions) on the Sample Form.

On returning to the office the Sample Forms were signed to confirm for each sample:  The member of staff who received the samples back into the office and stored them in the fridge  The date the fridge temperature was last checked and the temperature at that time of checking

The pond IDs were checked against a site map confirming which ponds had been sampled and this map was stored with the Sample Forms. All this information was also recorded on the central database.

A blank Sample Form is provided at the end of this document.

The sample preserving tubes were stored in a fridge until the morning of collection by the courier. The Sample Forms and the central database were updated to confirm the date of collection by the courier.

The unique bar codes were used by SpyGen to report results. All results were recorded in the central database by one member of staff and cross checked by a second member of staff. The results were then immediately issued to the lead survey for each site who then checked if the results were as expected (based on historic knowledge, on traditional survey methods if these were being utilised in parallel and based on HSI results). This process was to allow any unexpected results to be investigated further if necessary and to ensure full amphibian surveys were undertaken where necessary.

Sampling Method The sampling protocol issued with the published Defra study was adhered to. In summary:  20 samples were taken from around the entire perimeter of the waterbody.  The surveyor stayed out of the water while taking the samples (extension poles were used in situations where open/sufficiently deep water was at a distance from the dry banks.  Survey locations were distributed around the pond perimeter but micro-siting was used to select location most likely to be used by GCN.  At each sample location the water column was stirred prior to taking the sample but care was taken to avoid disturbing the sediment on the base of the pond.  Once all 20 samples were taken, 15ml of the total sample were pipetted into each of the 6 sampling tubes ensuring the water in the sample bag was mixed before taking each 15ml sample and that only one sample tube was opened at any one time.  At all times the surveyor ensured the sampling equipment avoided risk of contamination by not placing the ladle or pipet on the ground or otherwise contaminated surfaces and by changes gloves between the initial sampling and the pipetting stages of the method.

Lab Analysis All samples were sent to the Spygen laboratory in France. SpyGen developed the qPCR GCN eDNA test and the associated laboratory protocol and undertook all the analysis for the Defra funded study.

APPENDIX E: Bat Survey Technical Report

5170.008 Appendices August 2016 Version 3.0

EAVES GREEN Chorley, Lancashire Appendix Bat Survey Technical Report 2015

Document Ref: 5170.005 Version 1.0 January 2016

4939.010-1 1 June 2015 Version 2.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Bat Survey Appendix

CONTENTS

1.0 GENERAL DETAILS 1 2.0 TRANSECT ROUTE 3 3.0 TRANSECT SURVEY RESULTS 3 4.0 STATIC MONITORING 4 5.0 INTERPRETATION 9 6.0 SUMMARY 12

FIGURES

G5170.004 Bat Transect Visit 1 - 10/06/15 G5170.005 Bat Transect Visit 2 - 09/07/15 G5170.006 Bat Transect Visit 3 - 12/08/15

5170.005 January 2016 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Bat Survey Appendix

1.0 GENERAL DETAILS

Site Name Eaves Green Job Number 5170 Doc. Ref 5170.005 Site Location Lower Burgh Way, Eaves Green, Chorley, Lancashire The site is located to the south in the town of Chorley, Lancashire. It predominantly comprises agricultural pasture which includes areas with mature trees and hedgerows. Survey Location The boundaries of the site are defined by Burgh Wood to the north and north-east, Spring Wood to the south-west, agricultural pasture to the south and south-east and a residential development site to the north-east. Transect Survey Dates: 10/06/15, 09/07/15 and 12/08/15

Date(s) Static Detector Survey Dates: 10/06/15 to 15/06/15 10/07/15 to 13/07/15 11/08/15 to 14/08/15

5170.005 1 January 2016 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Bat Survey Appendix Methods Walked Transect Survey The walked transect was surveyed in June, July and August to sample bat activity during the peak activity season. All data relating to the transect route is presented herein.

A pair of surveyors with heterodyne and frequency division detectors walked the transect route. Each survey commenced 15 minutes before sunset and continued for at least 2 hours after. The route was walked in reverse for one of the three surveys to optimise survey efficacy. Bat passes were logged at each three-minute Stop and each intervening Walk. Observations of bat activity including the number of bats, behaviour and flight direction were logged by the surveyors and passes were recorded for subsequent sonogram analysis.

All the surveys were carried out during favourable weather conditions.

Bat transect activity is presented and mapped as an activity index using bat passes per hour (total number of bat passes at each stop/walk extrapolated into an hourly rate) with reference to the Bat Conservation Trust Guidelines. Based on bat passes per hour, levels of bat activity have been assigned as low, medium or high. These categories are arbitrary and used purely to compare relative levels of activity across this site. Bat activity indices do not represent the number of bats on site but an indication or sample of their activity. As transects target the 2 hour period from dusk when bat activity is known to be highest, indices derived from transect data can tend toward higher bpph values.

Static Detector Survey

To complement the activity transect survey method, two static detectors were placed on site on three occasions to coincide with each transect survey. The location of the statics is set out in Drawing G5170.009. One static was attached to the base of a double hedgerow running south to north through the centre of the site with semi-improved grassland extending to the west and arable land to the east. The microphone was attached to an extension cable and then secured at the top of the hedgerow in order to allow for better detection of bats potentially using this feature for commuting and foraging. The second static detector was attached to a fence post with an extension cable and the microphone placed in a tree at the edge of a belt of semi-natural broad-leaved woodland to the south of the site. This location was chosen as a linear feature along which bats may forage and commute.

In contrast to transect surveys, bpph is derived from static data by dividing the number of recorded passes across the entire sampling period, including the hours between the post-dusk and pre-dawn activity peaks. Therefore indices derived from static data can tend toward lower bpph values. The use of both survey methods provides a more complete picture of bat activity.

These categories are arbitrary and used purely to compare relative levels of activity across this site. Bat activity indices do not represent the number of bats on site but an indication or sample of their activity.

Sonogram Analysis Recorded calls were analysed using Analook W4.1d software by Lindsey Roberts, trained to Analook Analysis Level 2 and cross-referenced with survey forms. Bat activity is presented as a rate or an activity index using bat passes per hour (bpph).

5170.005 2 January 2016 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Bat Survey Appendix Constraints Some UK species are less likely to be detected due to low amplitude (e.g. brown long-eared) or directional calls (e.g. horseshoe species). This has been taken into account in the interpretation of results, within the geographical range of such species. Surveyor observations are also logged during each survey thereby reducing the risk of under-recording such species.

Bats vary their calls dependent on the habitat(s) in which they fly and on their activity (commuting, foraging, social interaction, etc.). It is not always possible to identify sonograms to species level owing to the overlap of call parameters between some species and/or poor quality recordings (e.g. of brief and distant passes). In these cases, species may confidently be attributed (e.g. based on surveyor observations) but are otherwise presented to genus level or simply as ‘bat species’. This ensures the dataset is interpreted accurately and transparently.

Surveyors Survey teams variously led included experienced bat surveyors Katy Allan, Shaun Allan, Val Gateley and Mike Penney (all with a minimum of at least two years survey experience with TEP and TEP in-house bat surveyor training).

Drawing Ref(s) Transect Route Activity for each survey: G5170.004 10/06/15 G5170.005 09/07/15 G5170.006 12/08/15

2.0 TRANSECT ROUTE

Description of Habitats

Lower Burgh Way, Eaves Green is located to the south of Chorley, Lancashire. The habitats on site mainly comprise semi-improved neutral grassland, with an area of arable land in the central southern region of the site and areas of semi-natural broad-leaved woodland along the eastern and western site boundaries. There are also small scattered patches of dense/continuous scrub around the site. Five scattered mature trees within the site (mainly to the south-east adjacent to the woodland where one of the static detectors was placed) were observed as having bat roost potential.

3.0 TRANSECT SURVEY RESULTS

Note: Myotis Species: Group used where contacts of bats including all myotis species bats and long-eared species could not be differentiated without further indepth analysis. Big Bats: Big bat species contacts which could not be differentiated (including Noctule/ Leisler’s/ Serotine).

Visit: 1 Date 10/06/15

Sunset 21:39 Start 21:18 Finish 23:25

Magenta Min. air temp. 14.1°C Rain No Detector Heterodyne and Anabat SD2 Start/finish Start /finish 1/8 2/12 cloud cover wind Season Early Summer 0/8 2/12 (oktas) (Beaufort)

5170.005 3 January 2016 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Bat Survey Appendix Average bat Common pipistrelle: 35.7 bpph passes per Myotis species: 17.5 bpph hour (bpph)

Spatial Representation: Drawing G5170.004

Visit 2 Date 09/07/15

Sunset 21:39 Start time 21:24 Finish 23:05 Pettersson and Min. air temp. 14.0°C Rain No Detector Anabat SD2 Start/finish Start/finish 1/8 1/12 cloud cover wind Season Summer 3/8 1/12 (oktas) (Beaufort) Common pipistelle: 41.1 bpph Average bat Soprano pipistrelle: 20 bpph passes per Myotis species: 30 bpph hour (bpph) Big bat species: 25 bpph

Spatial Representation: Drawing G5170.005

Visit 3 Date 12/08/15

Sunset 20:44 Start 20.30 Finish 23.21

Anabat SD1/ PDA, Min. air temp. 23°C Rain No Detector Petterrson heterodyne

Start/finish Start/finish 2/8 0/12 cloud cover wind Season Late Summer 4/8 0/12 (oktas) (Beaufort)

Average bat Common pipistrelle: 35.2 bpph passes per Myotis species: 3.9 bpph hour (bpph) Big bat species: 21.4 bpph

Spatial Representation: Drawing G5170.006

4.0 STATIC MONITORING Description of Location

Location 1 – An Anabat Express static detector was attached to the base of a double hedgerow running south to north through the centre of the site along Burgh Lane South with semi-improved grassland extending to the west and arable land to the east. The microphone was attached to an extension cable and then secured at the top of the hedgerow in order to allow for better detection of bats potentially using this feature for commuting and foraging.

Location 2 – An Anabat Express static detector was attached to a fence post with an extension cable and the microphone placed in a tree at the edge of a belt of semi-natural broad-leaved woodland to the south of the site. This location was chosen as a linear feature along which bats may forage and commute.

5170.005 4 January 2016 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Bat Survey Appendix

Species Pp: Common pipistrelle Pg: Soprano pipistrelle Psp: Pipistrelle species Unknown: Unknown bat species

Msp: Group including undifferentiated Big Bat: Group including undifferentiated contacts for all big contacts for all myotis species bats and long- bat species including noctule, Leisler’s and serotine. eared species.

Visit 1 Season Early Summer Start date 10/06/15 Finish date 14/06/15 No. nights 5 (40 hours of survey) A minimum temperature of 5.9°C was Weather recorded. Detector Anabat Express Constraints There was rain on:  10/06/15 (04:00 - 05:00)

Bat Activity (bpph) by species in June 2015 Location 1

24 22 20.95 20 18 16 14 Results Summary: 12 Location 1 10 8

Bat passes per hour per passes Bat 6 4 2 0.25 0.10 0.03 0.15 0 Msp Big Bat Pp Psp Unknown Bat species Species Msp Big Bat Pp Psp Unknown Activity (bpph) 0.25 0.10 20.95 0.03 0.15 Overall bat activity index 21.48 Bat passes/hr

5170.005 5 January 2016 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Bat Survey Appendix

Bat Activity (bpph) by species in June 2015 Location 2 44 40.9 40 36 32 28 24 Results Summary: 20 Location 2 16 12 Bat passes passes Bat per hour 8 4 0.75 0.35 0.075 0.05 0 Msp Big Bat Pp Psp Unknown

Bat Species

Species Msp Big Bat Pp Psp Unknown Activity (bpph) 0.75 0.35 40.9 0.075 0.05 Overall bat activity index 42.13 Bat passes/hr

Visit 2 Season Summer Start date 10/07/15 Finish date 12/07/15 No. nights 3 (25.04 hours of survey) A minimum temperature of 11.6°C was recorded. Weather Rain was noted on: Detector Anabat Express Constraints  10/07/15 (22:30 -23:30)  11/07/15 (03:15 - 04:15)  12/07/15 (00:50 to 05:00)

Bat Activity (bpph) by species in July 2015 Location 1 14

12

Results Summary: 10 Location 1 8

6

4 Bat passes passes Bat per hour 2.00 2 0.12 0.40 0.08 0 Msp Big Bat Pp Unknown

Bat Species

Species Msp Big Bat Pp Unknown Activity (bpph) 0.12 0.40 2.00 0.08 Overall bat activity index 2.60 Bat passes/hr

5170.005 6 January 2016 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Bat Survey Appendix

Bat Activity (bpph) by species in July 2015 Location 2 14 13.50

12 Results Summary: Location 2 10

8

6

4 Bat passes passes Bat per hour

2 0.36 0.36 0.04 0.24 0 Msp Big Bat Pp Psp Unknown

Bat Species

Species Msp Big Bat Pp Psp Unknown Activity (bpph) 0.36 0.36 13.5 0.04 0.24 Overall bat activity index 14.5 Bat passes/hr

Visit 3 Season Late Summer Start date 11/08/15 Finish date 13/08/15 No. nights 3 (30.15 hours of survey) A minimum temperature of 7.8°C. Weather Rain was noted on: Detector Anabat Express Constraints  13/08/15 (19:30 - 22:00)

Bat Activity (bpph) by species in August 2015 Location

14 1

12 Results Summary: Location 1 10

8

6

4

Bat passes passes Bat per hour 2.45

2 0.90 0.36 0 Msp Pp Unknown Bat Species Species Msp Pp Unknown Activity (bpph) 0.90 2.45 0.36 Overall bat activity index 3.71 Bat passes/hr

5170.005 7 January 2016 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Bat Survey Appendix Bat Activity (bpph) by species in August 2015 Location 2

14

12

Results Summary: 10 Location 2 8

6

Bat passes per hour per passes Bat 4

2 0.80 0.07 0.03 0 Msp Big Bat Pp Bat Species

Species Msp BigBat Pp Activity (bpph) 0.07 0.03 0.80 Overall bat activity index 0.90 Bat passes/hr

Figure 1. Comparison of bat activity (bpph) for different species across the static monitoring period.

Temporal comparison of bat activity (bpph) 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 Number of bat contacts/survey contacts/survey hours (bpph) of bat Number 5 0 June July August Msp 1.00 0.48 0.96 Big Bat 0.45 0.76 0.03 Pp 61.85 15.50 3.25 Psp 0.10 0.04 0.00 Unknown 0.20 0.32 0.36

5170.005 8 January 2016 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Bat Survey Appendix

5.0 INTERPRETATION

5170.005 9 January 2016 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Bat Survey Appendix Species Composition

The activity transects revealed at least four species of bat on site - common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, big bat species and myotis species.

Common pipistrelle was consistently the most frequently recorded species during each visit, accounting for 93%, 72% and 83% respectively of all passes recorded during the activity transect in June, July and August.

Percentage of species composition per transect visit: Msp – V1 7%, V2 13%, V3 2% Big Bat Species – V1 0%, V2 13%, V3 16% Pp – V1 93%, V2 72%, V3 83% Pg – V1 0%, V2 3%, V3 0%

The static detector data revealed a similar correlation to the transect survey data. Four species of bat were recorded (common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, big bat species and myotis species). In addition to unknown species calls which could not be accurately identified. Common pipistrelle was the dominant contributor to recorded activity levels which was consistent with transect survey results. All other species demonstrated much rarer occurrence with comparatively low activity levels, never contributing to more than 25% of overall activity.

For location 1, overall activity indices (bat passes/hour for all species combined - bpph) were 21.48 bpph in June, 2.60 bpph in July and 3.71 bpph in August.

In June and July 2015 Myotis species activity accounted for <5% of overall activity levels. In August Myotis contribution increased to 24% of overall activity levels, though overall activity levels were much lower in July and August. Big bat species were only recorded in the June and July 2015 survey periods and unknown species calls recorded across all three.

Location 2, overall activity indices (bpph) were 42.13 bpph, 14.50 bpph and 0.90 bpph for June, July and August respectively.

Similarly to Location 1, in June and July 2015 Myotis species activity accounted for <5% of overall activity levels at static detector Location 2. Unlike at Location 1, Myotis species activity was recorded at Location 2 during August though in equally low levels. Big bat species were recorded in the June, July and August 2015 survey periods though consistently contributing <4% to the the overall activity levels. Unknown bat species and pipistrelle species contacts (recording at 50kHz and therefore are not distinguishable between common and soprano pipistrelle species) were also recorded during the June and July 2015 survey periods.

Temporal Peaks in Activity

All transect surveys were conducted during the peak active season for bats (May to August inclusive). Results show an increase in activity over the survey period, peaking in August with a total of 36.14 bpph compared to a total of 13.21 bpph and 19.05 bpph during June and July transects respectively.

The static detector data did not correlate with this temporal trend. Static detector data showed a peak in overall bat activity levels during June (63.6 bpph) and a decline in July (17.1 bpph) and August (4.6 bpph).

Spatial Hotspots

For the transect surveys undertaken in June, July and August, the static data recorded in different areas of the site and in terms of those habitats that will be lost as a result of the development, the findings for each survey method are set out below:

5170.005 10 January 2016 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Bat Survey Appendix Land East of Burgh Lane South:

 Activity was concentrated to the eastern area of the site during the July and August surveys. Bats were using the semi-natural broad-leaved woodland edge which bounds arable and species poor semi-improved grassland habitat wihin the site (S3 to S7 and W3 to W7). This was particularly noted during the August transect survey with common pipistrelle and big bat species being recorded foraging along the woodland edge (S4, W4, S5 and W5), see Drawing G5170.006.

 High levels of activity (>80bpph) were noted during the August transect survey along the southern edge of the woodland and in the arable habitat along Walk 7.

 High levels of activity were recorded at Stop 1 during the July survey, which is adjacent to a hedgerow central to the site running along Burgh Lane South. Three species were recorded at the Stop; common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and myotis species (Drawing G5170.005). Throughout the surveys soprano pipistrelle was only recorded on the July activity transect survey at Stop 1.

 Common pipistrelle were noted using the double hedgerow along Burgh Lane South, foraging along the track (Drawing G5170.005).

 Limited activity was noted to the east of the site during the June survey. Low levels of activity were recorded at Walk 8 and Stop 9 only, however both common pipistrelle and myotis species were noted.

 Static detector data suggested higher levels of bat activity at Location 2 compared to Location 1 during June and July, which was to the south-east of the site at the woodland edge.

Land West of Burgh Lane South:

 Low levels of activity (1-40 bpph) (W8 to W12, W14, W15 and S9 to S14) and medium levels of activity (W8, W11, W13 &W15) were recorded across all three surveys within the western area of the site. Activity was consistently associated with the woodland edge along the proposed site boundary. Though also within the species poor semi-improved grassland central area of the site which includes scattered scrub.

 High levels of activity were recorded at Stop 11 (common pipistrelle) during the June transect survey and activity was repeatedly recorded at this point (see Drawing G5170.004). The Stop was associated with the boundary between species poor semi-improved grassland and a belt of semi-natural broad-leaved woodland extending south.

 Big bat species were recorded commuting south along the belt of broad-leaved woodland extending to the south during the July visit (S12).

 Common pipistrelle and myotis species were noted foraging within the centre of the site around scattered scrub, hedgerows and the edge of a small area of broad-leaved woodland in June.

5170.005 11 January 2016 Version 1.0 Eaves Green Chorley, Lancashire Bat Survey Appendix

6.0 SUMMARY

Survey results show that the site is used by at least four species of bat for foraging and dispersal. The majority of activity was accounted for by common pipistrelle, which reflects the national trend.

Activity was principally found to be associated with the edge of the semi-natural broad-leaved woodland bounding the site. The area of the site to the east of Burgh Lane South appeared to exhibit more bat activity across the three transect activity surveys and from the static data compared to the area west of Burgh Lane South.

High levels of activity were associated with the double hedgerow central to the site running along Burgh Lane South recorded at Stop 1 during the July survey. Three species were recorded at the Stop; common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and myotis species (Drawing G5170.005). Additionally common pipistrelle were observed foraging along the hedgerow during the July survey.

The semi natural broad-leaved woodland and open grassland present on site are both habitats of value to bats in themselves and in the connectivity they provide across and beyond the site, to adjacent habitats such as the fields to the south and woodland adjoining the site and within the wider landscape.

Conclusions/ Recommendations

Most of the trees across the site will be largely retained including all of those which have previously been identified as havng some bat potential. A 15m buffer will be maintained around Burgh Wood to the north and west of the site. A vegetated buffer will also be retained along Burgh Lane south which will continue to act as a linear corridor connecting the north and south side of the site.

The areas of open grassland across the site will be lost to development. During the activity surveys the levels of bat activity across the grassland areas was very low in terms of foraging and commuting. Loss of this area will not impact on bat activity on the site as this was found to be associated with the tree lined hedgerows across the site.

A Sensitive Lighting Strategy will set out the lighting proposals during both construction and operation to ensure potential lighting effects are avoided. This will ensure lux levels are maintained at 3lux 1, peaking at 550nm 2 (levels may be revised if replaced by future guidance) particularly in proximity to the woodland edge along the north and western boundary of the site. Lighting of roads that pass through the development e.g Burgh Lane south, or are adjacent to woodland edge or trees with bat potential, will respect 3lux within these areas. This may be achieved, for example by provision of hooded lighting on the roads and properties, directed away from the woodland edge habitat.

1 Threshold described in BCT & Institute of Lighting Engineers (2008) Bats & Lighting in the UK: Bats and the Environment Series 2 Threshold described in BCT (2014) Artificial Lighting & Wildlife: Interim guidance – recommendations to help minimise impacts of artificial lighting 5170.005 12 January 2016 Version 1.0

APPENDIX F: Breeding Bird Survey Technical Report

5170.008 Appendices August 2016 Version 3.0

BREEDING BIRD SURVEY RECORD

1.0 GENERAL DETAILS:

Site Name Eaves Green Job Number 5170 Doc. Ref 5170.003

Central NGR SD 57848 14871 Site Location Lower Burgh Way, Eaves Green, Chorley Date(s) Visit 1 – 27th April 2015 Visit 2 – 28th May 2015 Visit 3 – 29th June 2015 Surveyor(s) Chris Swindells and Tim Ross CEnv MCIEEM Weather Visit 1 – Dry and cool Visit 2 – Dry and mild Visit 3 – Dry and warm Methods Three morning visits to site using transect method including 100m buffer around site. Seasonal The surveys was undertaken during the optimum breeding bird survey period. Constraints There are therefore no constraints associated with the survey. Drawing Visit 1 – G5170.001 References Visit 2 – G5170.002 Visit 3 – G5170.003

Written Checked Authorised Initial TS TR TR

2.0 PRE-EXISTING DATA FOR SITE

Desktop records were gathered from the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) BirdTrack website of all birds recorded within the tetrad of the central site grid reference (SD 57 14) and a surrounding 1km buffer during the three most recent breeding seasons (2013-2015). In total, 9 Bird of Conservation Concern (BoCC) species have been recorded within the search area during the breeding season in the past three years. Kingfisher was recorded in 2015 and is protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended) as well as being an amber listed BoCC species. Species of principal importance in England listed on Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006) that have been recorded are Reed Bunting and Dunnock; these are also amber listed BoCC species. An additional 7 amber listed species have been recorded within the desktop search area; these are Mallard, Tufted Duck, Common Tern, Black-headed Gull, Wllow Warbler and Grey Wagtail. These results are likely to include some species that are associated with the wetland habitats found south of the site that are unlikely to use the habitats present within the Eaves Green site boundary.

3.0 HABITAT DESCRIPTION

The Eaves Green site is located at the southern tip of Chorley, Lancashire. The site is predominantly comprised of agricultural pasture fields bordered by hedgerows. There is an area of natural tree- regeneration in the centre of the site. A hedgerow-bordered road dissects the centre of the site and runs on a north to south axis. The site is bordered to the west and northwest by woodland at Burgh Wood; to the southwest by woodland at Spring Wood; to the east by woodland at John Wood; to the north by a residential area; and to the south by agricultural pasture fields, beyond which is the River Yarrow flowing from east to west. A lake, Big Lodge Water, is just to the west of the site beyond the woodland.

Breeding Bird Survey Form

4.0 SURVEY RESULTS

Visit 1 Date 27th April 2015 Start time 08:00 End time 09:40 Visit 2 Date 28th May 2015 Start time 07:45 End time 09:35 Visit 3 Date 15th July 2015 Start time 07:50 End time 09:45

Visit 1 Visit 2 Likely Likely Visit 3 Conservation breeding breeding Species -number -number -number status status within status within recorded recorded recorded survey area site Blackbird 1 15 26 C (1) Pr (14) Pr (2) Blackcap 2 6 9 Pr (4) Pr (1) Bullfinch 0 2 4 S41, A Pr (1) Po Black-headed Gull 0 3 0 A N N Blue Tit 7 9 9 C (3) C (1) Buzzard 0 1 1 Po N Carrion Crow 3 4 2 C (1) Pr(2) Po Chiffchaff 2 2 8 Pr (2) N Collared Dove 0 1 1 Pr (1) N Chaffinch 5 20 16 Pr (13) Pr (3) Coal Tit 0 0 4 Po N Common Gull 0 2 0 A N N Dunnock 0 6 6 S41, A Pr (5) Pr (2) Garden Warbler 0 1 0 Po N Goldcrest 0 0 2 Po N Goldfinch 6 0 5 C (1) Po Greenfinch 0 0 3 Po N Great Spotted 0 1 6 Po N Woodpecker Great Tit 6 5 7 C (2) Po Grey Heron 0 1 0 N N Grey Wagtail 0 0 1 N N Herring Gull 0 2 1 S41, R N N House Martin 0 16 20 A N N House Sparrow 0 2 5 S41, R Po N Jay 2 0 2 C (1) N Kestrel 1 0 0 A N N Lesser Black- 0 3 1 A N N backed Gull Lesser Whitethroat 0 0 1 Po Po Long-tailed Tit 2 0 0 Po N Mallard 0 1 0 A N N Magpie 4 4 6 C (3) Po Nuthatch 1 1 2 C (1) N Pheasant 0 1 2 Po Po Robin 5 13 21 C (1) Pr (10) Pr (1) Song Thrush 0 2 2 S41, R Pr (1) N Swallow 0 0 18 A N N Treecreeper 2 5 2 C (1) N Whitethroat 2 2 2 A Pr (2) Pr (1) Wood Pigeon 6 8 11 Pr (4) Po Pr (1) Wren 4 15 23 Pr (15) Po Pr (2) Willow Warbler 2 9 4 A Pr (4) Po Pr (1) Total 19 31 Key: Sc1 = Schedule 1; S41 = Section 41; A = Amber List ; C = Confirmed, Pr = probably breeding within site, Po = possibly breeding within site, N = not breeding within site.

5170.003 2 of 4

Breeding Bird Survey Form

Summary: Pre-existing bird records for the area were obtained from the BTO BirdTrack website. Records show that 10 of the Bird of Conservation Concern (BoCC) species found had been recorded within the desktop search area in the past three years during the breeding season. This figure may include some species that are associated with the wetland habitats which are unlikely to use the habitats present within the site boundary.

A total of 41 bird species were recorded within the Eaves Green site boundary and a 100m buffer surrounding it during the 2015 breeding bird survey across all visits; 19 species were recorded in the 1st visit, 31 in the 2nd visit and 34 during the 3rd visit. No Schedule 1 species were recorded on any of the visits undertaken during the 2015 breeding bird survey.

Five Section 41 (S41) species were recorded across all visits: Bullfinch, Dunnock, Herring Gull, House Sparrow and Song Thrush. All of these species were observed on the 2nd and 3rd visits, albeit in relatively low numbers, and confirmed breeding was not detected for any of these. A single pair of Bullfinch were observed near a hedgerow on the site indicating probable breeding of this species. Male Dunnock were recorded singing in the same locations on consecutive visits in 5 places, 2 of which were within the site boundary, also indicating probable breeding. House Sparrow were recorded on the residential area, which is suitable nesting habitat, although this falls outside the site boundary. Probable breeding was detected for Song Thrush, but this was located in the woodland to the west of the site boundary.

An additional 9 BoCC species which are not also listed as S41 species were recorded across all visits at the site and within a 100m buffer of the site boundary. Breeding was not confirmed in any of the BoCC species recorded. There was evidence of probable breeding in 2 Amber listed BoCC species that are not Section 41 species: Willow Warbler and Whitethroat. Both species were detected in low to moderate numbers during each visit, with males detected singing in similar locations at two or more visits.

Evaluation This site is considered of low importance for breeding birds on account of the low species diversity and limited range of habitats present. There are no confirmed breeding S41 species or BoCC species present within the site boundary. Evidence of probable breeding was detected for three S41 species and for a further two BoCC species that are not S41 species. Of these dunnock was the only BoCC recorded as a probable breeder within the site boundary.

The majority of species detected during the surveys were associated with the woodland and the woodland edge that borders the site boundary. There were significantly fewer species recorded within the site boundary due to the limited habitat diversity present and the low biodiversity value of these habitats. Species for which breeding was confirmed were mostly located outside of the site boundary in the woodland or on the woodland edge. Within the site boundary, most evidence suggestive of probable breeding for species was associated with the hedgerow adjacent to the road.

Any loss of habitat within the site as a result of development will reduce breeding potential for birds, although a limited number of species will be affected and very few species of high conservation value are likely to be affected. The majority of recordings were from just outside of the site boundary in the woodland areas. Nevertheless, if clearance or removal of habitat is proposed then this should be conducted outside of the breeding bird season (March-August inclusive) and sufficient habitat creation should be planned to mitigate for the loss of breeding habitat this represents.

5170.003 3 of 4

APPENDIX G: Biodiversity Enhancement Bat and Bird Box Examples

5170.008 Appendices August 2016 Version 3.0

BAT AND BIRD BOX SPECIFICATIONS

BAT BOXES TO INSTALL INTO OR ON TO BUILDINGS & BUILT STRUCTURES

These bat boxes are designed to be built into buildings, or underneath bridges, arches or tunnels, where conditions are relatively humid. There are particularly useful for incorporating into new buildings or bridges to attract bats or to provide new roost sites where existing buildings with bats are being renovated.

Ibstock - Enclosed Bat Box B

 Designed specifically for the pipistrelle bat  Available in all brick types  Discrete home for bats  Various sizes  Several roosting zones are created inside the box  Bats are contained within the bat box itself  Maintenance free with entrance at the base  Ideal for new build & conservation work

215mm x 215mm or 215mm x 290mm F2 S2 Fully frost resistant

BIRD BOXES TO FIT ON/IN BUILDINGS

Sparrow Terrace, Stone Colour House sparrows are gregarious and prefer to nest close to each other, so this woodcrete box provides room for three families under one roof. Made from long-lasting, breathable woodcrete. . Stone colour. No maintenance required. Dimensions 245 x 430 x 200 mm. Weight 13kg. Designed for fixing to walls (not suitable for fences or sheds due to the weight of the box). A02085 Sparrow Terrace, Stone Colour (also available in brown)

Schwegler No 10 Swallow Box This box should be located inside buildings such as barns, stables, sheds or outhouses, ensuring there is always access for the birds through a window or opening. A02020 Schwegler No 10 Swallow Box

Droppings Board To avoid problems with bird droppings from house martin or swallow nests, this board can be installed where necessary, for example over a window or door. A02021 Droppings Board

Schwegler No 16 IMF Swift Box, Double Chamber The design of this box mimics bell tower louvres. It has two removable panels for easy inspection of the two nest chambers. Designed for fixing on or within walls (not suitable for fences or sheds). Dimensions 460mm h x 430mm w x 225mm d A02088 Schwegler No 16 IMF Swift Box, Double Chamber

Nest Mould for No 16 Swift Boxes This nest mould fits inside the nest chamber of the No16 or No16 IMF boxes above, to encourage nesting. Research shows that the birds are more likely to nest if a nest mould is used. A02089 Nest Mould for No 16 Swift Boxes

DRAWINGS Drawing G5170.001 – Breeding Bird Survey Visit 1 Drawing G5170.002 – Breeding Bird Survey Visit 2 Drawing G5170.003 – Breeding Bird Survey Visit 3 Drawing G5170.004 Bat Transect Visit 1 Drawing G5170.005 Bat Transect Visit 2 Drawing G5170.006 Bat Transect Visit 3 Drawing G5170.007 Phase 1 Habitat Survey Drawing G5170.008 Pond Location Plan Drawing G5170.009 Locations of Static Bat Detectors

5170.008 Appendices August 2016 Version 3.0

Key

￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ þ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ þ ￿￿￿￿ þ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ (￿￿ ( ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿þ

￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ þ , (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿

(￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿ þ

￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ , ￿￿￿￿

,

￿￿￿￿(

￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿( (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ þ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿￿￿þ (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ þ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ þ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ þ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ þ ￿￿￿￿þ

, ￿￿￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿￿￿ ( ￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ , ￿￿￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿￿￿þ

￿￿￿￿(

￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( Eaves Green, Chorley

Species (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ Breeding Bird Survey Visit 1 27th April 2015 ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ G5170.001 ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ Red ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ Amber ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ Key

￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿ þ ( (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ^_ ￿￿￿￿ þ ( ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ( ￿￿￿￿( ( (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ( ( ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ / E ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ þ ￿￿￿￿ ( þ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ( ( ￿￿￿￿( F ￿￿￿￿þ / F ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ / ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿þ ^_ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( (^_ F ￿￿￿￿( / /F ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿￿￿E E ￿￿￿￿ , (￿￿ ( ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ^_ (￿￿

￿￿ ( ^_ ( , F k (￿￿ (￿￿ þ / ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ (^_ ￿￿￿￿ k ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ þ ( , ￿￿￿￿ , ￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ( ( ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿ ^_ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ,( ￿￿￿￿(

F , þ / , ￿￿￿￿^_ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ( ￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿þ (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ( ( ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ (￿￿ ( , ￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿￿￿ þ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ( ￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( (￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ þ￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ þ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ (￿￿^_ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿￿￿( F / (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿E ^_ ￿￿￿￿( þ￿￿ (￿￿^_ (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( (￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ F ( ￿￿￿￿þ / ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿(

(￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ , ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ / ( E ￿￿￿￿þ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ , (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ , ( ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ^_ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ( ( ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ Species ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ( ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ ( ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿( ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ Eaves Green, Chorley , ( ( F ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ / (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ^_ ^_ ￿￿￿￿þ th , Breeding Bird Survey Visit 2 28 May 2015 ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿^_ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ G5170.002 ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ , ( Red ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ Amber ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ( ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ Key

￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( (￿￿ þ (￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ þ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ þ (￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ þ ( ￿￿￿￿( (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ^_ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ þ ( ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ (￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ F ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ( ￿￿￿￿ / ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ þ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ ( ￿￿ ( ￿￿￿￿ ( ^_ ￿￿￿￿( ( F ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ þ ￿￿￿￿þ / / ￿￿￿￿ F E￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ( ^_ ￿￿￿￿þ / ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿￿￿ ^_ (^_ , (￿￿ (￿￿

￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ

￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ , ( , ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ ( (￿￿ ( ^_ /F ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ E

￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ ^_ ￿￿￿￿ þ , ￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿

(￿￿￿￿ ^_ ￿￿￿￿( þ￿￿ F

þ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ( þ / ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ , ￿￿￿￿ ( ￿￿￿￿ , F ( (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ / (￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ ^_ ￿￿/ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ E￿￿ ( ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ F ( ( / ￿￿ (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿E ￿￿￿￿ ( ￿￿￿￿ ^_ , F ( ￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿￿￿ þ / F ^_ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ þ / ^_ (￿￿^_ ￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( ( ￿￿￿￿ , ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ( ￿￿￿￿( F ￿￿￿￿( ( ￿￿￿￿þ / (￿￿ þ￿￿ (￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ( ( ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ( ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ( (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ( ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ (￿￿ þ (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿ ( ( ( (￿￿ (￿￿ ^_ ￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ (￿￿^_ ( F ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ / ^_ ￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ( ￿￿ ( (￿￿ (￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ (￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ þ ( ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ Species ( (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ þ ￿￿￿￿( ( ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ( ( Eaves Green, Chorley ￿￿￿￿þ ￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ^_ ( , ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿þ (^_ ( ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ th ￿￿￿￿þ Breeding Bird Survey Visit 3 29 June 2015 ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( ￿￿￿￿( (￿￿ (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ ￿￿￿￿( G5170.003 ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ þ Red ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ Amber ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ Key

Survey Boundary

Transect stops: Pie charts show percentage of bat species recorded during stop interval S# Stop reference W13 No bat activity Low level of activity 1 to 40 bat passes/hour «¬S13 «¬S14 High level of activity W14 over 80 bat passes/hour

W12 Transect walks: Showing levels of bat activity recorded during walk interval W# Walk reference S15 «¬ No bat activity «¬S12 W3 Low level of activity W11 #1 1 to 40 bat passes/hour

W15 Medium level of activity «¬S11 41 to 80 bat passes/hour Number of bats & flight direction #1 S3 «¬ ## (colour indicates species)

S1 «¬ S4 Bat species identification

W10 «¬ " Pip pip - Common pipistrelle

W1 " Myo sp - Myotis species #1 #3 #1 W2 «¬S10 W9 W4 «¬S9 Site Map

¬S2 #1 «

W8 «¬S5

W5 «¬S8 «¬S6

- Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2015

W6 Genesis Centre Birchwood Science Park Warrington WA3 7BH Tel 01925 844004 S7 Fax 01925 844002 «¬ email [email protected]

W7 Project: Eaves Green, Chorley

Title: Bat Transect Survey Visit 1 10th June 2015 Drawing No: G5170.004

Scale: Date: 1:3,000 @ A3 13/01/2016

Metres Drawn: Checked: Approved: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the 0 25 50 100 GIS User Community MK CB/KS/MP CH Key

Survey Boundary

Transect stops: Pie charts show percentage of bat species recorded during stop interval S# Stop reference W13 No bat activity Low level of activity 1 to 40 bat passes/hour «¬S13 «¬S14 Medium level of activity W14 41 to 80 bat passes/hour

W12 High level of activity over 80 bat passes/hour

Transect walks: «¬S15 Showing levels of bat activity recorded during walk interval W3 «¬S12 W# Walk reference W11 #2 No bat activity W15 «¬S11 Low level of activity 1 to 40 bat passes/hour S3 «¬ Medium level of activity 41 to 80 bat passes/hour S4 W10 «¬S1 «¬ Number of bats & flight direction ## (colour indicates species) 1 # W1 Bat species identification " Common pipistrelle W2 W4 ¬S10 W9 « «¬S9 " Soprano pipistrelle #1 Myotis species S2 " W8 «¬ " Big bat species «¬S5 #1

W5 «¬S8 «¬S6

W6 Genesis Centre Birchwood Science Park Warrington WA3 7BH Tel 01925 844004 S7 Fax 01925 844002 «¬ email [email protected]

W7 #1 Project: Eaves Green, Chorley

Title: Bat Transect Survey Visit 2 09th July 2015 Drawing No: G5170.005

Scale: Date: 1:3,000 @ A3 22/09/2015

Metres Drawn: Checked: Approved: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, 0 25 50 100 Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community MK CB/VP/MG CH Key

Survey Boundary

Transect stops: Pie charts show percentage of bat species recorded during stop interval S# Stop reference W13 No bat activity Low level of activity 1 to 40 bat passes/hour «¬S13 «¬S14 Transect walks: W14 Showing levels of bat activity recorded during walk interval W12 W# Walk reference

No bat activity Low level of activity S15 «¬ 1 to 40 bat passes/hour «¬S12 W3 Medium level of activity W11 41 to 80 bat passes/hour

W15 High levels of activity «¬S11 over 80 bat passes/hour

S3 Number of bats & flight direction «¬ #1 ## (colour indicates species)

S1 S4 Bat species identification W10 «¬ «¬ " Common pipistrelle W1 " Big bat species

W2 S10 W9 W4 «¬ Site Map S9 «¬ #3 «¬S2

W8 S5 «¬#5

#3 W5 #4 «¬S8 «¬S6

- Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2015

W6 Genesis Centre Birchwood Science Park Warrington WA3 7BH Tel 01925 844004 S7 Fax 01925 844002 «¬ email [email protected] W7 Project: Eaves Green, Chorley

Title: Bat Transect Survey Visit 3 12th August 2015 Drawing No: G5170.006

Scale: Date: 1:3,000 @ A3 22/09/2015

Metres Drawn: Checked: Approved: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, 0 25 50 100 Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community MK CB/KA/SA CH ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ Key ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ (!￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ H ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ !￿￿￿￿￿￿! ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ! ! ! E ! ! ! ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ! ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿! !E ! ! ! ! ! ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ E! ! ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ! ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿!￿￿￿￿ ! ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿! ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ H ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ! E (!￿￿ (! E ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ (!￿￿ ￿￿ (!￿￿￿￿ ! !( (!￿￿ ￿￿ (! ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿!E ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ (!￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿!E ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (! ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿! ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ E ￿￿￿￿ H ! ! EE E ! ! ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿!￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ! ! (!￿￿￿￿ E ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ! ! ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ (!￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ! (!￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿!! ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ! ! ! ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ! ! ￿￿￿￿ ! ! ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿! ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ E ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ! ! ￿￿E ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ H ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ E ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ! ￿￿￿￿ E ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ! ! E! ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ! ! ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿! ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ !!!!!!!!!! ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ E !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ E !!!!!!!!!! ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ !!!!!!!!!! ￿￿￿￿ !!!!!!!!!! ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿E ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿E ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿!!!!!!!!!! ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ (!￿￿￿￿ !!!!!!!!!! ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ E E !!!!!!!!!! ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ !!!!!!!!!! ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ E E !!!!!! E !!!!!! ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ E ￿￿￿￿ !!!!!! (! ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿E ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿E ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ E (!￿￿ E ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ E ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ (!￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ E E ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ H ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ E H H H ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿E ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿E ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿(!￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿(!￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ E ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ E E !(￿￿ E E ￿￿￿￿ ! E ￿￿￿￿ (!￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿(! ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ E ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿E E ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ !! ￿￿￿￿ E ! E E H ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ! !( ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿E ￿￿E ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿! ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿!￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ E E H ￿￿￿￿E ￿￿￿￿￿￿E E! ￿￿￿￿! ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ E ! H ! E ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿! ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ! ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ! (!￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿! ￿￿￿￿￿￿! !

! !

!￿￿

￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ !

￿￿ ￿￿! ￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿H ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿! ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿

￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ! E ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ H ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ E !(E E ! (!￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ E ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (! (!￿￿! ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ! ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (!￿￿E! ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ !! ￿￿￿￿ ! ! ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ !! ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ E ￿￿￿￿ Eaves Green, Chorley ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿E! ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ !! ￿￿￿￿ (!￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ E ! Phase 1 Habitat Survey ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ E!(￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿(!￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ G5170.007 ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ! !(￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ !(￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ (! (!￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ Key ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ Eaves Green, Chorley

￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ Pond Location Plan

￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ G5170.008

￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿

￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ Key

Survey Boundary

!( Static Detectors

Site Map

1 !(

2 !( - Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2015 Genesis Centre Birchwood Science Park Warrington WA3 7BH Tel 01925 844004 Fax 01925 844002 email [email protected]

Project: Eaves Green, Chorley

Title: Locations of Static Bat Detectors Drawing No: G5170.009

Scale: Date: 1:3,000 @ A3 18/01/2016

Metres Drawn: Checked: Approved: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the 0 25 50 100 GIS User Community KS KS MN

HEAD OFFICE MARKET GATESHEAD LONDON CORNWALL HARBOROUGH

Genesis Centre, Harborough Innovation Office 26, Gateshead 45 Great Guildford Street, 4 Park Noweth, Birchwood Science Park, Centre, International Business London Churchtown, Warrington Airfield Business Park, Centre, SE1 0ES Cury, WA3 7BH Leicester Road, Mulgrave Terrace, Helston Market Harborough Gateshead Cornwall Leicestershire NE8 1AN TR12 7BW LE16 7WB

Tel: 01925 844004 Tel: 01858 383120 Tel: 0191 605 3340 Tel: 020 3096 6050 Tel: 01326 240081 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]