Linden Lea, North End, Newbury, RG20 0AY

Phase 1 Ecological Assessment and Phase 2 Bat Survey Report

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031

Report Number: 0027 Issue Number: 05 Date of Issue: 16th February 2017 Prepared for: Malcolm Perris

COPYRIGHT: Peach Ecology disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of this document. This document has been prepared with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, within the terms of the Contract with the Client. The report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and Peach Ecology accepts no responsibility of whatever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, may be made known. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole and do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion. No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written approval of Peach Ecology.

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031

Contents

Page

1.0 Summary 1

2.0 Introduction 2

3.0 Methodology 3

4.0 Results 5

5.0 Analysis and Impact Assessment 16

6.0 Requirements and Recommendations 19

7.0 References and Bibliography 21

Appendices Appendix A: Site location Appendix B: Existing and proposed layout Appendix C: Protected sites Appendix D: Habitats data Appendix E: Annotated aerial image Appendix F: Landscaping enhancements Appendix G: Protected species legislation Appendix H: Bat and bird mitigation

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031

1.0 Summary

The proposal is to demolish the existing house and outbuildings associated with the property and construct a new replacement dwelling on the land. A large paddock area is associated with the dwelling however this is outside of the indicative construction zone and will not be impacted by the proposals. The majority of the site within the construction area consists of common widespread habitats of relatively low ecological importance including lawn, ornamental planting and a small amount of ornamental hedgerow. There are six buildings associated with the proposals, the main dwelling has evidence of bats in the form of droppings immediately adjacent to the gable inside the attic and the stables are also suitable for crevice roosting bats, all the other structures are unsuitable for bats. Four bat emergence surveys took place in July, August and September 2015 and these recorded small numbers of soprano and common pipistrelles roosting at different locations on the main dwelling, indicating day roosts, and therefore a European Protected Species licence will be required to carry out any works on the existing dwelling that effect the attic or roof area or cause any disturbance to bats roosting there, once planning permission is granted. A follow up inspection in February 2017 recorded no changes to the structures or habitat on site and there was no new evidence of bat droppings inside. New crevice roosting features will be created to mitigate for the loss of the existing roost - this will entail access points under weather boarding at different aspects. Additional enhancement measures have been recommended for landscaping to promote biodiversity at the site level in line with the proposals.

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 1

2.0 Introduction

Background 2.1 Peach Ecology was commissioned in May 2015 to carry out a Phase 1 Ecological Assessment of the existing house and outbuildings located at Linden Lea, North End, Newbury (Grid Reference: SU 40943 62846) as shown in Appendix A and laid out as shown in Appendix B and to provide a report on this. The assessment identified that the main dwelling and stables were suitable for bats and therefore follow up emergence surveys were recommended to take place during the active bat season to determine the status of the roost. The report will contribute to a planning application being submitted to Basingstoke and Deane District Council for permission to construct a replacement dwelling. 2.2 This report describes the current ecological baseline of the site, based on the findings of two site surveys, a desk based assessment, bat emergence surveys and review of existing protected sites, habitats data and local policies. The results set out within this report are valid for one year from the issue date. A follow up site visit will be required to determine if there are any changes to the ecological status of the site after a year as reptile habitat and bat roosting status can change over this time.

Description of site and surrounding area 2.3 The site is situated to the western edge of the Thames Basin Heaths National Character Area (NCA). The settlement pattern is a mix of dispersed hamlets, farmsteads and houses interspersed with villages, many of medieval origin. Vestiges of the historic royal hunting forests of Bagshot, Eversley, Pamber and Windsor comprise parkland, ancient woodland, and small to medium-sized fields of semi- natural grassland. Features include ancient hedgerows and veteran trees, and there are parklands at The Vyne and Highclere Castle. Woodland accounts for a quarter of this NCA, reflecting the predominance of low-grade agricultural land. The site is situated between other residential housing approximately 5km south-west of Newbury. There are paddocks, areas of woodland and grazing land located within 1km, all connected by mature hedgerows. The site is located within 2km of Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) to the north-east and within 4km of Down SSSI to the south-west. 2.4 The land within the site boundary consists of amenity grassland with some small planting beds with typical ornamental species. The main dwellings and outbuildings are surrounded in places by hard standing and gravel. The paddock to the west of the residential curtilage consists of longer sward grassland and this is separated from the residential dwelling by some well mown amenity grassland.

Brief 2.5 To carry out an Ecological Assessment of the buildings and residential curtilage and undertake Phase 2 Bat Surveys to inform the clients of any ecological implications associated with the proposals.

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 2

3.0 Methodology

Desk Study

3.1 The desk study methodology is based upon guidelines set out by the Chartered Institute of Environmental and Ecological Management (CIEEM, 2012). This involves gathering ecological data relating to statutory and non-statutory nature conservation sites and protected and notable species. Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) a DEFRA run website is used along with Ordnance Survey maps and local knowledge to look for any features of ecological interest that could be impacted by the proposals. A biological data search from Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC) was not requested, it was considered that due to the common habitats on site and the small scale of the proposals that a full data search was not necessary. A review was undertaken of local and national planning policies in relation to the proposals.

Site Assessment

3.2 The site survey employed techniques based on standard Phase I Habitat Survey methodology (CIEEM, 2012). Habitat types on and adjacent to the site were identified according to standard habitat definitions and then annotated on a plan. The collection of botanical information focused on the dominant and key indicator species for each habitat type with particular attention paid to any Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats. The site survey included an assessment of the habitats immediately adjacent to the site, where possible, to look at the value of the site within the local landscape. Methodologies for the most common protected species are set out below. Although the survey focused on bats and birds in buildings the site areas close to the buildings that could be impacted by the proposals were assessed.

Bats

3.3 Buildings and trees within the footprint of the site and any areas potentially impacted by the proposals were inspected in accordance with current survey guidance (Bat Conservation Trust, 2012) for potential access points and roosting features that could support bats. Trees were checked for ivy cover, crevices and rotten sections, holes and splits. Buildings were checked externally for gaps and spaces in the roof structure that would allow access to bats and internally for bats or signs of bats including droppings, insect feeding remains, worn entrances and staining. The site was assessed in terms of its suitability for foraging and commuting corridors for bats.

3.4 Four bat emergence surveys took place in July, August and September 2015. Dawn surveys started approximately 1.5hrs before sunrise and continued for at 15 minutes afterwards. The dusk survey started 15 minutes before sunset and continued until at least 1.5hrs after the start of the survey. 1-3 surveyors were positioned at vantage points that covered the most likely access points on the two adjacent buildings under inspection and surveyors maintained contact during the surveys in order to ascertain direction and emergence of bats. Equipment used included Elekon Bat Logger M’s. Sounds were analysed on Elekon Software. Details on the environmental conditions were taken at the time of survey. Davog McCloskey (Licence number 2015-11951-

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 3

CLS-CLS) was present at two of the surveys and experienced bat surveyors were present at the others.

Birds

3.5 Any habitat features, for example, scrub, trees, hedgerows and buildings which could potentially be used by nesting birds, were surveyed and any nesting activity was noted. The habitat was also assessed regarding its potential for bird activity.

Badgers

3.6 Any area that could be used for foraging or could potentially contain a Badger sett was surveyed and any signs noted. Signs include active or disused setts, digging, latrines and dung pits, foraging signs, footprints and hairs. Badger paths often have no sticks or other obstacles at ground level.

Dormice

3.7 The suitability of the habitat was assessed for dormice in terms of woodland, hedges and scrub and the connectivity of the site to other areas of suitable habitat locally. Any small mammal feeding signs were checked and assessed, these include teeth marks on hazel nuts and other nuts and any evidence of nest building.

Great Crested Newts

3.8 Any ponds on site and within the vicinity of the site identified using OS Maps and aerial images were noted and the potential of the land to act as a commuting route, shelter or foraging resource for great crested newts was assessed.

Reptiles

3.9 Habitat features that could be suitable as hibernacula, foraging or basking areas were noted. Any extant refugia were carefully examined to look for reptiles or for evidence of reptiles, including sloughs (shed skins).

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 4

4.0 Results

UK Statutory Sites of Conservation Interest

4.1 West Woodhay Down Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a small relict area of unimproved chalk grassland on the Upper Chalk of the Berkshire Downs, on the Hampshire border is located within 2km to the north-east of the site (Appendix C). The SSSI comprises a steep, northwest facing roadside bank and a track leading down the county boundary. The bank is now largely dominated by upright brome but supports a species-rich community of typical downland herbs with several species of orchid. Species present include yellow-wort, autumn hawkbit, purging flax, crosswort, squinancywort, burnet saxifrage, small scabious, cowslip, wild mignonette, salad burnet, fragrant orchid and pyramidal orchid. There is a small area of scrub, dominated by hawthorn with whitebeam.

4.2 Redhill Wood SSSI is located within 4km to the south-east of the site. Redhill Wood consists predominantly of ancient woodland exhibiting a wide range of stand types and with particularly fine examples of birch-ash-lime, pedunculate oak-ash-hazel and valley-alder woodland. The flora is exceptionally diverse and includes several uncommon mosses and other lower plants. There is a rich insect fauna particularly associated with the clearings and glades. The ancient woodland is demarcated by a medieval and ditch system.

Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority Habitats

4.3 The site is located close to several areas of Ancient woodland which are shown in Appendix D.

Site Assessment

Introduction 4.4 The initial site survey was carried out on the 21st May 2015 by an experienced ecologist under warm and clear weather conditions. Additional internal inspections of the outbuildings and external inspections of all buildings were undertaken during each of the Phase 2 surveys. A follow up site survey was undertaken on 3rd February 2017 of all the buildings, internal and external, and of the land.

Site Constraints

4.5 The trees along the northern boundary were checked for bat roosting potential only at ground level however no trees were proposed to be impacted directly by the proposals and it has been recommended that the boundary features are protected from light spillage post development. 4.6 Vegetation was examined within the flowering season however the habitats on site could be confidently assessed at any time of year. 4.7 Bat surveys are only a snapshot of bat activity over a given time and activity can change from a day to day basis. Some bats emerge when it is darker so may be missed by the surveys.

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 5

Habitats 4.8 Habitats recorded within the site boundary and immediate vicinity comprised of:  Buildings  Garden lawn with ornamental planting  Hedgerow  Hard standing and gravel  Paddock 4.9 An annotated aerial image is shown in Appendix E.

Buildings 4.10 Building 1 is the stables, a single storey building with loft room in the converted attic with stables below. The roof is tiled and has a dormer window on the west side and window into the loft room on the north gable. The dormer has weather boarding on the sides with some small spaces where they join the main roof. Weather boarding was present externally on the stables and this had no obvious gaps suitable for bats. There are some access points for bats under the tiles on the roof although there were no signs internally as the room was boarded below the rafters. The building has the potential to be used as a feeding roost by bats and for nesting swallows and other birds.

Photo 1: The Stables, Building 1, from the north-west

Photo 2: Dormer on building 1 Photo 3: raised tile on the western aspect www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 6

4.11 Building 2 is a wooden framed flat roof lean-to used for storage. This has the potential to be used by swallows and other birds for nesting and as a feeding perch for bats.

Photo 4: Building 2, a lean-to shed

4.12 Building 3 (Photo 5) is a bungalow with two small single-storey flat roof side sections (Photos 6 - 8). The bungalow has a loft room built into the attic. The loft room is boarded out and has a sky light and windows. Asbestos tiles were present on the roof along with a clay tile ridge. Weather boarding is present at both gables with some bat access potential and the lead around the chimney is raised slightly allowing bat access. Another hole was present in the roof where a flue or pipe had been removed. 4.13 Pipistrelle droppings (Photo 9) were present in the attic near the eastern gable. A dead sparrow (Photo 12) was present in the attic along with 4 dead mummified rats. There were mouse and rat droppings present also. Roofing felt was present under the tiles and at one location a sparrow nest (Photo 11) could be seen bulging in the felt. There were no obvious changes inside the attic area and no new signs of bat usage.

Photo 5: Northern aspect of building 3 Photo 6: Western aspect building 3

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 7

Photo 7: Southern aspect Photo 8: Eastern aspect

Photo 9: Single butterfly wing and droppings Photo 10: Attic looking east

Photo 11: sparrow nest under felt Photo 12: dead sparrow

4.14 Building 4 (Photo 13) is a wooden framed summer house with felted ridged roof. The building has no bat roosting or bird nesting potential unless it was left open to the elements.

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 8

Photo 13: summer house

4.15 Building 5 (Photo 14) is a garage used for storage. It is constructed of concrete shutters with a flat roof. It has no bat roosting or bird nesting potential.

Photo 14: Garage 4.16 Building 6 (Photo 15) is a single storey flat corrugated asbestos roof outhouse. It is covered in ivy with a grass ‘green roof’ with nettles and wisteria. It has some bird nesting potential.

Photo 15: Outhouse to rear of the main house

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 9

Garden lawn with ornamental planting 4.17 The garden of the property consists of lawn with some mature planting beds at the periphery containing mostly ornamental species. These can be seen in relation to the buildings in the photos above.

Hard standing and gravel

4.18 A gravel drive (Photo 16) enters the grounds from the track to the south and led up to the outbuildings. A hard standing drive from the road to the east led up to the garage building. An area of well-maintained grass separates the gravel drive from the longer sward grassland in the paddock.

Photo 16: Gravel leading up to lean-to shed and short grassland

Paddock 4.19 The paddock (Photo 17) area is located to the west of the buildings and curtilage. This had no animal in it at the time of survey and the sward was long. A detailed survey was not undertaken as this area is outside of the construction zone. Species diversity appeared low.

Photo 17: Paddock looking west from buildings

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 10

Bats Visual inspection 4.20 Evidence of bats was found in the attic of the main building in the form of droppings which appeared to be pipistrelle droppings. A single butterfly wing was present also which may have been due to a feeding bat, typically long-eared bats, however no long-eared bat droppings were found in the main building. The Stables had some potential to be used for day roosting although no evidence was found there to indicate a roost was present. The stables and lean-to shed had direct flight access and could be used as feeding perches for bats. 4.21 The site within the likely construction area was composed of typical garden plants and lawn and it would contribute to bat foraging locally. No trees were identified with bat roosting potential.

Emergence survey results

4.22 Three emergence surveys took place in July, August and September 2015. Two surveyors were present at each survey. Table 1 provides details of each survey visit.

Table 1 – Phase 2 bat survey details Survey Survey Surveyors Equipment Duration Weather Sunset Date type used /sunrise time 14th July Dusk DM, CH & Elekon X3 2100 - 100% cloud cover, 2117 2015 AH 2245 wind force 0-1, drizzle at start, 19°C at start of survey 18°C at end 31st July Dawn DM, CH & Elekon X3 0400 - 0 % cloud cover, 0530 2015 AH 0535 wind force 0, no rain, 8°C at start of survey 6°C at end 21st August Dawn CH Elekon 0430 - 100% cloud cover, 0600 2015 0605 wind force 0-1, no rain, 18°C at start of survey 18°C at end 2nd Dusk DM & AH Elekon X2 1935 - 50% cloud cover, 1950 September 2105 wind force 0, no 2015 rain, 14°C at start of survey 13°C at end

4.23 During the first survey on the 14th July a single pipistrelle was recorded emerging from the western gable of the main dwelling at 2128 (Photo 18). The bat was silent as it emerged so the species of pipistrelle was not confirmed, the same surveyor only recorded common pipistrelle shortly afterwards so it is likely this was a common pipistrelle emerging. Soprano pipistrelle were recorded during the evening from about 2145 and then common pipistrelle were recorded from about 2215. At 2148 a serotine was recorded coming from the direction of a neighbouring house, the bat

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 11

may have been roosting there although this was not confirmed and it may have been roosting somewhere else nearby. A Brown long-eared was recorded moving from east to west through the site at 2156/2157. A potential Leislers or Serotine was recorded several times from 2159 – 2211, then more sporadically towards the end of the survey to the north of the site high up. A myotis species, possibly a Natterer’s was recorded at 2220 briefly to the west of the site.

Photo 18: Pipistrelle emergence on the 14th July 2015

4.24 During the second survey, the dawn survey on the 31st July, there was very little bat activity probably due to the cold weather in the morning. A common pipistrelle was the only bat recorded, this came from the north-east of the site at 0453. No activity was recorded near the house. 4.25 During the third survey on the 21st August a bat was recorded entering the western gable of the main dwelling at 0542, the bat was silent as it entered to the right hand side of the chimney breast under the eaves. A bat was recorded circling close to the front of the house silently at 0530 but disappeared with roosting not being confirmed although this was possible. During the survey several passes by common pipistrelle were noted along with their social calls, soprano pipistrelle recordings were made on seven occasions and two brown long-eared recordings were made of a single bat. 4.26 During the fourth survey on the 2nd September a common pipistrelle was recorded emerging from the rear of the house at 2000 (Photo 19) from the side of the wooden extension at the eaves at a height of approximately 2m above ground level. A soprano pipistrelle was recorded emerging from the western gable to the right hand side of the window near the eaves (Photo 20) at 2010 and then soprano pipistrelle were recorded in the area for the next few minutes. A brown long-eared bat was

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 12

recorded to the rear of the house flying from east to west passing over the hedge, the bat may have emerged from a neighbouring house due to the time. A soprano pipistrelle was recorded to the west of the site at 2032 foraging near the oak trees. A pipistrelle was recorded at 2042 to the rear of the main dwelling along with a social call. The first common pipistrelle recorded was at 2044, this was heard but not seen. A common pipistrelle was recorded close to the front of the building at 2045 but was not confirmed emerging. A potential barbastelle was recorded at 2045 to the west of the site near to the trees but the exact location was not noted and the bat was not seen, this was a brief single pass. A noctule was recorded briefly passing overhead at 2104.

Photo 19: Common pipistrelle emergence on the 2nd September 2015

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 13

Photo 20: Soprano pipistrelle emergence on the 2nd September 2015

Reptiles 4.27 The grassland within and around the residential curtilage is maintained short and is generally unsuitable for reptiles. No hibernacula or log piles were found on site and no reptiles were recorded during the survey.

Great Crested Newts 4.28 No ponds are present within the site boundary. The closest ponds to the site were located approximately 450m to the east (Pond 1), 500m to the north (Pond 2) and 375m to the south-east (Pond 3) as shown in Plan 1 below. The hedgerow and paddock however do offer cover and connectivity for amphibians at the ground level if present locally.

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 14

Pond 2 – 500m north

Pond 1 – 450m east

Pond 3 – 375m south-east

Plan 1: Ponds within 500m of the site

Dormice 4.29 No dormice or signs of dormice were noted at the time of survey. The woodlands located nearby within 1km all offer high value for dormice.

Badgers

4.30 There were no signs of badgers on site or within areas adjacent to the site where a visual assessment was possible.

Birds 4.31 A dead house sparrow was present in the attic of the main building and an old nest could be seen bulging between the roofing felt and tiles. This was not active at the time of survey.

Other 4.32 Hedgehogs, a Biodiversity Action Plan species, are likely to be present locally although no signs of droppings were recorded at the time of survey. Hedgerows and areas of grassland offer value to foraging and resting hedgehogs.

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 15

5.0 Analysis and Impacts

Nature Conservation Sites UK Statutory Sites of Conservation Interest

5.1 The proposals, although no plans were provided at the time of survey, are thought to constitute a replacement dwelling and an additional new dwelling. This proposal is relatively small in scale and is unlikely to provide an impact on nearby nature conservation sites directly or indirectly, alone or in conjunction with other developments.

Habitats Summary

5.2 The proposals are likely to result in the loss of small areas of garden planting, lawn and ornamental hedgerow along with the six buildings. Any vegetation will need to be removed outside of the bird nesting season and in a staged manner to avoid impacts to birds, reptiles and hedgehogs. 5.3 Loss of the other habitats on site are unlikely to have any significant negative ecological impact. The habitats do however contribute to biodiversity locally and should be mitigated for with new diverse wildlife beneficial landscaping – the planting of new native hedgerow around and/or between the two proposed plots would be suitable mitigation for any loss of ornamental hedgerow habitat. 5.4 The area of paddock is not proposed to be impacted by the proposals. The paddock had a long sward (300-400mm) at the time of survey except for the area abutting the gravel drive, which was short and well maintained. During any construction works it is recommended that a construction management plan is produced showing how the paddock area will be protected with appropriate fencing and liaison with the site contractors and construction team.

Species Bats 5.5 Common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle bats were recorded roosting at the property in small numbers, the roosts are likely to be day roosts in summer and autumn although the roosts may also be used in spring and for hibernation in winter. 5.6 The habitats on site consists of relatively common features and the development is unlikely to result in a significant loss of habitat for bats. External lighting will need to be carefully considered within the proposals to ensure bats are not impacted, this may mean preparing a lighting plan to show that the mature trees to the southern boundary do not receive excessive lighting, which has been shown to reduce usage by bats when foraging, commuting or roosting. External lighting must be maintained below recommended levels (maximum of 1lux) to protect bat commuting and foraging corridors locally and be directed to where it is needed. 5.7 The proposals represent an opportunity to enhance the area for foraging bats by planting some new hedgerow between the proposed dwellings.

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 16

Reptiles 5.8 The site offers little potential for reptiles within the construction area, however the hedgerow does provide cover at ground level and could act as a commuting corridor and foraging habitat for slow worms. The habitat on site is well connected into the surrounding landscape at the ground level by hedges and grassland. Care will need to be taken during the clearance of the site. New fencing proposed on site should allow movement and connectivity for reptiles at ground level i.e. using post and rail fencing as opposed to solid fencing with concrete gravel boards as shown in photos 22 and 23 below. The Paddock in its current state has high value for commuting and foraging reptiles.

Photo 21: Post and rail fencing Photo 22: Concrete gravel boards

Great crested newts 5.9 No ponds were present on site although there is good connectivity between the site and ponds within 500m. If these ponds within 500m do contain great crested newts then there is a small chance that great crested newts could be using the site to move through, although the scale of the proposals and the distance mean that this could only be considered a low impact at most. If a newt is found during any stage of the works, including the removal of the hedge, then work should stop so that that the scheme can be reassessed by an ecologist and Natural England informed.

Badgers 5.10 No signs of badgers were found on site or within the immediate surroundings of the site. There are woodlands nearby and it is likely that there is a badger sett within 1km. The proposals however are unlikely to impact badgers.

Birds 5.11 A dead house sparrow chick and an old house sparrow nest were recorded within the attic. Birds are protected whilst on their nests and house sparrows are a red listed bird species of high conservation concern. The demolition of the house or any outbuildings should be undertaken outside the bird nesting season to avoid harm to the birds or their chicks. The loss of the nest site will need to be compensated for by installing new nest box features especially for house sparrows. 5.12 Any removal of vegetation will also need to avoid the bird nesting season, including the thick ivy on the side of the outbuilding to the rear of the main dwelling unless it is shown that there are no nesting birds present. Additional landscaping in the form of

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 17

new hedgerows that offers structural and species diversity will mitigate for any loss of nesting habitat.

Dormice 5.13 The site is connected into nearby woodlands with high value for dormice. The hedgerow to the rear of the house is not high quality habitat for dormice as it is well managed and is composed of ornamental species. The hedgerow surrounding the paddock has higher quality habitat for dormice although this will not be impacted by the proposals. Construction workers on site should be made aware of sensitive habitats like the hedgerow so that they can be protected during construction and included into any construction plan.

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 18

6.0 Requirements and Recommendations

Bats

6.1 A European Protected Species (EPS) license will be required to proceed with the demolition of the main dwelling – this will only be granted once planning permission is in place. The EPS licence will set the mitigation and timing out in detail for the proposals. It is likely that additional bat emergence surveys will be required to apply for a licence as the surveys in 2015 may be considered to be too old by the time an application is submitted.

6.2 Demolition will need to avoid the hibernation season from November – February inclusive and should aim to avoid the maternity season from May – August inclusive on the off-chance that a maternity roost does turn up, however this is not essential based of the existing results.

6.3 Demolition will need to take place under ecological supervision. The stables will also need to be demolished under ecological supervision although this will not be part of the EPS licence as no bats were recorded roosting there.

6.4 Mitigation for the loss of bat roosting features will include at least four crevice features at a range of different aspects, three towards the south and one towards the northern side – these will be located behind weather boarding which will be positioned on 25mm battens. Small moon shaped gaps of approximately 100mm wide and 15-20mm deep will be cut out from the weather boarding at a height of at least 3m as shown in Appendix H to enable bat access to roosting points behind the weather boarding. Bitumen roofing felt will be used to the rear of the weather boarding if necessary rather than breathable membrane.

6.5 Prior to demolition of the buildings three Schwegler 2F bat boxes will be erected on retained mature trees on site facing south, so that any bats found during demolition can be moved to the safety of the boxes. These will be left in situ and can be checked by the householder, however if a bat is found then a licensed bat ecologist must be consulted for further advice before disturbing it.

6.6 External lighting will need to be carefully considered within the proposals to ensure bats are not impacted, this may mean preparing a lighting plan to show that the mature trees to the southern boundary do not receive excessive lighting, which has been shown to reduce usage by bats. External lighting must be maintained below recommended levels (maximum of 1lux) to protect bat commuting and foraging corridors locally. External lighting will need to be directed away from the new bat access points on the weather boarding and directed to where it is needed only.

Hedgerow

6.7 The boundary hedgerow around the paddock will need to be protected with appropriate fencing set at least 1m from the edge of the hedge if there is any chance of it being impacted during construction.

6.8 New hedgerow should be located around the new boundary of the development site to separate it from the paddock area and additional native species hedgerow can be planted to separate residential curtilages of the proposed plots. The hedgerow should consist of species including yew and holly to provide year round foliage. www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 19

Birds

6.9 A house sparrow terrace nest box will be located on the new property as shown in Appendix H.

6.10 Any vegetation removal or building demolition will need to take place outside of the bird nesting which runs from 1st March – 1st August inclusive or be undertaken under ecological supervision.

Landscaping

6.11 Recommendations for landscaping have been included in Appendix F. The landscaping scheme (not including the compensatory hedgerow) should consist of at least 50% native species.

Meadow and wildlife corridor protection

6.12 A construction management plan will need to set out measures for storage of equipment and materials associated with the scheme to minimise any impacts on species and habitats. This will detail the fencing to be erected prior to construction to protect the paddock area.

6.13 New fencing proposed to surround the development or to separate plots will not prevent movement at ground level for species like hedgehogs and reptiles. Fencing will need to leave gaps of at least 100mm high and 100mm wide between gardens although this is more achievable by using post and rail fencing or similar.

Reptiles

6.14 The ornamental hedgerow, if being removed, will be cut to ground level in September/October and then will be grubbed out under ecological supervision to ensure any slow worms or other reptile are moved to safety if present. A new hedgerow will be planted to compensate for this loss of habitat and connectivity.

Lighting

6.15 Any new external lighting associated with the proposals should be avoided, especially uplighters. A lighting plan will need to be secured as a condition of planning if external lighting is proposed and this will need to be reviewed by an ecologist.

Other

6.16 A follow up site visit will be required to determine if there are any changes to the ecological status of the site after a year from the original survey. During this time the bat roosting potential and reptile habitat potential could change significantly. www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 20

7.0 References and Bibliography

ARG UK (2010). ARG UK Advice Note 5: Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index. Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the United Kingdom. BCT (2012). Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation Trust, London. DCLG, (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. Department for Communities and Local Government, London. English Nature (2001). Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. Natural England, Peterborough. IEEM (2012). Technical Guidance Series: Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management [online]. http://www.ieem.net/docs/GPEA_web.pdf [accessed March 2012] IEEM (2006). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (version 7 July 2006), Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management [online]. Available: http://www.ieem.org.uk/ecia/index.html [accessed February 2011] IEEM (1995). Institute of Environmental Assessment: Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. E & FN Spon, London. JNCC (2004). Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Mammals. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. JNCC (2007). Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: A technique for environmental audit. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. McFarlane W. (2010). Land opposite Chevron Business Park - Ecological Assessment. The Ecology Consultancy. ODPM (2005). Government Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and Their Impact within the Planning System. London; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Oldham R.S., Keeble J., Swan M.J.S. & Jeffcote M. (2000). Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal 10(4), 143-155. Strange A., Mould F. (2014). Land at Hardley, Hampshire – Biodiversity Statement. M&R Ecology.

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 21

APPENDICES

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 22

Appendix A: Site location

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 23

Appendix B: Existing and proposed layout

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 24

Appendix C: Protected sites

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 25

Appendix D: Habitat data

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 26

Appendix E: Annotated aerial image

Paddock

Low lying ornamental hedge Building 5 – Concrete garage removed shortly after site visit

Building 4 – Summer house

Building 2 -Flat roof open fronted shed

Building 3 – Dwelling

Building 1 - Stable Building 6 - Outhouse

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 27

Appendix F: Landscaping enhancements

Wildflower lawn and border turf Tree planting

Wildflower lawn and border turf are an Native tree planting is generally better for excellent alternative to standard turf. These wildlife. specially grown turfs often have over 10 times the diversity of standard turfs, incorporating a Trees like apple, quince, plum, pear and range of flowers and grasses that thrive in the cherry provide a harvest for insects and chosen habitat. people.

http://www.wildflowerturf.co.uk/home.aspx Native trees like blackthorn, hawthorn and hazel can be planted closer to the boundary of http://www.wildflowerturf.co.uk/Products/wildfl the garden and provide valuable early sources ower-border-turf.aspx of early pollen for insects.

Holly and Yew are English evergreen trees that, although slow growing, when established

provide year round cover and valuable Wildflower seed mix sources of food for wildlife.

Wildflower seed mixes have been developed for every soil type and for every location, with some having been developed for specific Culinary herbs insects. These can be sown to suit the garden, the space or the level of use. Mixes Species such as those listed below are good include those for: for new residents allowing them to improve their culinary prowess and enjoy wildlife at the  Wet areas same time.  Chalky soils Bulb planting along hedgerow base or  Sandy soils  Lavender around treesClay soils  Thyme  Shaded areas  Bay Bulbs can be planted to bolster areas where  Mint Floweringthere is lawns little colour earlier in the year  Rosemary especially. Different densities and mixes can  Chives be used to provide a wide range of pollen and  Borage nectar and add masses of diversity to a  Fennel garden. Species used can include:  Sage  Oregano  Snowdrops  Bluebells  Daffodils  Wild garlic  Winter aconite  Wild cyclamen

Lesser celandine

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 28

Appendix G: Protected species legislation

European Protected Species Bats These species are listed in Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. They are afforded full protection under Section 9(4) of the Act and Regulation 41 of the Regulations. These make it an offence, inter alia, to:

 deliberately capture, injure or kill any such animal;  deliberately disturb any such animal, including in particular any disturbance which is likely: o to impair its ability to survive, breed, or rear or nurture their young; o to impair its ability to hibernate or migrate; o to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of that species; or  damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of any such animal; or  intentionally or recklessly disturb any of these animals while it is occupying a structure or place that it uses for shelter or protection; or  intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any place that any of these animals uses for shelter or protection. In addition, five British bat species are listed on Annex II of the Habitats Directive. These are:  Greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum);  Lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros);  Bechstein’s bat (Myotis bechsteinii);  Barbastelle (Barbastella barbastellus);  Greater mouse-eared bat (Myotis myotis). In certain circumstances where these species are found the Directive requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) by EC member states to ensure that their populations are maintained at a favorable conservation status. Outside SACs, the level of legal protection that these species receive is the same as for other bat species.

Dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius), European otter (Lutra lutra) and Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) These species are listed in Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. They are afforded full protection under Section 9(4) of the Act and Regulation 41 of the Regulations. These make it an offence, inter alia, to:

 deliberately capture, injure or kill any such animal;  deliberately disturb any such animal, including in particular any disturbance which is likely: o to impair its ability to survive, breed, or rear or nurture their young; o to impair its ability to hibernate or migrate. o to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of that species; or  damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of any such animal; or  intentionally or recklessly disturb any of these animals while it is occupying a structure or place that it uses for shelter or protection; or  intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any place that any of these animals uses for shelter or protection.

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 29

Nationally Protected Species Badger (Meles meles) The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 consolidates previous legislation (including the Badgers Acts 1973 and 1991 Badgers (Further Protection) Act 1991). It makes it a serious offence to:

 kill, injure or take a badger;  attempt to kill, injure or take a badger; or  to damage or interfere with a sett. The 1992 Act defines a badger sett as “any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use by a badger”.

Breeding Birds With certain exceptions1, all wild birds, their nests and eggs are protected by section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Therefore, it is an offence, inter alia, to:

 intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird;  intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built; or  intentionally take or destroy the egg of any wild bird. These offences do not apply to hunting of birds listed in Schedule 2 subject to various controls.

Bird species listed on Schedule 1 of the Act receive further protection, thus for these species it is also an offence to:

 intentionally or recklessly disturb any bird while it is nest building, or is at a nest containing eggs or young; or  intentionally or recklessly disturb the dependent young of any such bird.

Reptiles The four widespread2 species of reptile that are native to Britain, namely common or viviparous lizard (Zootoca vivipara), slow worm (Anguis fragilis), adder (Vipera berus) and grass snake (Natrix natrix helvetica), are listed in Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and are afforded limited protection under Section 9 of this Act. This makes it an offence, inter alia, to:

 intentionally kill or injure any of these species.

Water vole (Arvicola amphibius)

The water vole is listed in Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and is afforded limited protection under Section 9 of this Act. This makes it an offence, inter alia, to:

 intentionally kill, injure, or take (handle) any a water vole (in England only);  intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place which water voles use for shelter or protection; or

 intentionally or recklessly disturb water voles while they are using such a place.

1 Some species, such as game birds, are exempt in certain circumstances

2 The other native species of British reptile (sand lizard and smooth snake) receive a higher level of protection under the Habitats Regulations 1994 and (in England and Wales only) the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). However, the distribution of these species are restricted to only a very few sites. All marine turtles (Cheloniidae and Dermochelyidae) are also protected.

www.peachecology.co.uk 07887 248031 Page 30

Appendix H: Bat and bird mitigation

Gaps will be created under the weatherboarding at three locations on the south side and one location on north side as set out in paragraph 6.4

A sparrow nest terrace box will be located under the eaves on the north-east aspect

Gaps will be created under the weatherboarding at three locations on the south side and one location on north side as set outwww.peachecology.co.uk in paragraph 6.4 07887 248031 Page 31