Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End
Ecological Appraisal
Prepared by: The Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd
On behalf of: Catesby Strategic Land Ltd
April 2021 Report Reference edp3922_r004c
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Contents
Executive Summary
Section 1 Introduction, Purpose and Context ...... 1
Section 2 Methodology (Baseline Investigations) ...... 3
Section 3 Results (Baseline Conditions) ...... 9
Section 4 Details of Proposed Development ...... 19
Section 5 Predicted Impacts and Mitigation ...... 21
Section 6 Summary and Conclusions ...... 33
Appendices
Appendix EDP 1 Illustrative Masterplan
Appendix EDP 2 Habitat Descriptions and Site Photographs
Appendix EDP 3 Hedgerow Regulations Assessment
Appendix EDP 4 Bird Survey
Appendix EDP 5 Bat Surveys
Appendix EDP 6 Badger Survey Report (edp3922_r008)
Appendix EDP 7 Reptile Survey
Appendix EDP 8 BIA Calculations
Plans
Plan EDP 1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (edp3922_d005g 04 December 2020 GY/ND)
Plan EDP 2 Pilot Breeding Bird Survey (edp3922_d015a 04 December 2020 MJD/ND)
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Plan EDP 3 Bat Building Roost Assessment and Bat Tree Roost Assessment (edp3922_d006a 04 December 2020 GY/ND)
Plan EDP 4 Bat Transect Routes and Anabat Locations (edp3922_d007a 04 December 2020 GY/ND)
Plan EDP 5 Bat Activity Survey – May 2019 Dusk Transect (edp3922_d010a 04 December 2020 ZH/ND)
Plan EDP 6 Bat Activity Survey – June 2019 Dusk Transect (edp3922_d011a 04 December 2020 ZH/ND)
Plan EDP 7 Bat Activity Survey – July 2019 Dusk Transect (edp3922_d012a 04 December 2020 ZH/ND)
Plan EDP 8 Bat Activity Survey – August 2019 Dusk and Dawn Transect (edp3922_d013a 04 December 2020 ZH/ND)
Plan EDP 9 Bat Activity Survey – September 2019 Dusk Transect (edp3922_d014a 04 December 2020 ZH/ND)
Plan EDP 10 Badger Survey (edp3922_d008a 04 December 2020 GY/ND)
Plan EDP 11 Reptile Survey Plan (edp3922_d009a 04 December 2020 GY/ND)
This version is intended for electronic viewing only Report Ref: edp3922_r004 Author Formatted Peer Review Proofed by/Date 004_DRAFT ND JM JGl - 004a ND - VF CR 031220 004b ND CL - - 004c ND CL - - Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
This page has been left blank intentionally
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Executive Summary
S1 The Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd (EDP) was commissioned by Catesby Strategic Land Ltd to undertake an Ecological Appraisal of Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End, Buckinghamshire, within the Local Planning Authority area of Buckinghamshire Council.
S2 The baseline ecological investigations, which informed the Ecological Appraisal included a desk study, Extended Phase 1 survey and detailed (Phase 2) surveys relating to hedgerows, breeding birds, roosting and foraging bats, badger and reptiles. All surveys were undertaken with reference to best practice guidance where it exists.
S3 EDP’s desk and field-based baseline investigations have identified that no statutory designations are present that would be materially affected by the proposed development though the non-statutory designated Woolman’s Wood Biological Notification Site (400m east) could be indirectly impacted by an increase in recreational pressures in the absence of appropriate mitigation.
S4 The habitats on-site are predominantly habitats of only limited (less than Local-level) intrinsic nature conservation value, comprising mainly intensively managed arable land and species-poor semi-improved grassland though with hedgerow and mature tree habitats of Local-level value present as a network through the Site and along the external boundaries.
S5 The on-site habitats support populations/assemblages of a number of protected/Priority Species (of Local-level nature conservation value or less) including breeding birds, roosting and foraging barn owl, foraging/commuting and roosting bats, and badger.
S6 EDP considers that none of the ecological features present/likely present constitute an ‘in principle’ (significant) ecological constraint. Indeed, the Site has demonstrated an opportunity to deliver a net gain to biodiversity through development in line with national and local planning policy through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Biodiversity Metric 2.0.
S7 Local and national planning policy for the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment aims to minimise impacts, avoid significant harm to biodiversity, and provide a net gain in biodiversity.
S8 Accordingly, a proportionate and appropriate ecology strategy response for the avoidance and mitigation of predicted impacts and ecological effects is considered in this report. These measures should be incorporated from the outset as inherent mitigation measures to protect on-site ecology. Measures should include: avoidance and habitat retention measures; those sensitive timings and working methods, which should be implemented at the construction stage and described in detail in an Ecological Construction Method Statement; those habitat enhancement and creation measures, which should be
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
designed and specified in detail within a Soft Landscaping Scheme/Landscape and Ecology Management Plan to ensure that the design vision is achieved in the long-term.
S9 At this stage EDP considers that by virtue of the likely limited constraint posed by the ecological features on-site, coupled with the scope for habitat enhancement, the scheme is capable of compliance with wildlife legislation and the relevant national and local planning policy for the conservation of the natural environment. Indeed, the scheme can deliver a net gain for biodiversity overall.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Section 1 Introduction, Purpose and Context
1.1 This Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has been prepared by The Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd (EDP) on behalf of Catesby Strategic Land Ltd (hereafter referred to as ‘the Applicant’). This appraisal considers the ecological implications of the proposed development on Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End, Buckinghamshire (hereafter referred to as ‘the Site’).
1.2 EDP is an independent environmental planning consultancy with offices in Cirencester, Cardiff and Cheltenham. The practice provides advice to private and public sector clients throughout the UK in the fields of landscape, visual amenity, ecology, archaeology, cultural heritage, arboriculture, agriculture, and masterplanning. Details of the practice can be obtained at our website (www.edp-uk.co.uk).
Site Description and Context
1.3 The Site is centered approximately at Ordnance Survey Grid Reference (OSGR) TL 16750 34795. The Local Planning Authority is Buckinghamshire Council. The location and extents of the Site are illustrated on Plan EDP 1.
1.4 The Site measures 19.3 hectares (ha) and is located towards the south of Bourne End, Buckinghamshire, sitting just to the north of Hedsor Road. The Site is comprised of six field parcels divided by mature trees, hedgerows and fence lines. Four of the field parcels are intensively cultivated with arable crops and two support a grassland sward, subdivided by fence lines and grazed by horses. The Site is bounded on all sides by Bourne End village, with dwellings to the north, east and south and industrial and equestrian units to the west.
Development Proposals
1.5 The proposals are to be the subject of an outline planning application for residential development of up to 400 dwellings and land for one form entry primary school and with associated infrastructure including roadways, footpaths, parking, landscaping, open space and sustainable drainage. The Illustrative Masterplan for the Site is provided as Appendix EDP 1.
1.6 The ecological sensitivities of the Site have influenced the design of the layout through an iterative design process. Thus, the Illustrative Masterplan incorporates a degree of ‘inherent’ mitigation to avoid or reduce potential adverse ecological effects.
1 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Scope of this Appraisal
1.7 This Ecological Appraisal describes the current ecological interests within and around the Site, which have been identified to date through standard desk- and field-based investigations. It will then consider the potential ecological impacts and opportunities for ecological enhancement, in the context of relevant legislation and planning policy. Finally, this appraisal will identify the necessary additional measures to avoid, mitigate or provide compensation for potential impacts, and the mechanisms for securing such measures.
1.8 The remainder of this report is structured as follows:
Section 2 summarises the methodology employed to determine the baseline ecological conditions within and around the Site (with further details provided within Appendices and on Plans where appropriate);
Section 3 summarises the baseline ecological conditions (with further details also provided within Appendices and on Plans where appropriate) and identifies and evaluates any pertinent ecological features/receptors;
Section 4 describes the development proposals, how the design has been influenced by ecological factors, EDP input to the design process and key components of inherent mitigation;
Section 5 considers the potential impacts of the proposals on pertinent ecological features in the context of legislative, planning policy and biodiversity action planning considerations, and provides recommended mitigation and enhancement measures to provide net gains to biodiversity; and
Section 6 summarises the inherent and recommended additional mitigation measures and provides the overall conclusions of the appraisal.
2 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Section 2 Methodology (Baseline Investigations)
2.1 This section of the Ecological Appraisal summarises the methodologies employed in determining the baseline ecological conditions within and around the Site. The appraisal has been undertaken by appropriately qualified and experienced ecologists, using relevant best practice methodologies wherever possible.
2.2 Full details of the techniques and processes adopted are, where appropriate, provided within Appendices and on Plans to the rear of this report.
Desk Study
2.3 The desk study is an important element of undertaking an ecological appraisal of any site proposed for development, enabling the initial collation and review of contextual information, such as designated sites, together with known records of protected and Priority Species.
2.4 The desk study was undertaken in May 2017 and updated in January 2020, and involved collating biodiversity information from the following sources:
Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Environmental Records Centre (BMERC);
Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre (TVERC); and
Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website1.
2.5 The desk study involved obtaining the following information:
International statutory designations at/within a 10km radius;
National statutory designations at/within 5km;
Non-statutory designations at/within 2km;
Annex II bat species2 records at/within 4km; and
All other protected/notable species records at/within 2km.
1 www.magic.gov.uk. 2 Bat species listed in Annex II of the EC Habitats Directive, namely greater horseshoe (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum), lesser horseshoe (Rhinolophus hipposideros), barbastelle (Barbastella barbastellus) and Bechstein’s (Myotis bechsteinii) bats.
3 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
2.6 These search areas are considered sufficient to cover the potential Zones of Influence (ZoI)3 of the proposed development in relation to designated sites, habitats and species.
2.7 In addition to the above, freely available web-based Ordnance Survey plans and aerial imagery were reviewed to identify key habitat features, including ponds within 250m4 that could offer potential breeding habitat for great crested newt (Triturus cristatus), and strong linear ‘green’ (terrestrial) or ‘blue’ (aquatic) connecting features in the landscape.
2.8 Given the comprehensive coverage of the record centre data obtained, it was considered unnecessary to obtain additional data from other local wildlife recorder groups.
Extended Phase 1 Survey
2.9 The survey technique adopted for the initial habitat assessment was at a level intermediate between a standard Phase 1 survey technique5, based on habitat mapping and description, and a Phase 2 survey, based on detailed habitat and species surveys. The survey technique is ‘extended’ and is therefore commonly known as an Extended Phase 1 survey, as recommended by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM, 2017)6. This level of survey does not aim to compile a complete floral and faunal inventory for the Site, since, in accordance with guidance, such a list is not required.
2.10 The level of survey involves identifying and mapping the principal habitat types and identifying the dominant plant species present in each principal habitat type. In addition, any actual evidence of presence, or potential for, protected/notable species is identified and scoped.
2.11 The Extended Phase 1 survey of the Site was undertaken by a suitably experienced surveyor on 20 April 2017 and subsequently updated on 20 May 2019 and 09 June 2020, with results illustrated on Plan EDP 1. April, May and June fall within the optimal window for Phase 1 surveys (April to September) and as such the findings are not considered to be limited by seasonal timing and the survey is therefore considered a robust and reliable basis for the assessment. Habitat descriptions and a selection of representative photographs are provided in Appendix EDP 2.
Detailed (Phase 2) Surveys
2.12 The scope of Phase 2 surveys undertaken at the Site was defined following the initial studies described above (desk study and Extended Phase 1 survey). The surveys ‘scoped
Zones of Influence - the areas and resources that may be affected by the proposed development. 4 250m is the upper distance over which most great crested newts typically disperse from breeding ponds (English Nature 2001). The Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough. 5 Joint Nature Conservation Council (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – A Technique for Environmental Audit (reprinted with minor corrections for original Nature Conservancy Council publication). 6 CIEEM (2017) Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (second edition). CIEEM, Winchester.
4 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
in’ are summarised in turn below and a brief explanation of those potential surveys ‘scoped out’ is provided thereafter.
Hedgerow Survey
2.13 A detailed survey of all hedgerows within the Site was undertaken to assess their value with reference to the Wildlife and Landscape criteria provided in Part II of Schedule 1 of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. The survey was completed by experienced EDP ecologist on 20 May 2019.
2.14 Full details of the hedgerow surveys are provided in Appendix EDP 3, and on Plan EDP 1.
Bird Survey
2.15 The value of the Site for breeding birds was assessed through the completion of a pilot breeding bird survey undertaken on 29 June 2019 to assess the value of the assemblage and to advise of the need for further surveys. The pilot survey was undertaken with reference to the Common Bird Census (CBC) approach.
2.16 The number and assemblage of birds recorded within the Site was considered typical of a lowland urban edge farmland site in southern England. Using professional judgement, it was possible to value the assemblage present and therefore no further survey effort was considered necessary.
2.17 Full details of the bird surveys are provided in Appendix EDP 4, and on Plan EDP 2.
Bat Surveys
2.18 The Extended Phase 1 survey identified that trees within the Site had the potential to support roosting bats, while the habitats had potential to support a foraging and commuting assemblage. Furthermore, buildings associated with the farmland though not within the Site including barns and stables to the south-west were considered to have potential to support roosting bats and as such these were included within the survey area. The following surveys for bats were therefore undertaken throughout the active bat season in 2019, with reference to national best practice guidelines7:
1. Investigations of bat roosting:
(a) Ground level inspection of trees for bat roosting potential;
(b) Internal and external assessment of buildings for bat roosting potential; and
(c) Emergence surveys of buildings, which had exhibited greater than negligible potential to support roosting bats.
7 Collins, J. (ed.) (2016). Bat Surveys: for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London
5 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
2. Investigations of bat foraging/commuting activity:
(a) Manual transect surveys (monthly between May and September inclusive 2019); and
(b) Automated detector surveys (monthly between May and September inclusive 2019).
2.19 Full details of the bat surveys are provided in Appendix EDP 5, and on Plans EDP 3 to 9 inclusive.
Badger Survey
2.20 The Site offers suitable foraging and sett building opportunities for badgers (meles meles) and badger activity was noted during the initial Phase 1 survey in 2017. A detailed badger walkover survey was therefore undertaken on 20 April 2017 by a suitably experienced surveyor to determine the presence and distribution of badgers and their setts across the Site. Update surveys were subsequently conducted between May 2019 and January 2020 including:
Walkover surveys to identify signs of activity such including:
o Setts, the number of entrances and any evidence of current use;
o Tracks that are confirmed as badger pathways (i.e. there is a clear link to a sett or there is additional evidence of badger activity nearby, such as latrines, hairs, footprints or feeding signs); and
o The presence of discarded bedding, hairs, footprints, latrines and feeding signs.
Trail camera monitoring of the setts to identify activity levels;
Sticking of sett entrances to monitor levels of activity; and
A bait marking survey to identify the extent of badger clan territories within the Site.
2.21 Full details of the badger surveys were collated into a separate Badger Survey Report provided as Appendix EDP 6 and with findings detailed on Plan EDP 10.
Reptile Survey
2.22 Habitats within the Site considered suitable to support reptiles are limited. However, the grassland margins around the boundary habitats including hedgerow, orchard and some small areas of tall ruderal were considered suitable to support an assemblage of widespread reptile species. Therefore, to determine the presence/likely absence of reptile species within the Site, along with their distribution and approximate population size class, a detailed reptile survey was undertaken. Artificial refugia (comprising 1m x
6 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
0.5m bitumen undertile felt) were deployed throughout the Site and checked for the presence of reptiles on seven occasions throughout June and September 2019.
2.23 Full details of the reptile survey are provided in Appendix EDP 7, and refugia locations illustrated on Plan EDP 11.
Phase 2 Surveys Scoped Out
2.24 Other surveys which, while commonly required as part of an Ecological Appraisal for development sites, were not considered necessary/appropriate in this case are summarised below. Reasons for this decision are based on habitats identified during the Phase 1 surveys, a review of local mapping, records received from the desk study and consultation with the Local Planning Authority.
Botanical – sufficient information available from desk study and Extended Phase 1 survey to confirm the limited value of habitats present;
Dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) – No records of dormice were returned from the desk study. The local area supports some large areas of woodland; however, the Site is isolated and fragmented from these by areas of housing and roads;
Otter (Lutra lutra) and water vole (Arvicola amphibious) – No suitable habitat present within the Site. The River Wye flows within 50m of the western Site boundary, however, it is not directly or indirectly connected to the Site and as such no impacts on the water course or its fauna are anticipated;
Great crested newt – No records of great crested newt were returned from the desk study. The Site supports no water bodies and only one pond is present within 250m of the Site, located on the southern side of Hedsor Road. Given the lack of aquatic features within the Site and the limited suitable terrestrial habitat it is considered unlikely that great crested newt will be present within the Site;
Invertebrates – Vast majority of the Site is of low quality, maturity or distinctiveness. Habitats of higher value to be retained
Biodiversity Net Gain
2.25 To calculate biodiversity net gain, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (June 2019), Policy DM13 of the Adopted Delivery and Site Allocations Plan (July 2013) and DM34 of the of the Wycombe District Local Plan (adopted August 2019) a Biodiversity Impact Assessment (BIA) metric was used. This is a transparent way to calculate the biodiversity value of the habitats and hedgerows on a site before and after development. It is a proxy measure to determine if the development will result in an on- site habitat biodiversity net loss or gain.
7 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
2.26 The BIA was undertaken using the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Biodiversity Metric 2.0 (version date: 19 December 2019), as suggested by the Wycombe District Local Plan (paragraph 6.155) by an experienced ecologist. This calculator is the mostly widely accepted and is designed for national use.
2.27 The assessment was undertaken based on the existing habitat information derived from the Extended Phase 1 survey (Plan EDP 1) and the Illustrative Masterplan (Appendix EDP 1). GIS software has been used to accurately calculate areas of habitat to be retained, enhanced and recreated.
2.28 Full results of the BIA calculations are provided in Appendix EDP 8.
Evaluation
2.29 In 2013, the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority Habitats and Priority Species, and the Section 41 Species and Habitats of Principal Importance for Conservation under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, were rationalised under the ‘Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework’. As a result, a new list of Priority Species and Priority Habitats is now in operation at the UK level with 24 Priority Habitats and 213 Priority Species. These lists are provided in Biodiversity 2020, which is the National Biodiversity Policy for England.
2.30 Within this Ecological Appraisal, where relevant, these species and habitats of national nature conservation priority will therefore be referred to as ‘Priority Species’ and ‘Priority Habitats’, except where indicated otherwise.
2.31 Where a particular ecological feature/receptor has been confirmed to be present, or presence is inferred based on habitat suitability, the ecological value or significance of the population or assemblage is assessed on the following geographic scale:
International importance (ecological features which, if impacted, would affect the distribution and/or conservation status of this feature in Europe);
National importance (ecological features which, if impacted, would affect the distribution and/or conservation status of this feature in England);
County importance (ecological features which, if impacted, would affect the distribution and/or conservation status of this feature in Buckinghamshire); and
District/Local importance (ecological features which, if impacted, would affect the distribution and/or conservation status of this feature in Wycombe District).
2.32 Any other ecological features/receptors will be assessed as of less than Local-level importance.
8 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Section 3 Results (Baseline Conditions)
3.1 This section of the Ecological Appraisal summarises the baseline ecological conditions determined through the course of desk-based and field-based investigations, as described in Section 2. In particular, this section identifies and evaluates those ecological features/receptors that lie within the Site’s potential ZoI and which are pertinent in the context of the proposed development. Further technical details are, where appropriate, provided within Appendices and on Plans to the rear of this report.
Designations
3.2 Statutory designations (those receiving legal protection) and non-statutory designations (those receiving planning policy protection only) are discussed in turn below.
Statutory Designations
3.3 Statutory designations represent the most significant ecological resources, being of recognised importance at an international and/or national level. International statutory designations include Special Protection Areas (SPA), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar Sites. National statutory designations include Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and National Nature Reserves (NNR).
3.4 No part of the Site is covered by any international statutory designations although there are two internationally designated sites within 10km, namely:
Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC, 3.3km west): This is one of the best areas in the UK for beech forests. It supports Annex 1 habitat ‘Asperulo- Fagetum beech forests’ as a primary reason for selection of the Site, and the Annex I habitat ‘semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco- Brometalia) (this includes the priority feature important orchid rich sites) and stag beetle (Lucanus cervus) as a qualifying feature; and
Burnham Beeches SAC (3.7km east). This is an example of the Annex 1 habitat ‘Atlantic acidophilous beech forests’ that are a primary reason for selection of this site, which includes an extensive area of former beech wood-pasture with many old pollards and associated beech and oak. Surveys indicate this site to be one of the richest sites for saproxylic invertebrates in the UK, including 14 Red Data Book species. It also retains nationally important epiphytic communities, including the moss Zygodon forsteri.
9 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
National-statutory Designations
3.5 No part of the site is covered by any national statutory designations. However, within a 5km radius of the Site there are eight Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), as described in Table EDP 3.1.
Table EDP 3.1: National Statutory Designated Sites Within 5km of the Site Site Name Description Approximate Approximate Site Grid Distance Reference from Site Cock Marsh A small 18ha area of horse and cattle SU883867 0.8km West SSSI grazed grassland with a transition up a slope from wet alluvial grassland at the bottom, through calcareous grassland to more acidic grassland at the top. Important for breeding and wintering birds Fern House 1.3ha area designated for its geological SU883885 1.9km North- Gravel Pit SSSI interest west
Littleworth 15.84ha area of open heathland, which SU930865 3.1km East Common SSSI has naturally succeeded to birch-oak woodland. Small areas of heathland still remain and support ponds with the nationally rare starfruit. Other species of note include a large colony of purple hairstreak butterfly Bisham Woods 83.67ha of predominantly broad-leaved SU856850 3.3km South- SSSI woodland on a steep north-west slope. west One of the richest ground flora recorded in any Berkshire woodland site as well as an interesting mollusc fauna including snails indicative of ancient woodland on chalky soil Burnham Habitats covering 374.6ha discussed SU950857 3.7km East Beeches SSSI above as part of its international SAC designation. Also noteworthy are its populations of wood ants, hornets, rare beetles and rare woodland slugs. Additionally, dormice are present as well as 56 species of bird including hawfinch, redstart, nightjar and nightingale Cannoncourt 0.067ha area designated for both its SU878831 4.0km Farm Pit SSSI archaeological and geological interest South-east South Lodge Pit 0.53ha area designated for its geological SU90548193 4.7km South SSSI interest
10 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Site Name Description Approximate Approximate Site Grid Distance Reference from Site Gomm Valley 4.12ha herb-rich chalk grassland with SU897922 4.8km North SSSI scrub with adjacent semi-natural deciduous woodland. Site supports reptile interest, large flocks of overwintering birds and invertebrate interest including 30 species of butterfly and 180 species of moth
Non-statutory Designations
3.6 Non-statutory designations are also commonly referred to in planning policies as ‘local sites’, although in fact these designations are typically considered to be of importance at a County-level. In Buckinghamshire and the Thames Valley, such designations are named Local Wildlife Sites (LWS). Additional designations, which should be considered at this level include Local Nature Reserves (LNR)8 and Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland (ASNW), where these are not covered by other designations.
3.7 No part of the Site is covered by any non-statutory designations. However, there are eight such sites within the sites potential ZoI including two Local Wildlife Sites (LWS), five Biological Notification Sites (BNS) and a single Local Geological Site (LGS), as summarised in Table EDP 3.2.
Table EDP 3.2: Non-statutory Designated Sites Within 2km of the Site Site Name Description Approximate Distance from Site Woolman’s Wood This Biological Notification Site (BNS) is mostly conifer 0.4km East BNS plantation with abundant bluebells near rides. Glade in centre of wood supports wild daffodils Cliveden Estate This LWS supports woodlands and grasslands with 1.2km South LWS species including dormouse, badger, ten species of bat including annex II barbastelle (Barbastella barbastellus) and Bechstein’s (Myotis bechsteinii), a range of Red list bird species and common reptiles North of Spade Oak 0.4ha area with a mixture of grassland, fen, pools, 1.4km West Meadows LWS stream and spring Abbots Brook Field A dry flat field with wet area along stream. Wet strip not 1.4km West BNS especially rich but does contain species uncommon in Bucks, such as nodding bur-marigold (Bidens cernua), unbranched bur-reed (Sparganium emersum) and crosswort (Cruciata laevipes). Moorholm Marshy grassland. Wet grassland and copse. Eight-foot 1.4km West meadows wide stream and copse BNS
8 Although LNRs are statutory designations, their value is consistent with non-statutory designations (of County level value or less).
11 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Site Name Description Approximate Distance from Site Mill Wood BNS Mixed deciduous woodland with mixed shrub layer and 1.8km North- ground flora mosaic. Area of wet ground covered with east Opposite-leaved Golden-saxifrage (Chrysosplenium oppositifolium). Strip across northern end cleared for erection of telegraph poles Cliveden Caves LGS This LGS is designated for its geological interest. 2.0km South Little Meadow Neutral grassland in cemetery 2.0km North- Cemetery BNS west
Habitats
3.8 The distribution of different habitat types within the Site is illustrated on Plan EDP 1. In addition, detailed descriptions of these habitat types, together with illustrative photographs, are provided in Appendix EDP 2. A summary, and qualitative assessment, of these habitats is provided in Table EDP 3.3.
3.9 Intrinsic quality of habitats is evaluated by EDP based on established criteria (see CIEEM 20189) including spatial extent, distinctiveness, species-richness, spatial connectivity and intensity of anthropogenic land management. Judgement of intrinsic value is made independent of the ability of the habitat or feature to support fauna.
Table EDP 3.3: Summary of Habitats within the Site Habitat or Feature Distribution within Site Intrinsic Ecological Value Agricultural Land - Arable Four of the field parcels within the Negligible, owing to Site intensive cultivation and absence of notable margins. Species-poor semi-improved Two field parcels, one to the south Site-level, owing to small grassland and one to the west, both extent and low species- subdivided with fencing for horse richness. grazing Hedgerows Delineating the majority of the Local-level, local dispersal internal boundaries as well as corridors with most of the external boundaries hedgerows intact and some predominantly to the east species-rich. Hedgerows qualify as Priority Habitat etc. Scattered Mature Trees Scattered mature and semi- Local-level, owing to extent mature standards within and maturity. hedgerows in the centre of the Site and delineating external boundaries to the east, south and west
9 CIEEM (2018). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal. CIEEM, Winchester
12 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Habitat or Feature Distribution within Site Intrinsic Ecological Value Scattered Scrub and Tall Small extents of tall ruderal and Site-level, owing to small Ruderal scattered scrub on external extent and low species- boundaries to the west and south richness. Amenity Grassland Small extents within gardens Site-level, owing to small around Hollands Farm and extent and low species- associated cottages richness.
3.10 As noted within Table EDP 3.2, the majority of the habitats within the Site are of only limited intrinsic nature conservation value or lower. However, the hedgerows and mature trees are considered to be of Local-level importance. A number of these habitats or other features require consideration in relation to their ability to support small populations of protected and/or notable species/assemblages. This is discussed further below.
Protected and/or Notable Species
3.11 The presence, of protected/and or notable wildlife species within the Site is summarised below, with reference to desk study records, habitat suitability and detailed surveys where relevant. Further details are made available within Appendices and Plans where referenced.
3.12 Where a particular species or taxonomic group is confirmed to be present, or presence is inferred based on habitat suitability, the ecological value or significance of the population or assemblage is assessed on a geographical scale from International (highest value) to Negligible (lowest value).
Birds
3.13 The desk study returned many records of protected and notable bird species from within 2km of the Site, with Red list species relevant to the farmland/hedgerow, including skylark (Alauda arvensis), corn bunting (Emberiza calandra), starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), linnet (Linaria cannabina), and yellow hammer (Emberiza citronella), lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), song thrush (Turdus philomelos), mistle thrush (Turdus viscivorus), fieldfare (Turdus pilaris), redwing (Turdus iliacus) and yellow wagtail (Motacilla flava). None of these records were returned from within the Site.
3.14 The pilot breeding bird survey undertaken on 29 June 2018 recorded an assemblage of birds typical of lowland farmland sites in England with 31 species were recorded in total. Of these, 23 were common and widespread (Green list or no status) species. Of the remainder, four were Red list species (linnet (Linaria cannabina), starling (Sturnus vulgaris), song thrush (Turdus philomelos) and house sparrow (Passer domesticus)) and four Amber list (dunnock (Prunella modularis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus) and stock dove (Columba oenas)). All species were recorded in fairly low numbers, with dunnock being the most numerous species recorded.
13 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
3.15 Of the species considered to be of conservation concern, Linnet and stock dove were considered to be possibly breeding on the Site whilst starling, song thrush, house sparrow, dunnock and reed bunting were considered to be likely breeding on the Site.
3.16 Full results of the pilot breeding bird survey are provided in Appendix EDP 4 and the results of the survey are shown on Plan EDP 2.
3.17 A search for barn owl (Tyto alba) roosting evidence was also undertaken in the barn structures immediately to the south-west of the Site and around the mature trees during the visual inspection for bat roosting potential. The survey confirmed nesting barn owl within Buildings B10 and B11 (see Plan EDP 3). Barn owl were also recorded foraging across the Site during bat transects in August, and October.
3.18 Based on the survey findings, the breeding bird assemblage is considered to be of Site-level value though the presence of roosting barn owl is of Local-level value.
Roosting and Foraging Bats
3.19 The desk study returned records of widespread and common species within 2km for common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), unidentified pipistrelle (Pipistrellus sp.), brown long-eared (Plecotus auritus), noctule (Nyctalus noctula) and Myotis species including natterer’s (Myotis nattereri) and Daubenton’s (Myotis daubentonii). Five records of Annex II including two Bechstein’s (Myotis bechsteinii), three Barbastelle (Barbastella barbastellus) and one greater horseshoe (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum) were also returned from within 6km of the Site with the closest record from c.1.6km to the south.
Preliminary Ground Level Assessment of Trees
3.20 No bats or evidence of bats were found during the ground level assessment of trees undertaken in May 2019 though, eight trees either within the Site or immediately adjacent to the Site were assessed as having potential to support roosting bats, ranging from Low potential to High potential. Of these trees three were considered to have low potential (trees T004, T005 and T007) to support roosting bats, three trees with medium potential (trees T003, T006 and T008) and two with high potential (trees T001 and T002). Therefore, it is possible that bats are using trees within, or adjacent to, the Site for roosting.
3.21 The results of the bat tree roost assessment are provided in Appendix EDP 5 and illustrated on Plan EDP 3.
Internal and External Assessment of Buildings
3.22 Hollands Farm has 22 permanent buildings though these fall outside the Site boundary. However, these structures were identified as being potentially suitable for roosting bats and were therefore subject to an internal and external bat roost assessment by a Natural England bat licensed ecologist on May 2019, with reference to current best practice
14 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
guidelines. For the purposes of this appraisal these buildings have been numbered as buildings B1 to B22 and their locations are shown on Plan EDP 3.
3.23 During the assessment the majority of the buildings were considered to have negligible potential to support roosting bats, however, buildings B6 and B9 were found to have low bat roosting potential and building B5 moderate potential. Bat droppings were found in building B4 and as such, it is considered to have a confirmed soprano pipistrelle roost.
3.24 Full details of the bat roost assessment of buildings within the Site are provided in Appendix EDP 5.
Bat Dusk Emergence Survey
3.25 Following the building roost assessment, two dusk emergence surveys and one dawn re- entry survey were conducted to observe any bats emerging/re-entering the buildings with bat roosting potential.
3.26 One bat was recorded emerging from building B4 on 03 September 2019. Full details of the bat survey methods are provided in Appendix EDP 5.
Bat Foraging/Commuting Activity
3.27 The transect surveys and automated detector surveys recorded moderate levels of bat foraging/commuting activity across the Site. The assemblage recorded comprised typical and widespread species including common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and noctule, bats accounting for the vast majority (94.8%) of automated detector recordings made. Additional species recorded included Myotis (Myotis sp.) with 4.5% of the overall recordings, long-eared bat (Plecotus. sp.) 0.4%, serotine (Eptesicus serotinus) 0.3% and Leisler’s (Nyctalus Leisleri) 0.1. During the surveys there were no recordings of any Annex II species.
3.28 Based on the survey findings, the roosting and foraging bat populations supported by the Site are considered to be of Local-level value.
3.29 Full details of the survey results are provided in Appendix EDP 5 and illustrated on Plans EDP 4 to 9 inclusive.
Badger
3.30 The desk study returned eight records of badger from the surrounding area with the closest located c.700m to the north of the Site associated with land to the north of Slate Meadow. Of the eight records only two refer to badger setts, however, both of these records fall to the south of the River Thames and as such the associated badger clans are considered unlikely to interact with the Site in any way.
3.31 Badger sett and foraging activity has been recorded on-site, predominantly associated with the hedgerows in the centre of the Site and the woodland/orchard located off-site to
15 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
the north-east. Extensive camera trapping surveys and bait marking was conducted to categorise the on and off-site setts and to confirm that the setts were associated with only a single badger clan. During the surveys 12 setts were identified overall with surveys confirming that the off-site orchard contains a main breeding sett with an associated Annex and outlier sett. The Site itself supports nine setts including three subsidiary setts and six outlier setts.
3.32 Full details of the survey methods and results are provided in Appendix EDP 6 and illustrated on Plan EDP 10.
3.33 Based on these survey findings EDP considers the population of badger within the Site to be of Site-level value.
Reptiles
3.34 Nine records of reptiles were returned from the desk study including slow-worm (Angulis fragilis), common lizard (Zootoca vivipara) and grass snake (Natrix natrix). The closest records are for slow-worm, associated with an allotment located c.300m to the north of the Site.
3.35 The Site provides limited habitat suitable to support reptiles restricted to the species-poor semi-improved grassland, small sections of scattered scrub and tall ruderal, and the hedgerows. The habitats are not extensive, and not particularly unique.
3.36 Detailed artificial refugia surveys covering the Site did not record any reptiles and as such reptiles are considered absent from the Site.
3.37 Full details of the reptile surveys are given in Appendix EDP 7 and detailed on Plans EDP 7.
Summary of Key Ecological Receptors Identified
3.38 Based on the survey findings described above, the key ecological features/receptors pertinent to the development proposals are as follows:
Chilterns Beechwoods SAC located 3.3km west and Burnham Beeches SAC located 3.7km east;
Woolman’s Wood BNS, located 400m to the south-east;
Locally valuable hedgerow and mature tree network across the Site and on the external site boundaries;
Habitats of low (less than Local-level) intrinsic value, namely species-poor semi- improved grassland, improved grassland and scattered mature trees;
16 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Breeding birds (partially protected and Priority Species); assemblage comprising predominantly typical/widespread passerine birds of no more than Site-level value;
Barn Owl; nesting within a building located immediately to the south-west of the Site, considered to be of Local-level value;
Bat (roosting) – eight trees within or adjacent to the Site with potential to support roosting bats. Four buildings adjacent to the Site with potential to support roosting bats including one building with a confirmed soprano pipistrelle roost;
Foraging/commuting bat assemblage – assemblage of no more than Local-level value; and
Badger – nine setts present within the Site and three setts located within adjoining woodland. Badger considered active within the Site with an assemblage of Site-level value.
17 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
This page has been left blank intentionally
18 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Section 4 Details of Proposed Development
4.1 Having reviewed the baseline conditions, this section provides pertinent details of the proposed development, in particular those aspects, which have potential implications for the ecological features/receptors identified. Where relevant, reference is made to the influence that ecological considerations have had in the scheme’s design and any inherent mitigation, which avoids or reduces the severity of potential ecological impacts.
4.2 It is intended to submit an outline planning application for:
“…residential development of up to 400 dwellings (including affordable homes) and land for a one form entry primary school, including means of access from Hedsor Road), point of connection of link road to Jacksons Field and emergency only vehicle access from Heavens Lea (not including internal roads), open space, sustainable urban drainage system and associated landscaping, infrastructure and earthworks with all other matters (relating to appearance, landscaping, scale and layout) reserved.”
4.3 The potential layout and associated landscaping are shown on the Illustrative Masterplan provided as Appendix EDP 1 and further details on the design and layout are provided within the Design and Access Statement (DAS) accompanying the application.
4.4 EDP has provided input throughout the iterative design process, so the Illustrative Masterplan reflects some important measures, suggested by EDP, to avoid, mitigate or compensate for ecological impacts, as well as other measures designed to provide long-term ecological enhancements. As a result, the development footprint is almost entirely confined to the arable land, considered to be of negligible ecological value and semi-improved grassland of low ecological value. The main access has been sited in the same location as the existing driveway to reduce the need for removal of hedgerow. Retention and buffering of locally valuable hedgerows and mature trees has been incorporated where possible, with only minor loss of hedgerow from the centre of the Site for access roads and the eastern boundary for a temporary emergency access.
4.5 Green open space is provided throughout the development with wide green movement corridors along either side of the internal hedgerow network, though a wider green area is provided in the east of the Site with additional tree planting and a play area. The majority of the southern boundary will be delineated with a wide green buffer of native planting enhancing this area for wildlife. The green corridors through the development have also been targeted for improvement, with the incorporation of additional tree, shrub and hedgerow planting, water attenuation features and play areas.
4.6 A vision for the open spaces and natural areas incorporated as part of the masterplan proposals is contained within the DAS. Measures designed to ensure that the proposal “…minimises impacts on and provides net gains in biodiversity”, in accordance with paragraph 170d of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), are discussed further in Section 5.
19 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
This page has been left blank intentionally
20 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Section 5 Predicted Impacts and Mitigation
5.1 This section of the Ecological Appraisal considers the likely impacts of the proposed development, as shown on the Illustrative Masterplan included as Appendix EDP 1, on the proven and presumed ecological resource. Where effects are unlikely to be avoided by inherent mitigation alone, additional mitigation or enhancement measures are recommended, which if implemented, would as a minimum enable the proposed development to meet legislative and/or planning policy requirements.
5.2 In accordance with the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, within England, Local Planning Authorities have a statutory duty to have regard to effects upon biodiversity when exercising their functions; this includes consideration of effects upon ecological features such as designated sites, and Priority Habitats/Priority Species when determining planning applications. In accordance with planning policy at all levels, Local Planning Authorities must also consider whether or not ‘significant harm’ to biodiversity may occur due to effects upon such ecological features. This, and the statutory protection afforded to certain designated sites and species, is explored in further detail below.
5.3 EDP’s overall summary and conclusions, based upon the above, are given in Section 6.
Planning Policy Context
5.4 In summary, and in accordance with planning policy at the national level (NPPF) and local level (policies within the Wycombe District Local Plan (adopted August 2019), a compliant application will avoid ‘significant harm’ to biodiversity (it is widely accepted that this is taken to mean avoiding significant/material adverse effects upon important ecological features such as designations, protected species, Priority Habitats and Priority Species populations/assemblages of Local-level value or greater), achieve no net loss of biodiversity and will enhance the biodiversity resources, thereby achieving a net biodiversity gain.
5.5 Specifically, the NPPF states, in paragraph 170d, that the planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: “…minimising impacts on and providing net gains in biodiversity”. Furthermore, it states:
“175. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:
a. if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;
21 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
b. development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
c. development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons58 and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and
d. development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity.”
5.6 At the local level, Policy CP10 (Green Infrastructure and the Natural Environment) of the Wycombe District Local Plan (adopted August 2019), echoes the principles of the NPPF, and includes the following statements in relation to biodiversity resources:
“Policy CP10:
The Council will promote the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment and green infrastructure of the District through:
1. Conserving, protecting and enhancing the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and other natural environmental assets of local, national and international importance by:
(a) Protecting them from harmful development through development management policies in this Plan and the Delivery and Site Allocations Plan including the protection of biodiversity and landscape designations and landscape character based approach to considering proposals;
…
2. Ensuring there is a net gain in biodiversity within individual development proposals and across the District as a whole over the plan period.
3. Working with local natural environment partnerships to protect and enhance the green infrastructure network of the District by:
(a) Protecting designated sites and through management plans ensuring their biodiversity value will be enhanced;
22 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
(b) Proactive, early and strategic planning of green infrastructure to maximise its benefits, including a baseline assessment of what exists (function, location, size, connectivity);
(c) …
(d) Ensuring through development management policies that all development is required to maximise the opportunities to protect, enhance, expand, connect, improve and use the existing green infrastructure, including across the border of the development site.
…”
Designated Sites
International Statutory Designated Sites
5.7 Neither Burnham Beeches SAC nor Chilterns Beechwoods SAC will be directly affected by the proposed development of the Site (e.g. via direct physical habitat loss/damage) due to their geographical separation from the Site. Potential indirect effects upon these two SACs, such as non-physical disturbance (e.g. noise/vibration or light pollution), increased recreational pressure or changes to the hydrological regime are also unlikely have been duly considered in this Ecological Appraisal.
5.8 Potential adverse effects relating to noise, vibration or light pollution are unlikely to have a significant impact on the integrity of the SACs owing to the spatial separation between them and the Site.
5.9 With regards to potential impacts of air pollution upon these two SACs, specifically increased atmospheric nitrogen deposition from increased road use, it is considered that this would only be likely to result in a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the SACs if they are within 200m of the primary road network (motorways or ‘A’ roads) where increased traffic is forecast. Chilterns Beechwoods SAC and Burnham Beeches SAC are located approximately 3.3km and 3.7km respectively from the Site, and therefore it is reasonably concluded that the proposed residential development is unlikely to result in a significant increase if traffic volume on the primary road network lying within 200m of the SACs, and therefore there will no significant adverse effects on these SACs.
5.10 Significant indirect effects to the integrity of the Chilterns Beechwoods SAC and Burnham Beeches SAC as a result of increased recreational pressure from the proposed development are considered likely to occur, particularly in relation to Burnham Beeches SAC. The Site has been allocated within the Wycombe District Plan and Policy BE2 of the plan relates specifically to the Site. Policy BE2 states that in addition to a number of on- site measures, a S106 contribution is required to mitigate recreational impacts at Burnham Beeches SAC. This sum of money is to be used to provide off-site mitigation measures.
23 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
5.11 Subject to the payment of the agreed s106 contribution and delivery of appropriate on-site green space, then it can be concluded that the proposed development will not result in a significant increase in recreational impacts on Burnham Beeches SAC.
5.12 For the reasons above, no potentially significant adverse effects upon the integrity of these SACs are foreseeable. As such, it is considered that the proposed residential development of the Site could be achieved whilst remaining compliant with relevant national and local planning policy with regards to Statutory designated sites, though this will be considered further through an Appropriate Assessment.
National Statutory Designated Sites
5.13 It is considered that no significant direct effects will occur to the nationally designated statutory sites within the ZoI around the Site for the reasons below:
Nature of the designation (e.g. Fern House Gravel Pit SSSI designated for its geological interest);
Degree of geographical separation from the Site (the closest being Cock Marsh SSSI 0.8km away and divided from the Site by the River Thames, and the majority over 3km away); and
The lack of any effect-receptor pathways between any of the statutory designations and the Site (such as no obvious surface watercourse connections).
5.14 Furthermore, provided that a sufficient proportion of the Site is provided as green open space, potential increased recreational pressures upon these off-site SSSIs can be mitigated on-site. Therefore, no significant adverse effects upon national statutory designations are anticipated.
5.15 For the reasons described above in relation to national statutory designations, it is not considered likely that any significant direct adverse effects will occur to any of the off-site designations as a result of the proposed development of the Site.
Non-statutory Designated Sites
5.16 Woolman’s Wood BNS is located 400m from the Site at its closest point and as such there could be a slight increase in the number of people using the woodland for recreation. Footpaths do not link the BNS with the Site directly, with a requirement for walkers to complete sections of the walk on the road as there is no obvious car parking facility. Woolman’s Wood is dominated by conifer plantation, a habitat that is robust and resilient to recreational pressures. A slight increase in walkers from the proposed development is not considered likely to lead to a significant negative impact on the Woolman’s Wood BNS, however, mitigation should seek to alleviate any potential increase in pressure on the BNS as described below.
24 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
5.17 To ensure that pressures on the woodland are kept to a minimum, the Site will provide large areas of green open space throughout the development for recreation as shown on the Illustrative Masterplan (Appendix EDP 1). In addition, the Site will provide children’s play areas, a multi-use games area, football pitches and specific leisure footpath routes to further reduce the need for the new residents to access offsite recreational areas.
5.18 With these measures in place, EDP considers that the residual operation-stage effects on the Woolman’s Wood BNS will not be significant and will ensure legislative compliance.
Habitats
5.19 With the exception of the hedgerows the habitats within the Site are considered to be of less than Local-level nature conservation importance. These habitats are therefore not considered to pose an ‘in principle’ constraint to the proposed development, as their loss would not be considered to cause ‘significant harm’ to biodiversity. However, the proposed development layout has retained these features wherever possible to avoid any net loss of local biodiversity, as illustrated by the BIA calculations, thereby ensuring compliance with local and national planning policy (see above).
5.20 To avoid damage/disturbance of retained features during construction, it is recommended that Ecological Protection Zones (EPZs) with an appropriate buffer should be established during the construction phase, to include temporary protective fencing and signage. These EPZs should be designed with reference to any proposed tree protection measures.
5.21 It is recommended that details of such measures, along with protected species measures and their implementation, will be delivered through a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) secured by a suitably worded planning condition.
5.22 Given that the habitats on the Site are of limited nature conservation value, there is scope for habitat creation in retained open space, to ensure net biodiversity gain is delivered in accordance with planning policy. The following enhancements have been incorporated into the illustrative masterplan:
New native tree/shrub planting to strengthen and enhance the existing boundary vegetation and areas of green open space, and create new linear habitats/Green Infrastructure linkages especially along the southern Site boundary;
Enhancement of retained hedgerows, tree lines and scrub through ‘gap planting’ with a native, species-rich mix and enhanced management to improve structure and longevity;
Establishment of species-rich wildflower grassland within the Site’s green open spaces and areas of retained grassland; and
25 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Appropriate design of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)/water attenuation features to provide new opportunities for biodiversity through the provision of species-rich wet grassland meadow, marginal communities and aquatic habitats, in addition to flood attenuation.
5.23 Such measures will be incorporated into future Reserved Matters applications. Specifications for new planting and other habitat creation will be provided within a detailed Soft Landscaping Scheme secured by planning condition. In addition, measures to restore and enhance existing habitats, to ensure successful establishment of new habitats, and to maintain the value of all ecological features in the long-term will be detailed within a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) secured by planning condition.
5.24 The scale and extent of new habitat proposed and enhancements of retained habitats is considered to outweigh the losses anticipated to result from the development proposals. As such, the proposed development has the potential to deliver a net gain in valuable habitat types and meet planning policy requirements.
Protected and/or Notable Species
5.25 Preliminary investigations have identified potential species implications for the Site relating to breeding birds, roosting and foraging/commuting bats and badgers, which are discussed in turn below.
5.26 Protected/notable species could be subject to the following effects during construction (if unmitigated):
Temporary land take of suitable habitats causing indirect displacement and reduced vigour or reduced breeding success;
Direct harm due to direct contact with machinery;
Indirect disturbance to animal or place of shelter/protection due to noise, light and/or vibration causing displacement and reduced vigour or reduced breeding success; and
Indirect changes to water quality/quantity due to runoff causing displacement and reduced vigour or reduced breeding success.
5.27 Protected/notable species could be subject to the following effects during operation (if unmitigated):
Permanent land take of suitable habitats causing indirect displacement and reduced vigour or reduced breeding success;
26 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Indirect disturbance to animal or place of shelter/protection due to noise, light and/or vibration causing displacement and reduced vigour or reduced breeding success; and
Indirect changes to water quality/quantity due to operational run-off causing displacement and reduced vigour or reduced breeding success.
5.28 Therefore, a number of measures are proposed as outlined below. The protection, enhancement and creation measures outlined below will be detailed and delivered through a CEMP (for the construction-stage measures), and Soft Landscaping Scheme and LEMP (for the operational-stage measures).
Birds
Status
5.29 All wild birds (at any time), and during the breeding season, their nests, eggs and young are protected under Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), with certain species such as barn owl afforded additional protection measures. Many species are also Priority Species. A breeding bird assemblage of Site-level value has been identified within the Site with the barn own population valued separately as being of Local-level value.
Construction-Stage Mitigation
5.30 Any vegetation removal and construction should ideally commence in the period between October and February inclusive. Alternatively, if undertaken during the bird breeding season (March to September inclusive), then inspection for active nests by a suitably experienced ecologist should be undertaken prior to removal. If nests are found to be present, then they will be marked and suitably buffered from removal until the chicks have left the nest.
5.31 It is likely that the barn owls identified will use the Site as part of their foraging range though will use habitats to the south of the Site as additional foraging resource. It is likely that during construction barn owl will, to some extent, be displaced into the wider farmland landscape to the south of the Site on a more regular basis as much of the on-site habitats will be subject to works. The density of birds that local farmland can support will be largely dependent on the crop rotation and boundary management, which will vary from year to year as arable farmland inherently creates dynamic habitats however as the effects will be temporary it is not considered that they will have a significant impact on the population.
5.32 During construction, any illuminated site compounds will be sited away from areas of greater ecological interest to include the central hedgerows and off-site orchard as well as the barns to the south-west of the Site.
27 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
5.33 Where required, the times that lights are on should be controlled to avoid lights illuminated between, and including, dusk and dawn hours, to allow some dark periods for barn owl foraging.
5.34 With these measures in place, EDP considers that the residual construction-stage effects on breeding birds will be not significant, low magnitude adverse, and temporary, and will ensure legislative compliance.
Operational-Stage Mitigation
5.35 Inherent mitigation incorporated into the masterplan at this stage includes the retention, buffering and favourable management of the majority of the more valuable on-site habitats. Enhancement measures including scrub, tree planting, meadow grassland and new hedgerow will enhance the on-site habitat and provide further buffering to the retained boundary habitats. The inclusion of larger areas of rough grassland with scattered trees will provide good foraging resource for barn owl to supplement their off-site foraging.
5.36 Limited breeding habitat will be lost as a result of the development; however, the installation of bird boxes is recommended (either on retained mature trees or incorporated into dwellings) to provide additional enhancements to the boundary habitats.
5.37 No barn structures will be disturbed during construction; however, a barn owl box will be mounted on a suitable mature tree in the east of the Site to provide enhanced roosting opportunities in proximity to the retained orchard and proposed new areas of grassland.
5.38 These inherent mitigation measures mentioned would increase the nesting and foraging resources within the Site for breeding birds.
5.39 With these measures in place, EDP considers that there will be a net gain in foraging and nesting opportunities within the Site, and therefore will be compliant with national and local policy.
Bats
Status
5.40 All species of British bat are listed as a European Protected Species (EPS) on Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (Annex IV (a) to the Habitats Directive). This affords bats and their roosts strict protection. Additional protection for bats is also afforded under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and a subset of the British bat assemblage are listed as Priority Species. A roosting and foraging bat assemblage of Local-level value has been identified within the Site.
28 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Construction-Stage Mitigation
5.41 At this stage there is potential for a single tree to be lost with bat roosting potential. Removal of any trees with bat roosting potential should be conducted under the following methodology.
5.42 Those trees to be affected would be subject to an aerial climbing survey (where required) to confirm if the features identified from the ground have potential to support roosting bats. Trees with moderate potential to support roosting bats will be subject to a second aerial survey to search for roosting bats and trees with high bat roosting potential will be subject to two further aerial surveys. Each of the aerial surveys will be completed at least two weeks apart and with the final survey completed within 24h of any felling works.
5.43 If no roost is confirmed, but potential exists, then trees will be felled under a Non-licensed Method Statement by a suitably experienced tree surgeon, using a ‘soft felling’ technique where roost features are sectioned out and lowered to the ground and placed to one side. These works would ideally be undertaken in April and September/October to avoid the key maternity and/or hibernation periods for bats.
5.44 Should a roost/roosts be confirmed, then bat exclusion and felling will take place under a Natural England derogation licence and under supervision of a licensed bat worker. Replacement bat roosts will also be provided in the form of bat boxes attached to retained mature trees, new dwellings or on freestanding poles. The precise mitigation details will be subject to agreement through the licensing process.
5.45 During construction, any illuminated site compounds will be sited away from areas of greater ecological interest to include the central hedgerows and off-site orchard.
5.46 Where required, the times that lights are on should be controlled to avoid lights illuminated between, and including, dusk and dawn hours, to allow some dark periods for bats and other wildlife.
5.47 In terms of foraging bats, the permanent loss of small sections of hedgerow, species-poor semi-improved grassland, tall ruderal and scrub to the development during construction cannot be directly mitigated. But in the context of retained habitat on the Site boundaries and within the Site (as well as foraging resources available nearby), EDP considers that during construction it is unlikely that there will be a significant effect on foraging/commuting bats.
Operational-Stage Mitigation
5.48 Inherent mitigation incorporated into the masterplan at this stage includes the retention, buffering and favourable management of the external and internal boundary habitats. Mitigation will focus on strengthening the existing boundary vegetation with additional trees, shrubs and species-rich grasslands to create strong green linkages/corridors across the Site. Furthermore, the water attenuation features and associated damp grassland meadow will provide additional foraging resources for bats.
29 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
5.49 A wildlife-sensitive lighting scheme will avoid or minimise light spill, thereby creating ‘dark zones’ where development is located in close proximity to retained/created linear foraging habitats and/or roosts. A sensitive lighting strategy should be designed with reference to the best practice guidance for bats and lighting10 with lighting used, which has a warm white output with directional capacity such as LED and with no UV component. In addition, optics should be used to increase lighting directionality. Additional mitigation should include shielding of lights with accessories such as hoods, covers, louvres and shields where appropriate.
5.50 Only a single tree with low bat roosting potential is likely to be lost to the development, however, it is recommended that a range of good quality bat boxes are installed, either on retained mature trees, freestanding on poles or incorporated into dwellings.
5.51 These inherent mitigation measures mentioned would increase the roosting and foraging resources within the Site for bats. With these measures in place, EDP considers that there will be a net gain in roosting and foraging opportunities for bats within the Site.
Badgers
Status
5.52 Badgers and their setts receive protection under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The protection afforded to badgers is primarily due to animal welfare issues and not due to concern over their nature conservation status. A single clan of badgers have been confirmed as present within the Site and off-site habitats with twelve setts in total.
Construction-Stage Mitigation
5.53 Intrinsic mitigation for the proposed development has retained and buffered all of the badger setts within the Site with the exception of two outlier setts located in the central hedgerows and which will require permanent removal to facilitate construction of access roads. The badger setts have been retained within hedgerow habitats and connectivity maintained between these hedgerows and the external site boundaries to the east.
5.54 Two outlier badger setts will be lost during construction and a subsidiary sett (Sett 1 on Plan EDP 10) may be subject to some disturbance during excavation of the water attenuation features. As such a Natural England Badger Licence will need to be applied for to allow works to proceed. The precise mitigation details will be subject to agreement through the licensing process.
5.55 During construction works any excavations will be sealed flush at ground level or formed with a gently sloping sides, to help any trapped badger (or other animals) to escape. Alternatively, excavations must be visually checked in the morning by the Construction Contractor prior to being filled in, to ensure badger (or other animals) are absent. Should any badger or other protected species be present/suspected present, then work must
10 Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK (08/2018). Bats and the Built Environment Series. The Bat Conservation Trust, London
30 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
cease at that location immediately (where safe to do so) and a suitably experienced ecologist contacted immediately for advice on how to proceed.
5.56 With these measures in place, EDP considers that there will be no construction-stage effects on badger.
Operational-Stage Mitigation
5.57 Intrinsic mitigation for the proposed development has retained and strengthened the vegetated boundary habitats around the development footprint, as well as retaining corridors of open space through the Site and along the Site boundaries. This retains existing foraging routes to off-site habitats as well as retaining dispersal and foraging opportunities within the Site.
5.58 With these measures in place, EDP considers that the effect on badger will be neutral and will ensure legislative compliance.
Biodiversity Net Gain
5.59 The proposed landscaping described in Section 4 results in a biodiversity score of +12.20% for area calculations and a +61.94% gain in linear habitats.
5.60 The project is currently at outline stage and therefore, the post-development BIA calculations will evolve as the Site plan is developed. Therefore, the results presented here are indicative only, but demonstrate that a net gain is achievable.
5.61 The full calculation spreadsheet is appended to the rear of this report (Appendix EDP 8).
Summary of Predicted Impacts/Effects and Principal Mitigation Measures
5.62 The potential impacts on ecological features (accounting for inherent mitigation) and recommended additional mitigation measures in line with legislative and planning policy requirements, are summarised in Table EDP 5.1.
31 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Table EDP 5.1: Summary of Ecological Impacts and Mitigation Feature Potential Inherent Mitigation Additional Mitigation Impacts (without and/or Enhancement Mitigation) Designated Sites Increased Provision of recreation (Woolman’s Wood recreational facilities within the Site BNS) disturbance including green open space, play areas, football pitches and leisure paths Habitats Direct temporary Retention, buffering and Protection during (Grassland, land take habitat creation construction via Hedgerows, temporary Ruderal, Scrub Direct permanent Follow industry-standard demarcation/signage and Scattered land take (loss of best practice pollution for retained habitats Mature Trees) low value poor prevention and EPZs. semi-improved grassland, tall Habitat creation, ruderal, scrub, restoration, sections of enhancement and hedgerow) management (meadow grassland, trees, hedgerows, scrub and water attenuation with wet grassland species). Species (Birds, Harm/disturbance Habitat retention and Protection during Bats and Badger) and habitat loss buffering construction through during sensitive working construction and practices/timing of disturbance post- works; individual development species licences and licenced/non-licenced working methodologies, habitat creation, restoration, enhancement and management.
32 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Section 6 Summary and Conclusions
6.1 This section of the Ecological Appraisal summarises the Ecology Strategy for the proposed development, in terms of inherent and recommended additional mitigation measures, and then provides the overall conclusions of the appraisal.
Summary of Ecology Mitigation Strategy
Outline Description of Inherent Mitigation Embedded in the Illustrative Masterplan
6.2 The following design principles will be translated into the detailed layout. Further details of these mitigation measures will be provided in the LEMP produced to accompany the Reserved Matters application:
Retention and buffering of valuable boundary habitats including the hedgerow and scattered mature trees as well as the off-site orchard;
Provision of recreational facilities to reduce the potential impacts on off-site designated habitats, to include children’s play areas, multi-use games areas, football pitches and leisure walks as well as green open space;
Provision of green open space within which to accommodate populations of birds including barn owl, foraging/commuting bats and badger, and to provide habitat creation and enhancement measures;
Retention and protection of the on-site badger setts and enhancement of the hedgerow network and adjacent grassland to accommodate badger within the development;
Maintenance of connectivity across the Site and with the wider landscape, through the provision of a wide green corridors both through the Site and along the external boundaries; and
New habitat creation including aquatic attenuation features, wildflower grassland, hedgerows, scrub and trees.
Outline Description of Construction Measures
6.3 The following measures will be detailed within a CEMP produced to accompany the Reserved Matters application:
Briefing of site personnel and supervision of certain construction/enabling works by a suitably experienced ecologist;
33 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Protection (e.g. by temporary mesh fencing) of retained boundary habitats within EPZs where construction personnel, vehicles and materials are excluded;
General pollution prevention measures in relation to retained habitats;
Implementation of measures required for the protection of badgers during construction, to be informed through the Natural England licence process. Completed by the licensed ecologist or authorised individual with suitable experience;
Further investigations of bat roosting prior to tree loss/surgery and appropriate mitigation for loss of roosts under Natural England EPS licence (as required); and
Sensitive timing and methods of vegetation clearance, with particular regard to nesting birds, supervised/advised by suitably experienced ecologist.
Outline Description of Required Detailed Design Measures – Creation/Enhancement and Management Measures
6.4 The following measures will be incorporated into a LEMP produced to accompany the Reserved Matters application:
New native tree/shrub and hedgerow planting around the development footprint, particularly to bolster retained linear habitats;
Creation of new permanent and seasonally wet water attenuation features designed to provide value for biodiversity whilst fulfilling their target function, sown with an appropriate species-rich grassland mix;
Grassland seeding with an appropriate wildflower mix within areas of open space and around water attenuation features;
Durable, good-quality bird and bat boxes erected on suitable retained mature trees, freestanding poles or incorporated into dwellings, including a barn owl box;
Wildlife-sensitive lighting scheme with particular regard to foraging bats and roosts, otter and water vole; and
Ongoing management of all retained/enhanced/created habitats in accordance with a management plan.
Overall Conclusions
6.5 EDP’s desk- and field-based baseline investigations have identified two International designated sites Chilterns Beechwoods SAC and Burnham Beeches SAC and a single non-
34 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
statutory designated site that is pertinent to the development proposals, Woolman’s Wood BNS.
6.6 With the exception of the hedgerows and mature trees all of the habitats within the Site are of only limited (less than Local-level) intrinsic nature conservation value, comprising mainly intensively managed arable land and species-poor semi-improved grassland. These habitats support populations/assemblages of protected/Priority Species, of Local- level value including, roosting barn owl and foraging bats, and Site-level populations of breeding birds and badger.
6.7 Accordingly, a proportionate and appropriate response for the avoidance, mitigation and compensation of any predicted impacts and ecological effects is considered in this report in outline and summarised above. These measures include: those avoidance and habitat retention measures already embedded within the Illustrative Masterplan; those sensitive timings and working methods, which should be implemented at the construction stage and described in detail in a CEMP; those habitat enhancement and creation measures, which should be designed and specified in detail within a LEMP along with the ongoing management of these features to ensure that the design vision is achieved in the long-term.
6.8 The BIA calculations show the development is capable of achieving a biodiversity net gain of 12.20% for area habitats and 61.94% for linear habitats. Furthermore, these calculations do not account the enhancement measures for fauna. It is expected that the measures detailed here will result in an increase in habitats for a wide variety of species. Therefore, the increase in biodiversity will be greater than the value given by the calculations.
6.9 On this basis, EDP finds that by virtue of the limited constraint posed by the ecological features on-site, coupled with the appropriate ecological mitigation strategy proposed, the scheme is capable of compliance with wildlife legislation and the relevant national and local planning policy for the conservation of the natural environment.
35 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
This page has been left blank intentionally
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Appendix EDP 1 Illustrative Masterplan (AL14 28/09/2020)
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
This page has been left blank intentionally
Riverside
River Wye
DANDRIDGE DRIVE DRIVE GROVESGROVES C CLOSE MILLSIDE LOSE MILLSIDE
River Wye
Fe rn leigh Cou
rt
PRINCES RO ROAD PRINCES ROAD AD
PRINCES ROAD
BRIDGESTONEBRID DRIVE
GESTON
E DRIVE
Dukes Meadow
HELLHELLYER WA YER WAY Y
RECREATION R
RECREATION ROAD OAD
D ROAD R
MILLBOA
ILLBOARD ROAD M
Potential Pedestrian
Industrial Estate Connection into Off-Site Woodland/ Orchard
er Wye
Riv
BUS
US B Jackson Industrial Estate
Wessex Road Industrial Estate
S HILL K
HAW HAWKS HILL
AD
X RO E
WESSWESSEX ROAD
HEAVENS LEA
AVENS LEA
HE
HEDSOR ROAD ROAD
Nursery
HEDSOR ROAD
Primary School Site Site Boundary Children’s Play Areas Existing Trees Secure Boundary - --/--/------Rev: Date: Description: Initial: Approximate Location of Primary Jackson’s Field Site Boundary Proposed Trees Project: School Building Multi Use Games Area
Front Gardens/ Driveways Rear Parking Courts Football Pitches Existing Hedgerow Hollands Farm, Bourne End Drawing: Rear Private Garden Space Public Open Space Leisure Footpath Routes Proposed Hedgerow AI14 - Illustrative Masterplan
Landscape Buffer within Rear Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDs) Proposed Foot/Cycle Way Route School and Recreation Car Park Scale: Drawn: Gardens in Perpetuity 1:1250 AKP Link Road Connection to Focal Buildings within the Streetscene Focal Public Realm Spaces Date: Checked: Cores End 28/09/2020 --
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of H.M. Stationery Office Crown copyright license number 100022432 Catesby Estates Plc. Published for the purposes of identification only and 0 25m 50m although believed to be correct accuracy is not guaranteed. Catesby Estates Plc does not act as Principal N Designer and this drawing is not intended to inform Construction Design Management procedures.
Copyright Catesby Estates Plc. No dimensions are to be scaled from this drawing. All dimensions to be checked on site. Area measurements for indicative purposes only. Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Appendix EDP 2 Habitat Descriptions and Site Photographs
A2.1 The principal habitats within the Site are described below. The following should be read in conjunction with Plan EDP 1.
Arable
A2.2 The Site supports four arable fields (Image EDP A2.1), which are actively cultivated through ploughing and sowing with crops. No rare arable weeds were recorded.
Image EDP A2.1: Looking south over field F1 from the northern site boundary. Land prepared for arable cultivation
Species-poor Semi-improved Grassland
A2.3 Two fields (F4 and F5) in the south and west of the Site respectively support species-poor semi-improved grassland (Image EDP A2.2). The grassland is dominated by rank/agricultural grasses including perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), barren brome (Bromus sterilis), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), red fescue (Festuca rubra) and cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerata), and with limited diversity of common and widespread forbs including thistles (Cirsium sp.), dock (Rumex sp.), nettle (Urtica dioica), mallow (Malva sylvestris), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) and lesser burdock (Arctium minus).
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Image EDP A2.2: Looking south over field F5 showing species-poor semi-improved grassland under grazing regime
Hedgerow
A2.4 Twenty separate hedgerows have been identified across the Site, delineating the external boundaries as well as subdividing the field parcels. A detailed hedgerow assessment was undertaken, as discussed in full in Appendix EDP 3. The hedgerow survey confirmed that none of the hedgerows qualify as ‘important’ under the Wildlife and Landscape criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations (1997)11, though all hedgerows are considered to be a Priority Habitat and eight of the hedgerows are considered species-rich as they support five or more species along their length.
A2.5 Dominant species within the hedgerow network include ash (Fraxinus excelsior), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), elder (Sambucus nigra), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and rose (Rosa spp.). Other species also recorded include beech (Fagus sylvatica), cherry (Prunus avium), dogwood (Cornus sanguinea), elm species (Ulmus spp.), hazel (Corylus avellana), holly (Ilex aquifolium), lime (Tilia x europaea), field maple (Acer campestre), pedunculate oak (Quercus robur), privet (Ligustrum vulgare), willow (Salix spp.) and yew (Taxus baccata). Non-native hedgerow species recorded included sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), laurel (Prunus laurocerasus ‘Rotundifolia’), horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), Leylandii sp. and buddleia sp..
A2.6 The ground flora supported by the hedgerow network comprises typical, widespread and commonly occurring species, including those listed under the tall ruderal, semi-improved and improved grasslands described in this appendix. In addition, lords and ladies (Arum maculatum) an ancient woodland indicator was also recorded in a number of the hedgerows.
11 Hedgerow Regualtions 19997 – Provided at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1160/schedule/1/made
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
A2.7 More generally, the hedgerow network supported by the Site is considered to be of ecological value for wildlife, particularly for foraging/commuting bats and nesting birds and badger.
A2.8 Collectively, the hedgerow network throughout the Site is considered of low (Local-level) intrinsic ecological importance.
Image EDP A2.3: Looking east along hedgerow H9 towards H8
Scattered Mature Trees
A2.9 Mature and semi-mature trees are scattered across the Site associated with the internal and external boundaries. Species include ash, crab apple (Mallus sp.), horse chestnut, pedunculate oak, sycamore and willow sp. (Image EDP A2.4). This habitat is considered to be of Local-level ecological importance based on the maturity of some of the standards.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Image EDP A2.4: Mature trees on the north-western Site boundary
Scattered Scrub and Tall Ruderal
A2.10 Small and isolated extents of tall ruderal and scattered bramble scrub are scattered along the external Site boundaries (Image EDP A2.5). The tall ruderal is dominated by nettle, though also includes teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), greater burdock (Arctium lappa), cow parsley (Anthriscus sylvestris), cleavers (Galium aparine) and hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium).
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Image EDP A2.5: Looking over tall ruderal in the northern corner of the Site
Amenity Grassland
A2.11 Small sections of amenity grassland are associated with the Hollands Farmhouse, garden and nearby cottages. The grassland is intensively managed through regular mowing to maintain the sward at <100mm. It is likely sown using a mix of hardy grasses and with a mixture of hardy annual weeds such as dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), daisy (Bellis perennis) and plantain (Plantago sp.).
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
This page has been left blank intentionally
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Appendix EDP 3 Hedgerow Regulations Assessment
Methodology
A3.1 The Extended Phase 1 survey identified a number of hedgerows on the Site that may qualify as ecologically ‘Important’ under the Hedgerows Regulations (1997). The ecological importance of all hedgerows within the Site was subsequently assessed by an experienced EDP ecologist on 20 May 2019. During the survey the hedgerows were assessed against the landscape and ecology criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations (1997). Some of the hedgerows may qualify as important under the historic criteria though this isn’t covered in this report.
A3.2 Reference was made to the Wildlife and Landscape criteria provided in Part II of Schedule 1 of the Hedgerows Regulations (1997) to determine the ecological importance of the Site’s hedgerows. The Hedgerows Regulations (1997) serve the purpose of ensuring the retention of important countryside hedgerows; their removal only being approved by the relevant local authority.
A3.3 The aims of the hedgerow assessment were to:
(i) Identify hedgerows that are classified as ‘Important’ under the ecological criteria of the Hedgerows Regulations (1997); and
(ii) Identify hedgerows that, although not deemed ‘Important’ under the ecological criteria of the Hedgerows Regulations (1997), have ecological value in terms of species diversity, or as potential wildlife corridors.
A3.4 A total of 20 hedgerows located within the Site were surveyed against the Hedgerow Regulations (1997) criteria. Hedgerows qualify for assessment by exceeding 20m in length or by being connected at both ends to another hedgerow of any length. The middle 30m of all hedgerows up to 100m in length were surveyed, whilst two 30m sections were surveyed for hedgerows up to 200m in length where access was possible. For hedgerows exceeding 200m in length, three 30m sections were surveyed. Hedgerows surveyed were assigned points dependent upon the number of qualifying ‘features’ as defined by the Hedgerows Regulations (2017), with total scores per hedgerow determining their status.
A3.5 Qualifying as an ‘Important’ hedgerow requires the hedgerow assessed to be greater than 30 years of age and contain species listed in Schedule 5 (animals) and 8 (plants) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), birds categorised as declining breeders (Category 3) within the ‘Red Data Birds in Britain’ (Batten, 1990), or any species categorised as ‘endangered’, ‘extinct’, ‘rare’ or ‘vulnerable’ by any of the British Red Data Books.
A3.6 Hedgerows are also considered important should they satisfy any of the following criteria:
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
That the hedgerow is referred to in a record held by a biological records centre as containing protected plants (within ten years) or birds and animals (within five years); or
That the hedgerow contains one of the following criteria per average 30m section surveyed:
Seven Schedule 3 species;
Six Schedule 3 species and three listed features (see below);
Six Schedule 3 species, including one of the following: black poplar, large-leaved lime, small-leaved lime or wild service-tree;
Five Schedule 3 species and four listed features; and
Four Schedule 3 species, two listed features and lying adjacent to a bridleway or footpath.
Listed features to include:
A bank or wall, which supports the hedgerow along at least half of its length;
Gaps, which together do not exceed 10% of the length of the hedgerow;
At least one standard tree per 50m of hedge;
At least three Schedule 2 woodland species within the hedgerow;
A ditch along at least one half of the length of the hedgerow;
Connections scoring 4 points or more (1 point per connection of the hedgerow with another, 2 points per connection of the hedgerow to a pond or broad-leaved woodland; and
A parallel hedge within 15m of the hedgerow.
A3.7 Where a hedgerow did not meet the ‘important’ hedgerow criteria, it was considered whether this boundary feature had ecological value, in terms of species diversity, or as potential wildlife corridors.
Results
A3.8 The detailed results of the hedgerow survey are provided in Table EDP A3.1.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
A3.9 In summary, none of the hedgerows surveyed qualify as ‘Important’ under the Hedgerow Regulations (1997). Whilst the hedgerows are not considered ‘Important’ 8 of the 20 hedgerows are considered to be species-rich because they support an average of 5 or more species. The network of hedgerows is considered to be of Local-level value.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
This page has been left blank intentionally
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Table EDP A3.1: Hedgerow Survey Results
Woody Species as listed in Schedule 3 of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (Recorded within the Entire Length of the Hedgerow)
Schedule 3 Species
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Acer Acer Prunus Prunus Crataegus ) Cornus ) ) Rosa spp. ) ) Salix sp. Prunus avium ) Fagus sylvatica Fagus ) Ligustrum Corylus Corylus Sambucus nigra Ilex aquifolium Tilia x europaea Taxus baccata Taxus Ulmus spp. Fraxinus Fraxinus ew ( pinosa anguinea Quercus robur Quercus Holly ( Lime ( Maple, Field ( campestre Oak, Pedunculate ( Privet ( vulgare Rose sp. ( Willow ( Y Species from Schedule 3 Count of Mean size) Samples (sample the 30m Schedule 2 and 3 Woodland Plants Bank/Wall Gaps <10% StandardTrees (min. 1/50m) Ditch Connections (4 or >4) Parallel Hedge Adjacent footpath, Bridleway, Road Used as Public Path or Byway Open to all Traffic? Important Hedgerow Hedgerow Number ( Ash excelsior Beech ( ( Blackthorn s Cherry ( Dogwood ( s Elder ( Elm ( Hawthorn ( monogyna Hazel ( avellana H1 4.5 H2 5 H3 4 H4 2 H5 2 H6 3 H7 5 H8 3 H9 5 H10 4 H11 3 H12 4 H13 3 H14 4.5 H15 4 H16 4 H17 0 H18 4 H19 5 H20 0
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
This page has been left blank intentionally
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Appendix EDP 4 Bird Surveys
Methodology
Pilot Breeding Bird Survey
A4.1 The Site has the potential to support breeding birds within the arable land, improved grassland, hedgerows and trees. Consequently, a single ‘pilot’ breeding bird survey (BBS) was undertaken on 29 May 2019. The extents of the survey area and the survey results are illustrated on Plan EDP 2.
A4.2 The survey was undertaken with reference to standard methodology, entailing a modified Common Bird Census (CBC) ‘territory mapping’ approach, which usually involves the completion of three visits to the Site, undertaken between approximately mid-April and late July, i.e. at the height of the bird breeding season for lowland Britain. A decision was made following the first survey on whether further survey was necessary.
A4.3 Following best practice, the survey visit was timed to start at, or just before, first light, to coincide with the period of peak activity for birds, particularly passerine songbird species. The survey was also undertaken during suitable weather conditions, i.e. strong winds and heavy or persistent rain were generally avoided.
A4.4 In common with the CBC, the survey methodology involved walking to within 50m of all parts of the Site where possible and recording bird species present and their activity status, with a particular emphasis placed upon those elements considered to relate to, or be indicative of, breeding. This ensured that the survey identified all birds using the margins of the Site, as well as those in the interior.
A4.5 Due to the completion of only one survey, the breeding status of each bird species could not be accurately identified. Breeding status was therefore only determined where clear evidence was recorded, as set out in Table EDP A4.1. An assessment was made for each other species on the likelihood of their breeding within the Site, based on the habitats available.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Table EDP A4.1: Summary of Field Evidence used to Determine Breeding Bird Status Status European Bird Census Council (EBCC) Criteria for Categorisation of Breeding Status Confirmed Distraction-display or injury feigning Used nest or eggshells found (occupied or laid within period of survey) Recently fledged young (nidicolous species) or downy young (nidifugous species) Adults entering or leaving nest-site in circumstances indicating occupied nest (including high nest or nest-holes, the contents of which cannot be seen) or adult seen incubating Adult carrying faecal sac or food for young Nest containing eggs Nest with young seen or heard Probable Pair observed in suitable nesting habitat in breeding season Permanent territory presumed through registration of territorial behaviour (song, etc.) on at least two different days a week or more apart at the same place Courtship and display Visiting a probable nest site Agitated behaviour or anxiety calls from adults Brood patch on adult examined in the hand Nest building or excavating nest-hole Possible Species observed in breeding season in possible nesting habitat Singing male(s) present (or breeding calls heard) in breeding season Non-breeder Feeding birds only Birds flying over only Lack of suitable breeding habitat
A4.6 An assessment of the individual bird species recorded in the study area, as well as the overall assemblage, has been made with reference to the national conservation status of the different breeding species according to the following key lists/criteria:
Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) – affords greater protection to certain breeding species that are considered appropriately at risk nationally and are listed additional protection under Schedule 1 accordingly;
Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) in England - Under this approach UK bird populations are assessed, using quantitative criteria, to determine the population status of each species and then placed on one of three lists; Red, Amber or Green:
o Red list species are of high conservation concern, being either globally threatened, having historical UK population declines between 1800 and 1995 or a rapid population decline, or breeding range contraction by 50% or more in the last 25 years;
o Amber list species are of medium conservation concern due to a number of factors, for example having suffered between 25% and 49% contraction of UK breeding range or a 25-49% reduction in breeding or non-breeding populations
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
over the last 25 years. Species which have a five year mean of 1-300 breeding pairs in the UK, or an unfavourable European conservation status, or for which the breeding population in the UK represents 20%, or more of the European breeding populations are also listed on the Amber list; and
o Green list species have a favourable conservation status;
Species of Principle Importance included under Section 41 (England) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006; and
Species status as defined in the Buckinghamshire Bird Report 2016.12
Limitations
A4.7 A single breeding bird survey visit is not sufficient to accurately determine the breeding status of species using the Site. However, using the evaluation methodology outlined above, it is considered possible to gain sufficient information about the assemblage and habitats present to effectively determine the Site’s value to breeding birds.
A4.8 The survey was carried out at an appropriate time of year for the locality, and in suitable weather conditions. It is therefore considered that the results provide a representative overview of the breeding bird interest at the Site.
Barn Owl Survey
A4.9 Twenty-one buildings located adjacent to the Site, which were considered to provide some potential roosting opportunities for barn owl, were searched for presence of nesting birds (including barn owl) on 20 May 2019. Signs recorded during the survey include nests, pellets, droppings (liming) and feathers.
Limitations
A4.10 Barn owls are mobile animals and will move between a series of different sites, frequently establishing and occupying new sites depending on seasonal requirements and resources available locally. These surveys, therefore, only provide a ‘snapshot’ of the conditions present at the Site at the time of surveys.
12 Buckinghamshire Bird Report 2016, Published 2018 by the Buckinghamshire Bird Club (charity no. 802292)
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Results
Breeding Birds
A4.11 The pilot breeding bird survey recorded 31 species of bird within or immediately adjacent to the Site including 4 on the Red list and 4 on the Amber list for conservation concern as summarised in Table EDP A4.2.
A4.12 A list of Green listed species (and introduced species) recorded during the survey is included in Table EDP A4.3.
Table EDP A4.2: Protected/Notable Bird Species Recorded During the Survey within the Site Species On-site Observations Local Status Conservation Breeding Status13 Likelihood Dunnock Likely Singing males were recorded Abundant Amber List; (Prunella breeding throughout hedgerows the resident NERC s.41 modularis) western boundary and north- east hedgerow boundary (adjacent to the woodland). House sparrow Likely Male heard singing along Common but Red List; (Passer breeding northern boundary. Suitable declining NERC s.41 domesticus) habitat includes crevices in resident houses, nest box and feeds on invertebrates and seeds. Linnet Possible Single individual flying over field Fairly Red List; (Linaria breeding F6 (west to east). Habitat common NERC s.41 cannabina) suitable for breeding includes resident crop, hedgerow and scrub. breeder and migrant Mallard Likely A pair located on the western Abundant Amber List (Anas breeding boundary (leading to River Wye). resident platyrhynchos) breeder and migrant Reed bunting Likely A male heard singing on the Local and Amber List; (Emberiza breeding north-western hedgerow. declining NERC s.41 schoeniclus) Suitable habitat includes thick resident vegetation and crop. breeder and migrant Song thrush Likely Male singing along the north- Fairly Red List; (Turdus breeding western hedgerow, adjacent to common NERC s.41 philomelos) residential areas. Suitable resident and habitat includes hedgerow, migrant woodland and trees with areas of grassland for feeding.
13 Eaton, M.A., Aebischer, N.J., Brown, A.F., Hearn, R.D., Lock, L., Musgrove, A.J., Noble, D.G., Stroud, D.A. and Gregory, R.D. (2015). Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds, Vol. 108, 708-746.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Species On-site Observations Local Status Conservation Breeding Status13 Likelihood Starling Likely Several individuals recorded Common Red List; (Sturnus breeding throughout the western and resident and NERC s.41 vulgaris) central network of hedgerows. migrant Singing males recorded on the western boundary. Stock dove Possible An individual flying from semi- Common Amber List (Columba breeding improved grassland on western resident oenas) boundary (field F5) in an easterly direction.
Table EDP A4.3: Green Listed (and introduced) Bird Species Recorded During the Survey within the Site Species Green listed Black cap (Sylvia atricapilla) Blackbird (Turdus merula) Blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) Blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) Carrion crow (Corvus corone) Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs) Collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) Goldfinch (Carduelis carduelis) Great tit (Parus major) Jackdaw (Coloeus mondeula) Long tailed tit (Aegithalos caudatus) Magpie (Pica pica) Nuthatch (Sitta europaea) Pied wagtail (Motacilla alba) Red kite (Milvus milvus) Robin (Erithacus rubecula) Swallow (Hirundo rustica) Woodpigeon (Columba palumbus) Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) Introduced Canada goose (Branta canadensis) Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) Red legged partridge (Alectoris rufa)
A4.13 Twenty generalist, Green-listed species and three introduced species were recorded site- wide throughout hedgerows. Hotspots of activity were located along the western boundary and central hedgerow networks. Species such as blackcap, chaffinch, long-tailed tit and nuthatch were recorded as singing individuals.
A4.14 The overall assemblage is regarded to be typical for a lowland farmland site in England in close proximity to a village settlement. However, some species of conservation concern
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
were recorded in low numbers. With this in mind, the bird assemblage at the Site is considered to be of importance at a Local-level.
Barn Owls
A4.15 There are signs of barn owl nests within both Buildings B10 and 11 (images provided in Table EDP A4.4), with the pair seen leaving at 20:23 on 03 September 2019. The locations of the buildings can be found within Plan EDP 3.
A4.16 During bat transects and emergence surveys barn owl were recorded foraging across the Site. Details of their location and behaviour are detailed in Table EDP A4.5.
Table EDP A4.4: Records of nesting birds including barn owl Building Building Nesting Bird Building Photograph Reference Description Evidence B10 Open sided Barn owl nesting, corrugated metal pair observed hay barn with leaving domed roof and metal frame, adjoining B11
B11 Single storey Barn owl nesting, stable building. pair observed Single skin leaving timber walls. Northern aspect wall is breeze block. Corrugated sheet roofing and lean to on northern aspect. Adjoins, B10
Table EDP A4.5: Other incidental records of barn owl Date Locality and Timings 28/05/19 Tawny owl (Strix aluco) heard and a pair of barn owl seen during bat transect 24/07/19 Owl call heard during bat transect near Hollands Farm at 22:51 22/08/19 Barn owl seen in tree by Hazel Grove, eastern boundary and flying west over field, calls also made 23/08/19 Tawny and barn owl calls heard during bat transect survey 02/10/19 Owl call heard during bat transect near Hollands Farm 04/10/19 A pair of barn owls flying near Building B4 during bat emergence survey
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Appendix EDP 5 Bat Surveys
Methodology
A5.1 During the Extended Phase 1 survey, buildings and trees were identified within the Site that may present opportunities for roosting bats. The grassland and hedgerows were also identified as potential foraging and commuting corridors. As a result, the following Surveys were therefore undertaken, with reference to national best practice guidelines14.
Investigations of Bat Roosting
Trees
1. Visual assessment of all potential trees with features potentially suitable to support roosting bats;
Buildings
1. Visual assessment (internal/external inspections) of all listed buildings/structures onsite for their potential to support roosting bats; and
2. Further detailed emergence/re-entry surveys of buildings/structures onsite;
Investigations of Bat Foraging/Commuting Activity
1. Manual transect surveys; and
2. Automated detector surveys
Investigations of Bat Roosting – Trees and Buildings
A5.2 An update visual assessment of all buildings and trees within the Site was undertaken on 20 May 2019 by a suitable experienced ecologist, to assess potential of the trees to support roosting bats. Features considered potentially suitable for bats were assessed using a high-powered torch, from all aspects, and binoculars.
A5.3 Suitable features on trees for roosting bats include:
Loss/peeling/fissured bark;
Natural holes e.g. rot holes and holes from fallen limbs;
14 Collins, J. (ed) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). The Bat Conservation Trust, London
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Woodpecker holes;
Cracks/splits or hollow tree trunks/limbs; and
Thick-stemmed ivy.
A5.4 Suitable features for roosting bats in buildings include:
Crevices provided by damaged or missing mortar in brick work/stone and gaps under ridge tiles;
Roof voids/loft spaces accessible by bats;
Access holes provided by open eaves or other roof gaps; and
Crevices in or around chimney breasts, timber beams, cavity walls and mortice joints.
A5.5 Signs of roosting bats include:
Bat(s) roosting in situ;
Bat droppings within or beneath a feature (hole or split);
Staining around or beneath a feature;
Oily marks (staining) around roost access points;
Audible squeaking from the roost;
Large/regularly used roosts or regularly used sites may produce an odour; and
Flies around the roost, attracted by the smell of guano.
A5.6 On this basis, the buildings and trees assessed were assigned a rating of potential suitability for roosting bats, from negligible to confirmed roost, in accordance with current best practice guidance (Collins, 2016)14 as follows:
i. Confirmed Roost: Evidence of roosting bats found;
ii. High potential: The building/tree includes most of the features mentioned above (or many of one);
iii. Moderate potential: The building/tree includes two or three of the features or a moderate number of one;
iv. Low potential: The building/tree includes one of the features; and
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
v. Negligible potential: The building/tree is not considered suitable for roosting bats.
Limitations
A5.7 Visual assessments for roosting bats can be undertaken at any time of year. As such these investigations were not limited by seasonal or climatic factors. Additionally, all buildings were accessible.
A5.8 Bats are mobile animals and will move between a series of different roost sites, frequently establishing and occupying new roost sites depending on seasonal requirements and resources available locally. This survey, therefore, only provides a snapshot of the conditions present at the Site at the time of survey.
A5.9 It should be noted that although thorough inspections were undertaken, due to the construction of certain buildings, it is often not possible to exhaustively search for evidence of roosting bats within all areas. Examples include between roofing tiles and the roofing membrane, within cavity walls, and inside soffit boxes. Where features exist, and cannot be comprehensively inspected, an assessment of the likelihood of bats being present based on the size and location of the features is made.
Emergence/Re-entry Surveys
A5.10 Having identified evidence of, or the potential for, roosting bats in structures on-site, emergence/re-entry surveys were subsequently undertaken to observe any bats exiting or entering roosts within these buildings/structures.
A5.11 Dusk emergence surveys were conducted on 04 July and 03 September 2019, and a dawn re-entry survey was undertaken on 22 August 2019. Up to five suitably qualified ecologists were positioned to ensure all features with the potential to support roosting bats were observed.
A5.12 The dusk surveys commenced 15 minutes prior to sunset and continued for an hour and a half thereafter. The dawn survey commenced an hour and a half before sunrise and continued for 15 minutes thereafter. The surveyors used Elekon BatLogger M bat detectors to detect and record the echolocation calls of any bats present during the survey. Survey timings and weather conditions are detailed below within Table EDP A5.1.
Table EDP A5.1: Details and Weather Conditions During Emergence/Re-entry Surveys Sunset/ Start – Temp Cloud Wind Date Precipitation Sunrise Time Finish Time (oC) Cover (%) (Beaufort) 22– 04/07/19 21:22 21:07 0–100 1–0 Nil 18.5 13 – 22/08/19 05:59 04:21 10–0 1 Nil 12 03/09/19 19:45 19:30 22–20 100–95 2–1 Nil
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Limitations
A5.13 Although the use of bat detectors is the most widely used method for undertaking bat surveys, it is naturally biased; bats that echolocate relatively loudly, e.g. noctule, are more easily detected than those that echolocate relatively quietly, e.g. long-eared bats, or those that focus their calls within a relatively narrow ‘beam’, e.g. horseshoe bats. This can lead to some bat species being under-recorded during bat surveys. For this reason, a combination of survey methods (internal and external building assessment and dusk/dawn surveys, using experienced bat surveyors to record observations as well as sound recordings) were used to ascertain as much information as possible.
A5.14 The emergence/re-entry surveys were undertaken in July, August and September, which is within the bat activity season and a suitable time of year for detecting maternity, transition and mating roosts.
A5.15 Weather conditions during the surveys were optimal for bat surveys (warm and dry with little wind).
Investigations of Bat Foraging/Commuting Activity
Manual Transect Surveys
A5.16 A manual transect survey was undertaken to identify areas of bat foraging activity and commuting routes used by bats.
A5.17 The date, timing, and weather conditions of the transect survey is given in Table EDP A5.2.
Table EDP A5.2: Date, Timing and Weather Conditions of Bat Activity Transect Surveys Weather conditions Wind Survey Survey Sunrise/ Cloud (Beaufort Date Time Sunset Time Temp (ºC) (%) Rain Scale) 28/05/19 21:05 21:06 11–9 10 Nil 0 26/06/19 21:24 21:24 16 100–95 Nil 3 24/07/19 21:05 21:05 25–19 <5–10 Nil 0 22/08/19 20:12 20:12 21–16 10–0 Nil 0 23/08/19 04:00 06:00 13 5 Nil 0 02/10/19 18:38 18:38 12–8 5 Nil 2–1
A5.18 A transect survey was completed by two experienced bat surveyors across an individual route designed to cover all potential foraging or commuting habitat on the Site as shown in Plan EDP 4. The transect was walked once at a slow and steady pace with pacing points used to ensure a consistent speed throughout.
A5.19 All bats were recorded, and their behaviour marked on survey maps in order to characterise the value of the Site to foraging and commuting bats.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
A5.20 Batlogger detectors were used. Bats were identified on the basis of their characteristic echolocation calls, which were analysed using computer sonogram analysis (Batexplorer) to confirm identification. Species of Myotis bat and long-eared bat are difficult to tell apart solely from their echolocation calls and were therefore grouped by genus.
Limitations
A5.21 Weather conditions on each visit were suitable for bat surveys with temperatures exceeding 10ºC, with light to medium winds and no rain. The Surveys are not considered to be constrained by weather or season.
Automated Detector Surveys
A5.22 To supplement the transect survey data, activity was also sampled using automated detectors, which automatically trigger and record echolocation calls.
A5.23 The automated detectors (Anabat Express Bat Detectors) were fixed in secure locations, with an external microphone attached approximately 1.5m above ground, and directed away from the tree, approximately 45° to the hedgerow, to maximise detection sensitivity.
A5.24 The echolocation calls recorded by the detectors were filtered for noise files (i.e. sound files created when noise triggers the detector to record) and then specifically for each of the UK’s bat species using Analook software filter function. The parameters for the noise filter are based on that proposed by Chris Corben and Kim Livengood15 and are provided in Table EDP A5.3. All files passing the various filters were checked manually using sonogram analysis (AnalookW) in accordance with published parameters16 to confirm the identification of each call.
Table EDP A5.3: Filtration Values used by Analook Software to Remove Noise Files Frequency (Fc (kHz)) Duration (ms) Filter Smoothness Min Max Min Max Noise filter 50 15 120 2 50
Limitations
A5.25 The automated detectors were deployed in suitable weather conditions and not constrained by seasonality. In July, at location 2, the detector failed to record on the final night. It is not considered to have constrained the survey as robust and accurate data was collected throughout the recording periods and average bat call activity has been calculated.
Taken from Making an Antinoise Filter presentation from 2010 Annual Bat Conference Russ (2012). British Bat Calls, a Guide to Species Identification. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Results
Investigations of Bat Roosting in Trees
A5.26 Eight trees were found to have bat roosting potential across the Site. There are two trees with high potential, three trees of medium potential and three trees of low potential of supporting roosting bats. The locations of these trees are illustrated on Plan EDP 3 and further detailed in Table EDP A5.4, alongside potential roosting features.
Table EDP A5.4: Full Description of Trees Assessed for their Bat Roost Potential Tree Species Scientific Evidence of Bat Roosting Reference Name Bats/Roosting Potential Potential 001 Apple Malus sp. Two hollow limbs High 002 Horse chestnut Aesculus Two knot holes at 3m high High hippocastanum on southern aspect 003 Horse chestnut Aesculus One knot hole at 2.5m Medium hippocastanum high on western aspect 004 Ash Fraxinus Holes in dead limbs Low excelsior 005 Ash Fraxinus Two knot holes at 5m high Low excelsior on southern aspect 006 Willow Salix sp. Hollow stem with flaking Medium bark. Outside of Site. 007 Sycamore Acer One knot hole at 5m high Low pseudoplatanus on northern aspect 008 Ash Fraxinus Four knot holes at 4-6m Medium excelsior high on western and southern aspect
Investigations of Bat Roosting in Buildings
Visual Assessment – Buildings/Structures
A5.27 Twenty-two buildings were subject to investigations with their locations shown on Plan EDP 3. Of the buildings surveyed buildings B6 and B9 were found to have low bat roosting potential and building B5 moderate potential. Bat droppings were found in building B4 and as such it is considered to have a confirmed roost. Full details of the building roost assessment are provided in Table EDP A5.5.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Table EDP A5.5: Full Description of the Buildings Assessed for their Bat Roost Potential
Building Reference Description Evidence of Bats/Roosting Potential Image B1 Large metal barn with pitched metal roof Negligible and frame. Doors are metal with UPVC windows.
There is no void, roof lining or insulation.
B2 Half height stone block walls with the Negligible remainder as metal sheeting. Metal pitched roof with metal roller doors.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Building Reference Description Evidence of Bats/Roosting Potential Image B3 Storage barn, half height breeze block Negligible walls with composite sheeting on top. Pitched roof sheeting with metal roller door Bird nest present and no windows. There is no void, lining or insulation.
There are tight timber beams present but gaps under roof sheets.
B4 Barn with wooden timber walls and pitched Confirmed roof. Timber beams are present with multiple Wooden structure with corrugated gaps, however, some cobwebs. asbestos sheeting, no windows and roller shutter doors. Gaps in wooden panelling walls and along ridge. There is a wooden partition wall with a brick lean to on the western aspect with Three droppings (one old and two new). stone walls. Bird nest present There is no roof void, lining or insulation.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Building Reference Description Evidence of Bats/Roosting Potential Image
B5 Wooden barn with pitched roof, clay square Moderate tiles. Two storey granary barn, first floor open partly with wooden fascia. Timber beams with gaps, gap in wooden fascia and gap behind wooden panelling. No void or insulation. Small gaps in the timber cladding and Roof lining present and tight tiles. around the doorway.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Building Reference Description Evidence of Bats/Roosting Potential Image B6 Single storey brick with corrugated Low asbestos roof with wooden doors. Several gaps in brick wall There is no void, lining or insulation.
B7 Open-fronted barn with timber supports. Negligible Walls and roofs are corrugated asbestos sheeting.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Building Reference Description Evidence of Bats/Roosting Potential Image B8 Single storey horse stable. Stone walls and Negligible wooden stable door. Pitched roof with corrugated asbestos sheeting. Metal roof structure.
No void, lining or insulation
B9 Horse stable, wooden with pitched roof, Low corrugated composite sheeting. Gap between ply board and roof sheeting No void and insulations.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Building Reference Description Evidence of Bats/Roosting Potential Image B10 Open sided corrugated metal hay barn with Negligible domed roof and metal frame,
No void, lining or insulation.
B11 Single storey stable building. Single skin Negligible timber walls. Northern aspect wall is breeze block. Corrugated sheet roofing and lean to on northern aspect. Adjoins B10.
No void, lining or insulation.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Building Reference Description Evidence of Bats/Roosting Potential Image B12 Metal barn. Negligible
Constructed as B1.
B13 to Wooden horse stables with corrugated Negligible 20 sheeting. Pitched roof. Bird nests present No void, lining or insulation.
Timber beams and vents at gable ends.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Building Reference Description Evidence of Bats/Roosting Potential Image B21 Single storey brick building with pitched Negligible and corrugated sheeting roof. Wooden doors B22 and single glazed windows. Bird nest present
No void or insulation. Timber beams covered by MDF.
Small gap above door.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Emergence/Re-entry Surveys
A5.28 The emergences and re-entries observed during the surveys carried out in August and September 2018 are detailed in Table EDP A5.6. Records of commuting/foraging common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, long eared species, noctule and Myotis species were also made.
A5.29 It was also noted that Building B10 was being used as a foraging and commuting route by the pipistrelle species.
Table EDP A5.6: Results of the Bat Emergence/Re-entry Surveys Building Date of Emergence Emergence/Re- Species Number Reference Survey Location entry Time of Bats Reference (Plan EDP 1) B4 03/09/19 ‘Window’ in 20:04 Soprano pipistrelle 1 roof
Investigations of Bat Foraging/Commuting Activity
Manual Transect Surveys
A5.30 The distribution of bat activity around the Site recorded during the dusk and dawn transect surveys is illustrated on Plans EDP 5–9 inclusive.
A5.31 During May, bat activity concentrated along the central hedgerow (running east to west) and within the north-east corner of the Site. This was dominated by common and soprano pipistrelle with occasional Myotis species also present. Myotis species were also recorded within the hedgerow in the north-eastern region of the Site. Occasional passes of noctule and long-eared species (likely brown long-eared) were made in the south-western region, adjacent to the hedgerow.
A5.32 During June, the central hedgerow demonstrated the highest amount of bat activity with common and soprano pipistrelle dominating the calls. Several Myotis species passes were made adjacent to the residential dwelling at Hazel Grove on the eastern boundary and in the south eastern region of the Site. Rare passes of noctule and long-eared species were encountered on the western boundary. It is possible that a soprano pipistrelle emerged from an adjacent house on the western boundary at 21:37 and headed in a westerly direction.
A5.33 During July, both hedgerows, which run east to west in centre of the Site had the highest concentration of bat activity and the highest species diversity. Species encountered included common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, noctule and serotine. Rare serotine passes were also made on the eastern boundary. The western boundary had a concentration of noctule and soprano pipistrelle species. Rare passes of long-eared species were made in the south-eastern corner of the Site.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
A5.34 The dawn transect in August had very low levels of activity, this was confined to the northern hedgerows. Species included: common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle noctule, long-eared species and Myotis species.
A5.35 The dusk transect in August also illustrated the central hedgerow to be a main commuting and foraging corridor for common and soprano pipistrelle. Occasional passes of Myotis species were made to the south-eastern region with both rare passes of noctule and long-eared species on the western boundary.
A5.36 During October, the same central hedgerow was being utilised by common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle. Rare passes of noctule were made on the northern boundary.
Automated Detector Surveys
A5.37 The results of the automated detector surveys in terms of calls per species are summarised in Tables EDP A5.7 and A5.8 and the detector locations are illustrated on Plan EDP 4. In summary, the echolocations of seven species of bat were recorded by the automated detectors including, common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, noctule, Myotis species, long-eared species, serotine and Leisler’s bat. The value of these species has been assessed below with reference to national distribution data provided by the National Bat Monitoring Programme Annual Report17 and local data provided on the Berks and South Bucks Bat Group Website18.
A5.38 Over the five survey months the majority of bat registrations were from noctule with c.60% of the total recordings. The number of noctule registrations recorded was inconsistent across the survey season, with the assemblage accounting for 46 registrations (7.7% of the total calls) in July and up to 2580 registrations (82.1% of the calls) in August. Furthermore, the majority of noctule registrations were detected at Location 1 with the number of registrations higher each month here than at Location 2, most notably in August with 2532 registrations at Location 1 in comparison to 48 at Location 2.
A5.39 Higher numbers of registrations in August and September could indicate that a noctule maternity roost is present in the area, with adults and young foraging together. However, if noctule numbers were high in the local area it would be expected that a higher number of registrations would also be recorded at Location 2. The detector at Location 1 is mounted on the western side of the hedgerow with the microphone facing over a field of species-poor semi-improved grassland (F5) towards the industrial estate. During surveys it was noted that this field was very light as a result of floodlights mounted on the industrial buildings, which may attract insects and subsequently bats to the area. As such there is a possibility that the high number of noctule registrations have been made by a few bats foraging in the area over a long period of time. Noctule are considered to be relatively common and widespread in England and widespread across the county in Berkshire and South Buckinghamshire.
17 Bat Conservation Trust, 2019. The National Bat Monitoring Programme Annual Report 2018. Bat Conservation Trust, London. Available at http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/nbmp_annual_report.html 18 Berks and South Bucks Bat Group Website: http://www.berksbats.org.uk/bats-in-berks-and-south-bucks
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
A5.40 Common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle together made up 34.9% of the total bat registrations recorded across the season. In contrast to noctule the common pipistrelle registrations decreased monthly from 593 in May to 93 in September, whilst registrations of soprano remained fairly consistent. Common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle are both common in Berkshire and South Buckinghamshire with over 83 known roosts between them.
A5.41 Identifying Myotis species by call alone is typically unreliable and as such the registrations of these species have been grouped. Overall Myotis species accounted for only 4.5% of the total bat registrations recorded within the Site with numbers typically low across much of the survey season. Of the Myotis species Bechstein’s are the rarest in the UK and the county. Only three records of Bechstein’s were returned from the desk study with the closest from 1.7km to the south. Bechstein’s roost, forage and hibernate in dense, mature deciduous woodland19, a habitat which is present in the wider landscape to the south of Bourne End though which is absent from the Site itself. Furthermore, the ‘core sustenance zone’ for Bechstein’s is typically within 1km of their roost20 and as such the likelihood of this species traveling over 400m to reach sub-optimal foraging habitat is considered low. It is considered unlikely that Bechstein’s will be foraging within the sub- optimal habitats present within the Site and that the Myotis calls recorded are more likely to represent one of the more common Myotis species, Daubenton’s, whiskered (Myotis mystacinus), natterers (Myotis nattereri) or Brandt’s (Myotis brandtii).
A5.42 Occasional registrations of long-eared bat species were made at both locations with a peak count of eight calls. Serotine were recorded rarely, with a peak count of six registrations whilst Leisler’s bat had a peak count of four registrations. Serotine and Leisler’s are considered uncommon and scare in South Bucks respectively, however, such low numbers of registrations are likely to represent bats moving through the Site in search of more optimal foraging.
A5.43 Location 1 typically encountered the highest number of bat registrations with c.70% of the overall calls recorded and a peak count of 2808 registrations in August. In comparison the highest number of bat calls found at Location 2 was 658 in June with 30% of the total calls recorded. As discussed previously with reference to the number of noctule registrations, Location 1 is a species-poor grassland field subject to high levels of artificial light spill whilst Location 2 is located in the junction between two dark hedgerows with a number of mature trees in close proximity. It is considered likely that the light spill onto field F5 is contributing to the number of bats foraging in the west of the Site, drawn to the area by the abundance of insects.
A5.44 The results of the automated detector surveys in terms of calls per species are summarised in Table EDP A5.7 and the detector locations are illustrated on Plan EDP 4.
19 Bat Conservation Trust Website – Bechstein’s Species Factsheet: https://www.bats.org.uk/about-bats/what-are- bats/uk-bats
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Table EDP A5.7: Results of the Automated Detector Surveys 2019 Species recorded
Location Date Common pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Noctule Myotis sp. LEB Serotine Leisler Grand Total Recording Period 1: May 28/05/19 12 5 1 0 0 0 0 18 29/05/19 64 29 163 0 0 1 0 257 30/05/19 42 16 108 2 0 0 0 168 1 31/05/19 20 7 91 0 0 0 0 118 01/06/19 27 17 180 0 0 0 0 226 Total 165 74 543 2 0 1 0 785 Average percentage (%) 21 9 69 <1 0 <1 0 28/05/19 51 23 3 5 0 0 0 82 29/05/19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 30/05/19 209 38 5 0 0 2 0 254 2 31/05/19 75 30 2 6 1 2 0 116 01/06/19 91 40 9 2 2 1 0 145 Total 428 131 19 13 3 5 0 599 Average percentage (%) 71 22 3 2 1 1 0 Recording Period 2: June 26/06/19 6 5 3 0 0 0 0 14 27/06/19 9 28 8 0 0 0 0 45 28/06/19 9 38 7 1 0 0 0 55 1 29/06/19 11 3 90 0 1 1 0 105
30/06/19 7 3 21 0 0 0 0 31 Total 42 77 129 1 1 1 0 251 Average percentage (%) 17 31 52 <1 <1 <1 0 26/06/19 14 41 3 41 0 0 0 99 27/06/19 26 15 11 29 0 0 0 81 28/06/19 28 11 7 29 0 0 0 75 2 29/06/19 156 44 9 76 1 1 1 288 30/06/19 41 22 0 49 3 0 0 115 Total 265 133 30 224 4 1 1 658 Average percentage (%) 40 20 5 34 <1 <1 <1 Recording Period 3: July 24/07/19 15 19 4 1 0 0 0 39 25/07/19 12 13 6 2 0 0 0 33 1 26/07/19 12 22 13 0 1 1 0 49 27/07/19 3 18 8 2 0 0 0 31 28/01/19 7 6 1 0 0 0 0 15
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Species recorded
Location Date Common pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Noctule Myotis sp. LEB Serotine Leisler Grand Total Total 49 78 32 5 1 1 0 166 Average percentage (%) 30 47 19 3 1 <1 0 24/07/19 35 32 8 13 3 3 0 91 25/07/19 84 17 1 12 1 1 0 118 26/07/19 90 27 5 9 1 1 0 133 2 27/07/19 62 20 0 7 0 0 0 90 28/07/19 Failed Total 271 96 14 41 5 5 0 432 Average percentage (%) 63 22 3 9 1 1 0 Recording Period 4: August 22/08/19 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 23/08/19 12 32 144 0 1 0 0 189 24/08/19 9 44 701 0 0 2 1 757 1 25/08/19 24 51 853 2 0 0 2 932 26/08/19 7 76 834 3 0 1 1 924 Total 55 204 2532 9 1 3 4 2808 Average percentage (%) 2 7 90 <1 <1 <1 <1 22/08/19 No bats recorded 23/08/19 6 48 7 6 0 0 0 67 24/08/19 20 70 12 4 0 0 0 106 2 25/08/19 18 37 17 5 2 1 0 80 26/08/19 13 51 12 2 3 0 0 81 Total 57 206 48 17 5 1 0 334 Average percentage (%) 17 62 14 5 1 <1 0 Recording Period 5: September 24/09/19 4 9 84 0 0 1 0 98 25/09/19 12 14 417 1 0 0 0 445 26/09/19 3 7 302 0 1 0 0 313 1 27/09/19 0 1 75 0 0 0 0 76 28/09/19 5 1 18 0 0 0 0 24 Total 24 32 896 1 1 1 0 955 Average percentage (%) 3 3 94 <1 <1 <1 0 24/09/19 20 8 3 2 3 0 0 36 25/09/19 32 6 3 2 1 0 0 44 2 26/09/19 12 2 1 6 2 0 0 23 27/09/19 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Species recorded
Location Date Common pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Noctule Myotis sp. LEB Serotine Leisler Grand Total 28/09/19 5 4 3 0 1 1 0 14 Total 69 20 11 10 7 1 0 118 Average percentage (%) 59 17 9 8 6 1 0
Table EDP A5.8: Summary of Automated Detector Results 2019 Survey Species Recorded No. Registrations Recorded % of Total Month Common Pipistrelle 593 42.8 Noctule 562 40.6 Soprano Pipistrelle 205 14.8 Myotis sp. 15 1.1 May Long-eared 3 0.2 Serotine 6 0.4 Leisler’s 0 0.0 Total 1,384 Common Pipistrelle 307 33.8 Myotis sp. 225 24.8 Soprano Pipistrelle 210 23.1 Noctule 159 17.5 June Long-eared 5 0.6 Serotine 2 0.2 Leisler’s 1 0.1 Total 909 Common Pipistrelle 320 53.5 Soprano Pipistrelle 174 29.1 Noctule 46 7.7 Myotis sp. 46 7.7 July Long-eared 6 1.0 Serotine 6 1.0 Leisler’s 0 0.0 Total 598 Noctule 2580 82.1 Soprano Pipistrelle 410 13.0 Common Pipistrelle 112 3.6 Myotis sp. 26 0.8 August Long-eared 6 0.2 Serotine 4 0.1 Leisler’s 4 0.1 Total 3142
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Survey Species Recorded No. Registrations Recorded % of Total Month Noctule 907 84.5 Common Pipistrelle 93 8.7 Soprano Pipistrelle 52 4.8 Myotis sp. 11 1.0 September Long-eared 8 0.7 Serotine 2 0.2 Leisler’s 0 0.0 Total 1073
Summary of Bat Activity
A5.45 The transect surveys and automated detector surveys recorded moderate levels of bat foraging/commuting activity across the Site with an average of 710 registrations per automated detector over a five-night deployment. The assemblage recorded comprised typical and widespread species including common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle bats recorded most frequently though with noctule also recorded more frequently in May, August and September. Noctule are considered to be common and widespread in the England21 and are prevalent in the south, though noctule bats are still listed as a species of principal importance for conservation and as such any on-site mitigation should consider the foraging requirements of this species.
A5.46 Additional species recorded included low numbers of Leisler’s, serotine, Myotis and long-eared bat. Given the low level of activity recorded for these species the Site is considered to represent only opportunistic foraging for these groups.
A5.47 Over the course of the transect surveys the key areas of foraging activity altered each month suggesting that many of the boundary habitats across the Site offer suitable foraging habitat. However, the bat activity along the two central east-west hedgerows was consistent throughout the year indicating key flight lines for the local bat assemblage. The lowest levels of activity were typically recorded along the western, eastern and southern Site boundaries, which may be as a result of light spill from security lighting, street lighting and residential dwellings associated with these boundaries.
A5.48 Consistent with the findings of the transect surveys, automated detectors also recorded varied levels of foraging/commuting activity with highs of 3142 registrations and lows of 598 suggesting that foraging within the Site is seasonally affected.
A5.49 The Arable and grassland across much of the Site is considered to be of low quality for foraging bats though the hedgerows and tree lines provide some good quality habitat. Much of the habitat within the Site is negatively impacted by artificial light spill from
21 Bat Conservation Trust, 2020. The National Bat Monitoring Programme Annual Report 2019. Bat Conservation Trust, London. Available at www.bats.org.uk/our-work/national-bat-monitoringprogramme/reports/nbmp-annual- report
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
industrial buildings, residential dwellings and street lighting with the exception of the central hedgerow and tree lines therefore provide optimal dark fight corridors for foraging and commuting bats.
A5.50 The abundance and diversity of species recorded is considered to be moderate though fairly typical of an urban edge site in central England. Common and widespread generalist species account for the vast majority of foraging and commuting activity. Low numbers of passes of rarer species such as Leisler’s and serotine accounted for less than 1% of the calls recorded by the static detectors. However, the presence of moderate numbers of noctule is of some significance despite this area of the UK supporting an abundance of this species.
A5.51 Based on the findings of the surveys, the foraging/commuting bat assemblage is considered to be of Local-level significance.
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
Appendix EDP 6 Badger Survey Report (edp3922_r008)
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Ecological Appraisal edp3922_r004c
This page has been left blank intentionally
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End
Badger Survey
Prepared by: The Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd
On behalf of: Catesby Property Group
April 2021 Report Reference edp3922_r008c
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Badger Survey Report edp3922_r008c
Contents
Section 1 Introduction, Context and Purpose ...... 1
Section 2 Methodology and Results ...... 3
Section 3 Discussion and Conclusions ...... 11
Plan
Plan EDP 1 Badger Survey (edp3922_d008a 04 December 2020 GY/ND)
This version is intended for electronic viewing only Report Ref: edp3922_r008 Author Formatted Peer Review Proofed by/Date r008_DRAFT ND AV JB - r008a ND AV - CM 041220 r008b ND CL - - r008c ND CL - - Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Badger Survey Report edp3922_r008c
Section 1 Introduction, Context and Purpose
1.1 This badger survey report has been prepared by The Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd (EDP) on behalf of Catesby Property Group (hereafter referred to as “the Applicant”). This survey report outlines the findings of the badger surveys completed on Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End (hereafter referred to as “the Site”).
1.2 EDP is an independent environmental planning consultancy with offices in Cirencester, Cardiff, and Cheltenham. The practice provides advice to private and public-sector clients throughout the UK in the fields of landscape, ecology, archaeology, cultural heritage, arboriculture, rights of way and masterplanning. Details of the practice can be obtained at our website www.edp-uk.co.uk.
Site Context
1.3 The Site is centered approximately at Ordnance Survey Grid Reference (OSGR) TL 16750 34795. The local planning authority is Wycombe District Council. The location and extents of the Site are illustrated on Plan EDP 1.
1.4 The Site measures c.19.0 hectares (ha) and is located towards the south of Bourne End, Buckinghamshire, sitting just to the north of Hedsor Road. The Site is comprised of six field parcels divided by mature trees, hedgerows and fence lines. Four of the field parcels are intensively cultivated with arable crops and two support a grassland sward, subdivided by fence lines and grazed by horses. The Site is bounded on all sides by Bourne End village, with dwellings to the north, east and south and industrial units to the west. The local landscape is scattered with small towns and large villages interspersed with agricultural field parcels and divided by the River Thames.
Purpose of Report
1.5 This report outlines the badger surveys undertaken at the Site in 2017, 2019 and 2020, comprising both desk and field-based investigations, the aims and objectives of the monitoring, and a summary of the results.
1 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Badger Survey Report edp3922_r008c
This page has been left blank intentionally
2 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Badger Survey Report edp3922_r008c
Section 2 Methodology and Results
2.1 This section of the report summarises the methodologies employed in determining the baseline ecological conditions within and around the Site. The assessment has been undertaken by appropriately qualified ecologists using relevant best practice methodologies wherever possible. Full details of the techniques and processes adopted are, where appropriate, provided within this report.
Desk Study
2.2 The desk study is an important first step in understanding the local abundance and spread of a particular species. As such a data request was sent to Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Environmental Records Centre (BMERC) in May 2017 requesting, among other information, all badger records within 2km of the Site boundary.
2.3 This search area was considered sufficient to cover the potential Zone of Influence (ZoI) of the Site in relation to a badger territory size and foraging ground.
2.4 In addition to the above, freely available web-based Ordnance Survey plans and aerial imagery were reviewed to identify key habitat features and strong linear ‘green’ (terrestrial) connecting features in the landscape.
2.5 Given the coverage of the record centre data obtained, it was considered unnecessary to obtain additional data from other local wildlife recorder groups.
Badger Survey
Field Signs and Evidence
2.6 Extensive badger activity was noted within the Site during the initial Phase 1 survey in 2017 and was described in detail, including sett locations, sett size and levels of activity. A further update badger walkover survey was also undertaken on 20 May 2019 by a suitably experienced surveyor to confirm the presence and distribution of badgers and their setts across the Site during which all field boundaries across the Site (where accessible) were searched for evidence of badger activity or setts. Access was also granted to search the field and orchard located to the north-west of the Site, known as ‘Jacksons Field’, on 03 September 2019. Monitoring of the setts found has continued since this date with the timings and visit dates provided within Table EDP 2.1.
2.7 During the survey, any signs of badger activity such as holes, latrines, trails, snuffle holes and hairs on fencing or vegetation were recorded. Where holes of a size and shape consistent with badgers were identified, the following signs of badger activity were searched for in order to determine whether they were currently in active use:
3 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Badger Survey Report edp3922_r008c
Fresh spoil outside entrances;
Old bedding material (typically dried grass) outside entrances;
Holes being cleared of leaf litter;
Badger guard hairs;
Fresh tracks leading to/from the holes; and
Removal/movement of sticks placed in hole by surveyor ‘sticking’.
Sticking of Setts
2.8 Sett activity was monitored through the use of short bamboo canes placed upright within the tunnels. Canes were used as they are easy to differentiate from natural twigs around the sett entrance and tunnel. Sticks were first used on 18 November 2019 and replaced/monitored thereafter. The sticks are pushed lightly into the earth to hold them in position. Where rabbits are present in the sett, they will typically squeeze through the canes resulting in little localised movement whilst a fox will typically push the canes to the sides of the tunnel. Badger typically keep their tunnel clear, pushing the sticks out of the sett. Where setts showed regular badger activity, or the entrance was monitored using trail cameras, the sticks were not replaced.
Trail Cameras
2.9 In order to confirm and supplement information gathered in the field, trail cameras were positioned outside sett entrances and set to be triggered by movement. Six trail cameras were deployed between 18 November 2019 and 03 January 2020 to identify autumn preparation of a breeding sett and winter use, and a second period of monitoring between 01 April 2020 and 18 May 2020 to identify cub activity. The number of badgers, activity and use were noted following review of the footage.
Bait Marking
2.10 Given the presence of two active setts in autumn 2019 a badger bait marking exercise was undertaken commencing on 01 April 2020, to help identify the relationship between each of the setts and in an effort to identify the number of badger clans using the Site.
2.11 The survey was conducted with reference to 2001 guidance provided in the Mammal Society’s Mammal Review1. During the bait marking surveys, Sett 11, located within the off-site orchard, was ‘baited’ with a mixture of blue coloured markers contained within a syrup/peanut mix. The onsite Setts 1, 2 and 3 were baited with a mixture of red coloured markers contained within a syrup/peanut mix. Every Site boundary was walked on each
1 Delahay, R. J. et al (2001) The use of marked bait in studies of the territorial organization of the European Badger (Meles meles). Mammal Review Vol 30, No. 2
4 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Badger Survey Report edp3922_r008c
of the subsequent site visits to identify badger latrines, which were subsequently visited to find evidence of the coloured markers within the badger droppings.
Table EDP 2.1: Survey Timings Visit Date Survey Type 2017 20/04/17 Field evidence collected 2019 20/05/19 Field evidence collected 03/09/19 Field evidence collected 24/09/19 Field evidence collected 30/09/19 Field evidence collected 18/11/19 Field evidence collected, cameras deployed and holes sticked 02/12/19 Field evidence collected, cameras checked and redeployed, all holes sticked 2020 03/01/20 Field evidence collected; cameras collected 01/04.20 Field evidence collected, cameras deployed, and holes bait marked 15/04/20 Field evidence collected, cameras checked and redeployed, and holes bait marked. Site walked to check latrines for bait markers 01/05/20 Field evidence collected, cameras checked and redeployed, and holes bait marked. Site walked to check latrines for bait markers 18/05/20 Field evidence collected; cameras collected. Site walked to check latrines for bait markers
2.12 Each badger sett found was examined and assigned with reference to one of four categories2, which have been used in the various National Badger Surveys3, as detailed in Table EDP 2.2. The number of holes comprising each sett was recorded and each was classified as disused, partially used or well used by badgers as detailed in Table EDP 2.3.
Table EDP 2.2: Sett Descriptions and Categories Sett Descriptions Main Setts: These usually have a large number of holes with large spoil heaps, and the sett generally, looks well-used. There will be well-used paths to and from the sett and between sett entrances. Although normally the breeding sett is in continuous use, it is possible to find a main sett that has become disused due to excessive digging or some other reason; it should be recorded as a disused main sett. The British National Badger Survey found that the average size of an active main sett is twelve holes (including all categories of use). Annexe Setts: These are often close to the main sett, usually less than 150m away, and are usually connected to the main sett by one or more obvious, well-worn paths. They usually have several holes but may not be in use all the time even if the main sett is very active. The British National Badger Survey found that the average size of an annexe sett is five holes (including all categories of use). Subsidiary Setts: These often only have a few holes (averaging four), are usually at least 50m from a main sett, and do not have an obvious path connecting with another sett. They are not continuously active.
Harris, S.; Cresswell, P. and Jefferies, D. (1989) Surveying Badgers. Mammal Society, No. 9, London. Wilson, G.; Harris, S. and McLaren, G. (1997) Changes in the British Badger Population – 1998 to 1997. People’s Trust for Endangered Species, London; and Cresswell, P.; Harris, S. and Jefferies, D. (1990) The History, Distribution, Status and Habitat Requirements of the Badger in Britain. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough.
5 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Badger Survey Report edp3922_r008c
Sett Descriptions Outlying Setts: These usually have only one or two holes, often have little spoil outside the hole, have no obvious path connecting with another sett and are only used sporadically. When not in use by badgers, they are often taken over by foxes or even rabbits. However, they can still be recognised as badger setts by the shape of the tunnel (not the actual entrance hole), which is usually at least 250mm in diameter, and is rounded or a flattened oval shape. Fox and rabbit tunnels are smaller and often taller than broad.
Table EDP A2.3: Categories of Use Categories of Use Well-used Holes: These are clear of any debris or vegetation, are obviously in regular use, and may or may not have been excavated recently. Partially used Holes: These are not in regular use and have debris such as leaves and twigs in the entrance or have moss and/or other plants growing in or around the entrance. Partially used holes could be in regular use after a minimal amount of clearance. Disused Holes: These have not been in use for some time, are partially or completely blocked and could not be used without a considerable amount of clearance. If the hole has been disused for some time, all that may be visible is a depression in the ground where the hole used to be, and the remains of the spoil heap, which may be covered in moss or plants.
Limitations
2.13 Given that badgers are mobile animals and that suitable foraging and sett building opportunities exist across the Site, it is possible that the Site could support additional badger setts in the future.
2.14 Occasional trail camera failures have been encountered during the recording periods, however sufficient information has been collected such that this is not considered to constrain the findings of the surveys.
Results
Desk Study
2.15 The desk study returned eight records of badger from the surrounding area with the closest located c.700m to the north of the Site associated with land to the north of Slate Meadow. Two records of badger setts were returned in the desk study, however both of these records fall to the south of the River Thames and as such the associated badger clans are considered unlikely to interact with the Site in any way.
Field Signs and Evidence
2.16 Overall, the Site has a high level of badger activity with twelve badger setts recorded within the Site and adjacent orchard, as illustrated on Plan EDP 1. Of the twelve setts recorded Setts 9, 10 and 11 are located in the orchard offsite to the north-west whilst the remaining nine setts are located within the Site and all associated with the hedgerow network.
6 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Badger Survey Report edp3922_r008c
2.17 Active trails run through all the onsite hedgerows connecting the setts in the centre of the Site with the orchard to the north-east having the majority of the setts kept clear of overgrowing vegetation on a regular basis. Badger evidence has been recorded across the whole Site with latrines and mammal tracks recorded on many of the boundaries.
2.18 The detailed observations made during the surveys are summarised in Table EDP 2.4.
Table EDP 2.4: Summary of Badger Activity Sett Survey Notes Trail Camera Monitoring Notes Status Number 1 12 holes. Active Adults active at this sett during the autumn Subsidiary throughout the with extensive bedding collection. monitoring period Monitoring in spring only recorded adults in though with varying and around the sett, until two cubs were numbers of recorded within the sett entrance on 02 May. entrances showing Two cubs were subsequently recorded in the signs of activity sett entrance on the 03 May. 2 9 holes. Active Little autumn activity was recorded and only Subsidiary throughout the two of the holes appeared active. Some monitoring period activity was recorded in April though this though with varying mostly consisted of adults visiting the sett numbers of rather than emerging. On 25 and 26 April entrances showing adults were recorded visiting the sett with signs of activity cubs though not entering or emerging from the sett.
A single emergence of cubs was recorded at this sett on 29 April at 00:37am. This footage recorded two adult badger leaving the sett swiftly with a single cub following behind. This cub emergence was not tentative, and the adults were not cautious, this has none of the hallmarks of a cub’s first emergence above ground as recorded at sett 11. The majority of activity across the Site, including cub emergences, has been recorded in early evening at c.19:00 – 20:00 and as such it is considered likely that this footage of the cub emergence at 00:37am, represents badger entering the sett at one of the other entrances and exiting from the monitored entrance. 3 3 holes. Generally Regular visits by adult badger though no Subsidiary active though with badgers have been recorded emerging from short periods of the sett. Badger are not considered to reduced activity overnight in this Sett on a regular basis 4 1 hole. Disused for Sett not monitored with trail cameras Outlier the majority of the monitoring period
7 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Badger Survey Report edp3922_r008c
Sett Survey Notes Trail Camera Monitoring Notes Status Number 5 3 holes. Partially Sett not monitored with trail cameras Outlier active for the majority of the monitoring period, falling into disuse in autumn 2019 6 3 holes. Partially Sett not monitored with trail cameras Outlier active for the majority of the monitoring period, falling into disuse in autumn 2019 7 1 hole. Partially Sett not monitored with trail cameras Outlier active for the majority of the monitoring period, falling into disuse in autumn 2019 8 1 hole. Active sett Sett not monitored with trail cameras Outlier dug in September 2019. Located on the trail between sett 1 and 2 and kept clear of debris 9 1 hole. Largely Sett not monitored with trail cameras Outlier disused though active in May 2020 10 3 holes offsite. Monitored in autumn 2019 though no badger Annex Disused, activity were recorded. Cameras were not used on recorded only on this sett in spring 2020. Sticks placed across the first check in the sett entrance showed that this sett September 2019 remained disused
8 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Badger Survey Report edp3922_r008c
Sett Survey Notes Trail Camera Monitoring Notes Status Number 11 22 holes offsite. Regular bedding collection was recorded in Main (breeding) Active throughout December, with around four of the holes sett the monitoring showing high levels of activity. Well-worn period though with trails connect all of the holes and lead varying numbers of through the orchard into the Site to the west entrances showing and offsite to the east. signs of activity The first footage of cubs recorded within the Site was at sett 11 with two cubs emerging on a number of nights from the 25 April. Cubs emerging were closely guarded by an adult and the cubs emerged slowly, staying close to the sett entrance for some time. Cubs have been recorded regularly at Sett 11 since this first emergence on 25 April, with cubs continuing to be recorded at the sett, and bedding collection, through until the end of the monitoring period on 18 May. 12 1 hole. Partially Sett not monitored with trail cameras Outlier active for the majority of the monitoring period, falling into disuse in autumn 2019
Bait Marking
2.19 During the bait marking exercise coloured markers were found in two latrines. A red pellet (used to bait the onsite setts 1, 2 and 3) was found in a latrine immediately to the north of sett 4. A blue pellet (used to bait sett 11 within the offsite orchard) was found in a latrine on the south-eastern Site boundary adjacent to a mammal track which runs onto the Heavens Lea road.
9 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Badger Survey Report edp3922_r008c
This page has been left blank intentionally
10 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Badger Survey Report edp3922_r008c
Section 3 Discussion and Conclusions
3.1 This section of the report discusses the findings of the surveys detailed in Section 2 and provides conclusions based on the findings.
3.2 Monitoring of the setts within and around the Site has confirmed that Sett 11 within the orchard is a main badger sett, with conclusive evidence of badgers using the sett for breeding recorded; two badger cubs were recorded on 25 April and subsequently recorded around the sett on a regular basis until the end of monitoring period on 18 May. The recording of badger cubs at sett 11 on 25 April was the first recording of cubs from any sett within the Site.
3.3 Trail camera monitoring has recorded a maximum of two badger cubs at any one time within the Site since the first recording on 25 April at sett 11. The majority of cub footage does not overlap, with cubs recorded at one sett on one night and a different sett on another night, indicative of an adult badger taking cubs around the clan territory and cubs exploring further afield from the natal sett as they grow older and more confident.
3.4 Only one instance of cub footage overlapping has been recorded on 29 April at 00:37, with a single cub recorded at sett 2 at the same time that a single cub was recorded at sett 11. However, it has been concluded that this is a recording of single cubs from the same litter (born in sett 11). Evidence that cubs will be tended by sub-ordinate adults4 has been documented, albeit with no detectable benefits to the family group. The presence of only a single cub at sett 11 on 29 April, where other camera footage has confirmed there are normally two cubs, strengthens this argument and it is considered that leaving a cub with an adult in this secluded environment adjacent to the main sett appears to present a ‘low-risk’ strategy.
3.5 This conclusion has been strengthened by the findings of the bait-marking exercise. Whilst not conclusive, a blue marker pellet found on the south-eastern Site boundary suggests that badgers from the orchard are moving across the Site along the well-trodden trails and passing setts 1 and 2 to reach foraging grounds to the south-east, an unlikely behaviour were the Site supporting two badger clans.
3.6 In regard to setts 1 and 2, there is a lack of any evidence of cub activity at sett 1 following the recording made on 08 May, and lack of further evidence at sett 2 after the recording made on 29 April. The footage of cubs which was recorded lacked characteristic behaviour of cubs emerging for the first time, having been born in the setts. Based on the evidence gathered, setts 1 and 2 are considered secondary (‘subsidiary’) setts to the main sett within the orchard, which will be used by the badger clan at varying degrees throughout the course of the year. Adult activity recorded at sett 1 during the spring prior
4 Woodroffe, R. and Macdonald, D. (2000) Helpers provide no detectable benefits in the European badger (Meles meles). Journal of Zoology, Cambridge University Press
11 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Badger Survey Report edp3922_r008c
to cub emergence is attributed to subordinate adults which have been forced out of the main sett during the breeding season.
3.7 Clear trails, mammal tracks and latrines suggest that badger forage across the Site as a whole and with potential movement offsite through the hedgerow along Heavens Lea road and through the eastern boundary of the Orchard in order to make use of suitable foraging grounds in rear gardens and areas of open pasture and woodland to the east.
12 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Badger Survey Report edp3922_r008c
Plan
Plan EDP 1 Badger Survey (edp3922_d008a 04 December 2020 GY/ND)
Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Badger Survey Report edp3922_r008c
This page has been left blank intentionally