eden westwood, devon: ecological survey and assessment report
TRANSCRIPT
Date: 10 August 2016 For: Friends Life Ltd Ref: eg16747
Produced by: Environmental Gain Ltd The Old Church School Frome Bath BA11 1HR T: 01373 888 330 F: 01373 888 462 E: [email protected] www.engain.com
Author: Lily Gilbert BSc (Hons) Approved: Matt Davies
BSc (Hons), MSc, MCIEEM
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 LEGISLATION AND POLICY 2
Relevant Legislation 2Relevant Policy 3
3 SITE LOCATION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 5
Site Location 5General Description 5
4 METHODS 6
Weather Conditions 6Summary 6Bat Surveys 7Bat Activity Surveys 7Static Data Loggers 8Data Analysis 8Tree Inspection Survey for Bats 9Dormouse Survey 9Badger Survey 10Water Vole Survey 10Great Crested Newt Survey 11Breeding Bird Survey 11Limitations 12
5 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS 14
Habitats and Designated Sites 14Protected Species 16Bats 162014 Static Data Loggers 18Dormouse Survey 19Badger Survey 20Great Crested Newts 20Breeding Bird Survey 21Water Vole Survey 22
6 EVALUATION, AVOIDANCE, MITIGATION & ENHANCEMENT 23
Designated Sites 23Bats 24Dormice 25Great Crested Newts 26Breeding Birds 26Conclusions 27
7 REFERENCES 28
APPENDIX 1: GROUND LEVEL TREE ASSESSMENT FOR BATS
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page i
ABBREVIATIONS
CIEEM Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
MAGIC Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside
LNR Local Nature Reserve
NVC National Vegetation Classification
SAC Special Area of Conservation
SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest
UK United Kingdom
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
A partnership between AXA / Friends Life Limited and the Eden Project aims to create
a unique visitor destination known as Eden Westwood, at Junction 27 of the M5 near
Tiverton in Devon. The site chosen for the project is within an area known as the
Devon Redlands (Natural England National Character Area 148), characterised by the
underlying red sandstone that gives the soils their distinctive red colour. The
landscape of this area is characterised by mixed arable and livestock farming,
relatively small fields enclosed by hedgerows and scattered small copses, and the
Eden Westwood site is typical of this pattern. The most ecologically important aspects
of the Devon Redlands area and the wider Devon County are features such as the
Exe Estuary, remnants of once-extensive heathlands, ancient woodlands and culm
grasslands. Several of these features are designated at national and European levels
for the ecological importance. The Eden Westwood site does not contain such
nationally important features; it is within a farmed landscape typical of the region,
where the rare species for which Devon is a stronghold sometimes occur in the best
habitats such as ancient hedgerows.
Engain have undertaken ecological surveys to establish the ecological baseline
conditions – the habitats and species that the site supports – to facilitate the inclusion
of wildlife protection and enhancement into the project design. Field surveys were
conducted for bats, dormice, badgers, water voles, great crested newts, hedgerows
and breeding birds. This report presents the baseline evidence, provides an
evaluation of the importance of the site for wildlife, and describes the project’s
commitments to wildlife protection and enhancement.
Ecology of the Site
Habitats
The habitats of the site are typical of the surrounding landscape, consisting mainly of
improved and semi-improved cattle and sheep-grazed grassland bounded by
hedgerows and drainage ditches. Some of the fields have plant species characteristic
of traditionally managed lowland meadow and pasture, but agricultural improvement
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page iii
(i.e. drainage and the application of artificial fertiliser) has resulted in a generally
impoverished flora. The hedges around the fields are species-rich and characteristic
of ecologically and historically important hedges with a good diversity of shrub and
ground-flora species. The woodland copses (which are locally designated as
“Unconfirmed Wildlife Sites”) are typical of the most common lowland woodland type
(known as Ash-Field Maple-Dog’s Mercury woodland) but are not particularly species-
rich examples of the type. Taken together this collection of habitat types has
ecological value at a local level, and the most important habitats are the hedgerows
and the mature trees they contain.
Bats
Mature trees in the hedges and woodlands around the site have features suitable for
roosting bats, but there are no confirmed bat roosts. Given the number and location of
the tree roosting features, it is likely that at least some are used for roosting.
An assemblage of twelve bat species forage and commute around the site. The
species-assemblage is typical of the region and habitats at the site and includes (in
descending order of the frequency with which they were recorded) common and
soprano pipistrelles, noctules, daubenton’s, whiskered, brown long-eared, lesser
horseshoe, barbastelle, serotine, natterer’s and Brandt’s bats.
In general bat activity was not notably high - no particular area was used substantially
more than another and there were no recordings of large numbers of bats in any one
location. The hedgerows and woodland copses are the features of greatest value for
bats. Given their relatively species-poor character the open fields have a limited value
of foraging bats: they are used by bats but not by high numbers of rare species.
Dormice
Nine dormouse nests, five of which had dormice in them, were found within the
hedgerow network in the centre of the site, just to the south-east of the Moto services.
Dormice are likely to use all of the hedges and woodlands within the site boundary –
even though they were not recorded in some places, dormice are difficult to detect
because of their low population density.
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page iv
Birds
A number of common and widespread bird species were recorded exhibiting breeding
behaviour. Three UK BAP species: song thrush, skylark and house sparrow were
identified flying over the site and singing and calling from within hedgerow habitat on
site. Three Amber Birds of Conservation Concern were recorded flying over the site,
including swift, swallow and house martin. There is abundant nesting habitat in the
hedges and trees around the site, but given the livestock use of the fields and the
intensive arable cropping it is unlikely the open fields are used by ground-nesting
birds.
Other Species
There was no evidence of badgers, otters or water voles using the site. Given the
relatively low habitat quality of the drainage ditches around the site it is possible that
otters will commute through here as part of a larger territory, but the absence of food
or good habitat cover makes it unlikely that it is of high importance for a population of
dormice. There are no great crested newts in any of the ponds around the site – only
the commoner amphibian species were recorded.
Avoidance and Mitigation
Construction-stage impacts on habitats and wildlife, such as those arising from dust,
noise, artificial lighting and habitat removal will be avoided and mitigated
appropriately, the details of which will be specified in a Construction Environmental
Management Plan.
The primary measure to avoid adverse impacts on wildlife will be to retain as much of
the hedgerow network as possible within the development design. This principle has
been included in the development design from the start. Artificial lighting will be
designed to avoid illumination of retained habitat features, to avoid reducing their
value for wildlife such as bats and other nocturnal or crepuscular species. Any
vegetation removal will be undertaken in such a way as to avoid impacts on wildlife,
either by avoiding the relevant breeding season or completing the work under the
supervision of a suitably qualified ecologist.
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page v
Potential effects on roosting bats as a result of tree removal will be mitigated by
completing roost presence / absence surveys (inspections or dusk / dawn surveys) of
any trees with roosting potential that will be felled or are likely to be affected by
groundworks or artificial lighting.
A detailed method statement for the protection of dormice will be prepared, and it is
likely that a European Protected Species licence will be required. This will include
specification of the timing and methods of habitat removal, and the enhancement and
creation of retained habitats. Considering the amount of habitat that will be retained,
and the planned habitat enhancements and creation, the development proposal would
not result in an adverse effect on the favourable conservation status of dormice.
There will be some loss of nesting, foraging and sheltering habitat for birds within the
site during construction. Birds will be able to continue to use retained habitat
throughout the construction period although this will be subject to increased
disturbance. The proposed habitat enhancements and creation will result in a net
increase in the amount of bird nesting habitat within the site boundary.
Illustrative plans for the Eden Westwood buildings show that there is an opportunity
for many of them to have green roofs. As well as the more general environmental
benefits these would provide (e.g. rain water management), these large areas of
green roof would provide botanically species-rich habitats for birds, invertebrates, bats
and other highly mobile wildlife. They would also reduce the overall effect of habitat
loss by replacing existing habitats within their footprint with alternative habitats of high
ecological value.
Dense tree planting is a major feature of the development proposal. Such trees will,
once mature, provide habitat for bats, birds and invertebrates – the extent of their total
ecological value will vary depending on location, relation with artificial lighting and
disturbance etc. The inclusion of this tree planting will help to reduce the overall
effects of habitat loss by ensuring there is not a complete absence of green space
and three-dimensional habitat diversity.
There are many opportunities to build features for the benefit of wildlife into the built
fabric of the development. In carefully selected locations, where there are good links
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page vi
to the surrounding habitats, bat and bird boxes will mitigate the loss of nesting and
roosting habitat where mature trees are removed during the construction stage.
Biodiversity Enhancement
In the absence of appropriate mitigation and enhancement, the proposed
development would result in a net the reduction in green space and habitat diversity.
To provide a net enhancement for biodiversity (and therefore comply with the
requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework) the development design has
incorporated the enhancement of retained habitats and the creation of new, high-
quality habitats for wildlife. These features will form part of the Eden Westwood ethos
and will be linked in to the visitor experience. A Landscape and Ecological
Management Plan will be prepared for the Eden Westwood project. This document
will form a guide for the project team, and will be subject to consultation and input
from relevant parties.
Retained hedgerows and mature trees will be managed so as to maintain and
enhance their wildlife value. Large numbers of nesting and roosting boxes will be
installed in these retained habitats to increase the carrying capacity for bats, birds and
dormice.
The woodland copses, which are being retained in their entirety, will be managed to
improve their value for wildlife. The removal of the pheasant rearing operations and
the promotion of dense under-storey growth will enhance their value for bats, birds
and dormice, as will the provision of roosting and nesting boxes. The woodlands will
also be joined together by new tree and shrub planting. This will promote the
movement of wildlife between the currently isolated stands of woodland, and increase
the overall area of woodland.
The arable fields in the western part of the site will be landscaped to re-create
species-rich lowland meadow habitats, with a newly-created hedgerow network, to re-
create a landscape rich in wildlife and representative of the best examples of farming
and wildlife characteristic of the Devon countryside.
The habitat creation, management and enhancement proposed as part of the Eden
Westwood project has the potential to increase functional connectivity between
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page vii
currently isolated woodlands, increase the net amount of habitat available to species
such as bats and dormice, and create a landscape better able to support breeding
populations of these and other species. Subject to these measures being embedded
in the scheme, the Eden Westwood project can meet and exceed the requirements of
ecological legislation and planning policy and contribute to sustainable development
in the County.
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Engain was requested by Friends Life Ltd to undertake protected species
surveys at a proposed development site at Junction 27 of the M5 motorway,
Devon.
1.2 Following an ecological appraisal of the site in February 2014, the site’s
habitats were judged to have the potential to support bats, dormice, badgers,
water voles, great crested newts, barn owls and breeding birds. There are
records of otters within 1 km of the proposal site, in an unconnected
watercourse, but the aquatic habitats on site were found to be poor quality for
this species. Hedgerows on site will be surveyed to establish their importance
according to the wildlife criteria of The Hedgerow Regulations 19971.
1.3 A full set of surveys for the relevant protected species were carried out in
2014. The survey area in 2014 included arable land to the west of the site
boundary in addition to the land within the current application boundary. This
data has been included as it provides additional context in regards to the ways
in which species use the landscape and the relative importance of the different
parts of the site. The survey data from 2014 are being validated with additional
field surveys in 2016. As the site has changed very little since the original
surveys in 2014, it is not expected that the surveys in 2016 will bring to light
any significant differences from the original data.
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 2
2 LEGISLATION AND POLICY
Relevant Legislation
2.1 The two principal European Union Directives relating to nature conservation
are the EU Habitats Directive (1992)2 and the EU Birds Directive (1979)3. Both
of these directives are transposed into national legislation through the
Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 20114. The
EU Birds Directive is also implemented through the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 19815.
2.2 The EU Habitats Directive protects certain species that are threatened across
Europe, and makes provision for the designation of wildlife conservation areas
as Special Areas of Conservation. The EU Birds Directive also makes
provision for the designation of conservation areas for rare and vulnerable
birds as Special Protection Areas.
2.3 Dormice and all British bats are European Protected Species under the Habitat
Regulations. It is an offence to:
• Deliberately capture or kill a European Protected Species;
• Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a European Protected
Species; or
• Deliberately disturb a European Protected Species in such a way as to be
likely to significantly affect:
i) The ability of any significant group of animals of that species to
survive, breed, rear or nurture their young; or
ii) The local distribution of that species;
2.4 A European Protected Species licence is required to carry out an otherwise
unlawful action affecting these species. A licence will only be granted if the
following tests can be met:
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 3
• The consented operation must be for “preserving public health or public
safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including
those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of
primary importance for the environment”;
• There must be “no satisfactory alternative”; and
• The action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the
population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in
their range.
2.5 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 20066 extends the
biodiversity duty set out in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 20007 to
public bodies and statutory undertakers to take due regard to the conservation
of biodiversity. Local planning authorities should ensure that there is no net
loss of biodiversity on a site, no net loss in habitat connectivity and should
always aim to enhance biodiversity.
Relevant Policy
2.6 The National Planning Policy Framework8 sets out the government’s policies
for the protection and enhancement of biodiversity through the planning
system. The National Planning Policy Framework encourages the planning
system to contribute to and enhance natural and local environments, through
minimising the impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity
where possible.
2.7 Local planning authorities are required to follow key principles in their
consideration of potential impacts of planning decisions on biodiversity
conservation. Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation9
provides administrative guidance on the application of the law relating to
planning and nature conservation and complements the National Planning
Policy Framework.
2.8 The presence of species protected under UK and European legislation are a
material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development
proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 4
its habitat. Ecological appraisals and protected species surveys are required
by planning authorities to inform the planning application.
2.9 Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services10
provides the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and county level biodiversity
strategies for England, based on the habitats and species listed under the
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act. Local biodiversity action
plans give valuable information on local conservation priorities.
2.10 The Devon Biodiversity Action Plan is the local biodiversity action plan relevant
to this site.
Local Planning Policy
The Mid Devon Local Plan11 contains the following policies of relevance to the
proposals:
• High quality design – DM2 (refers to Sustainable Urban Drainage, Green Infrastructure and landscaping);
• Sustainable design – DM3 (refers to the Code for Sustainable Homes including energy and water efficiency and resilience to climate change);
• Green Infrastructure in major development – DM29 (refers to a net gain in biodiversity, green corridors to avoid habitat fragmentation and public open space); and
• Other protected sites – DM31 (refers to the benefits of and need for a development versus the indirect or direct impact on a protected site).
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 5
3 SITE LOCATION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Site Location
3.1 Junction 27 of the M5 lies approximately 7 km to the east of Tiverton town
centre. The Ordnance Survey grid reference for the centre of the proposal site
is ST 053 136.
General Description
3.2 The majority of the site is currently cattle and sheep-grazed grassland and
arable land with an associated hedgerow network, dry and wet ditches and
trees. The site includes the Moto service station infrastructure.
3.3 The M5 motorway embankment and the A38 road form the northern and
western site boundaries.
3.4 The M5 motorway separates the site from the wider farmed landscape, whilst
the Grand Western Canal and areas of woodland lie to the north and west.
There is connectivity for wildlife via the hedgerow network between the site
and the wider landscape to the south and east, which consists of agricultural
land, the village of Willand, small woodlands and the River Culm corridor.
3.5 The site is on loamy soils with naturally high groundwater (Magic Map)12.
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 6
4 METHODS
Weather Conditions
4.1 Weather conditions were recorded in a standard format for each survey where
the weather could affect the results or the validity of the survey.
4.2 The level of wind was determined using the Beaufort scale:
• 0 – Smoke rises vertically;
• 1 – Direction of wind shown by smoke;
• 2 – Wind felt on face, leaves rustle;
• 3 – Leaves and small twigs in constant motion;
• 4 – Raises dust and loose paper, small branches move;
• 5 – Small trees in leaf sway;
• 6 – Large branches in motion; and
• 7 – Whole trees in motion.
4.3 The level of cloud is determined using the okta scale, ranging from 0 oktas
(completely clear sky), through to 8 oktas (completely overcast).
4.4 The level of rain is determined as 0 = none; 1 = light; 2 = medium and 3 =
heavy.
Summary
4.5 The following surveys have been and are being carried out:
• bat surveys (using walked transects and static dataloggers) in April to September 2014
• bat surveys (using walked transects and static dataloggers) in spring, summer and autumn 2016
• ground-level tree inspections for bats in winter 2014
• ground-level tree inspections for bats in winter 2015
• dormouse surveys in July to September 2014
• a badger survey in winter 2014
• a badger survey in summer 2016
• a water vole survey in September 2014
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 7
• great crested newt habitat suitability index assessments in November 2014
• great crested newt presence / absence surveys in May and June 2015
• breeding bird surveys in April, May and June 2016.
Bat Surveys
Bat Activity Surveys
4.6 Bat activity surveys were carried out in 2014, and the methods followed those
set out in the guidance that was relevant at the time (Bat Surveys: Good
Practice Guidelines, Hundt, 201213; Bat Mitigation Guidelines, Mitchell-Jones,
200614). The survey guidelines for bats have since been updated (Collins,
2016), and the survey effort in 2014 was appropriate to the relevant sections of
the guidance.
4.7 To further inform the application and development design, surveys are being
completed in spring, summer and autumn 2016 to validate the results of the
original surveys. The objective of the 2016 surveys is to establish whether
there is any significant difference in the survey results (e.g. if any additional
species are using the site or if levels of activity are substantially different from
the original surveys).
4.8 In 2014, five dusk transect surveys were carried out between May and
September; on 7th May, 9th June, 25th June, 22nd July and 24th September. A
pre-dawn transect survey was carried out on the 25th September.
4.9 The dusk transect surveys commenced just before sunset and continued for up
to two and a half hours after sunset. The pre-dawn transect survey
commenced one and a half hours before dawn and concluded at sunrise. In
general, the survey conditions were fair with marginal cloud and some wind.
Details of the weather conditions are presented in Table 4-1.
4.10 Experienced ecologists carried out each of the surveys. Surveyors followed a
transect along the field edges, watching and listening for bats foraging or
commuting along the hedge lines and in the fields.
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 8
4.11 Visual observations were supported by the use of ultra-sonic bat detectors. A
combination of time expansion and frequency division hand held detectors
(Wildlife Acoustics EM3+ and Anabat) were used, which detect ultrasonic bat
calls. The frequencies were recorded for analysis and verification.
4.12 The aims of the transect surveys were to identify which bat species are using
which habitats/features on the site and for what purposes (e.g. foraging,
commuting or roosting). This will give an indication of the relative value of the
site to bats.
Table 4-1: Details of the bat transect survey schedule, including
weather conditions.
Date Time Weather conditions Temp (0C)
07/05/2014 20:40 – 23:10 Wind: 3; Rain: 0; Cloud: 100% 11
09/06/2014 19:25 – 21:43 Wind: 3; Rain: 0, Cloud: 2 13
25/06/2014 18:25 – 21:00 Wind: 2; Rain: 0*; Cloud: 7 17
22/07/2014 05:55 – 07:30 Wind: 2; Rain: 0; Cloud: 2 17
24/09/2014 20:25 – 22:55 Wind: 0, Rain: 0, Cloud: 1 11
25/09/2014 20:40 – 22:57 Wind: 1, Rain: 0, Cloud: 1 4 - 8
Static Data Loggers
4.13 To supplement the transect surveys, five static data loggers (Anabats) were
left on site for between three and five consecutive nights each month in April,
May, July, August and September 2014 to record bat activity between sunset
and sunrise.
Data Analysis
4.14 EM3+ recordings were converted using ‘Kaleidoscope’. EM3+ and Anabat data
were then analysed using the sound analysis software ‘Analook’. BATBOX
Duet recordings were analysed using the sound analysis software ‘BatScan’.
Within these software packages recordings are displayed as sonograms and
the inter-pulse interval, repetition rate and peak frequency output is visualised.
These parameters aid in the identification of bat species.
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 9
Tree Inspection Survey for Bats
4.15 Trees likely to be affected by the proposals were inspected from ground level
during winter 2014 by an experienced ecologist, once leaves have fallen and
the trees could be seen most easily. As damage to trees can occur in a short
space of time and result in the creation of potential roosting features, the trees
were inspected again in winter 2015.
4.16 The methodology of the tree inspection was informed by Bat Conservation
Trust Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines 2012 and the Bat Workers’
Manual, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 200415.
4.17 The trees were inspected from the ground during daylight hours for evidence
of bats and current suitability for bats. This involves searching for features e.g.
broken limbs, cracks in bark, woodpecker holes and hollow cavities that could
be used by bats using a high powered torch and binoculars and for evidence of
bats including urine or oil stains, droppings, social calls or direct observation of
bats.
4.18 Trees were categorised according to the criteria in the bat conservation trust
guidelines.
Dormouse Survey
4.19 Setting out nest tubes is an established method to help identify the presence
or likely absence of dormice. Survey guidance provides an index score for
each month that nest tubes are left out. According to supplementary guidance
from Natural England16, survey effort can be calculated for each month that the
tubes are on site (even if they are not checked in that month) although they
should be checked at least every other month, as evidence of dormice can
degrade if left for a long time. A minimum survey effort index score of 20 is
required to assume absence.
4.20 One hundred and thirty nest tubes were installed between the 29th May and 9th
June 2014, at approximately 20 m intervals in suitable habitat (hedgerows and
on the branches of small trees), at least 1.5 m above ground level. After
placement, the dormouse tubes were left for four weeks before the surveys
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 10
commenced. The nest tubes were left on site throughout the year and checked
by a licenced dormouse ecologist during July, August and September 2014.
The tubes were checked and removed in September 2014, giving a survey
effort score of 36.4: 2 (July) + 5 (August) + 7 (September) x 2.6 (as 130 tubes
were used instead of 50).
4.21 Data recorded during nest tube inspections includes the number of dormice
observed using the nest tubes, nest tube number, whether nests are present
and whether nest tubes are being used by other species. If dormice were
present then biometric measurements including sex, activity (active/torpid),
breeding condition and number of young would be recorded.
4.22 Nest tubes are left undisturbed if young are present.
Badger Survey
4.23 A badger survey was conducted in winter 2014, in good conditions by an
experienced ecologist. The survey followed Mammal Society Guidelines
(Harris et al., 1989)17 and included a thorough search of the site to record any
setts within the site boundary and any setts outside of the site, within 30 m of
the site boundary (where access permitted).
Water Vole Survey
4.24 A water vole survey was conducted by an experienced ecologist on 29th
September 2014, during good weather conditions. The survey methods
followed the National Rivers Authority guidelines18.
4.25 The water vole survey was conducted along the stream corridor in the south-
western corner of the site close to the motorway, and also along all suitable
wet ditches on site.
4.26 The bankside habitat of these riparian areas was evaluated in terms of its
potential to support water voles. The search for signs of water voles included
droppings, latrines (piles of droppings), burrows, feeding signs
(characteristically gnawed vegetation), tracks, runs and lawns (areas of nibbled
grass outside of burrows).
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 11
Great Crested Newt Survey
4.27 The ponds on site were assessed on the 5th November 2014 and classified
using the great crested newt habitat suitability index (HSI) (Oldham et al,
200019). The HSI is a numerical index between 0 and 1 wherein a score of 1
represents optimal habitat for great crested newts. The HSI score is used to
define the suitability of the pond on a categorical scale.
4.28 HSI scores are not sufficient on their own to conclude that a pond supports or
does not support great crested newts. This conclusion can be reached with
reference to the species’ distribution and the quality of the surrounding
landscape, as well as using desktop records to inform the likelihood that the
species is present in the vicinity. Where there is uncertainty over whether the
species is likely to be present, their presence or likely absence can be
established through more detailed survey effort.
4.29 Four surveys were undertaken between May and June 2015 using torching,
bottle trapping and egg search methods and they were carried out by
experienced ecologists. The survey methods followed the Natural England
Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines, the Froglife Great Crested Newt
Conservation Handbook and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee
Herpetofauna Workers Manual.
Breeding Bird Survey
4.30 Breeding bird surveys were undertaken by experienced ecologists and
ornithologists on the 25th April, 30th May and the 26th June 2014. Weather
conditions were suitable for surveying during each site visit.
4.31 The survey methodology was based on territory mapping (Bibby et al 1992)20
as used for the British Trust for Ornithology’s Common Bird Census. Standard
species codes and symbols were used to identify birds and denote breeding
activity, sex and age where relevant. The breeding bird assessment criteria
are based on those suggested by the European Ornithological Atlas
Committee21 and birds are grouped into four categories:
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 12
• Confirmed breeder (B) (e.g. recently fledged young observed, adult birds carrying food for young);
• Probable breeder (Pr) (pair in suitable habitat, territory defended, agitated behaviour or nest building);
• Possible breeder (Po) (birds observed in suitable habitat or singing male recorded); and
• Birds that were considered not to be using the site for breeding were categorised as ‘non-breeders’ (N) (e.g. flying over the site, migrant, habitat not suitable).
4.32 To provide adequate information to determine the likely status of breeding
birds on the site, three surveys were undertaken. Surveys were carried out
between 06:00 and 09:00 and were undertaken in favourable conditions
avoiding poor weather such as heavy rain or strong wind that may have
affected the results.
4.33 Birds were identified by sight and sound, using 8 x 32 binoculars as required.
On each occasion, a fixed route was walked that enabled all of the habitats of
the site to be examined. This included all large open fields as well as the
hedgerows dividing the fields and around the periphery of the site. The route
involved walking immediately alongside most of the hedgerows and allowed
close observations to be made.
Limitations
4.34 Nest tube surveys demonstrate presence or likely absence of dormice and
cannot give an accurate representation of the population density across the
site. Dormice are difficult to detect using any survey methods, and it is
standard practice that where they are found in a hedgerow, it is reasonable to
assume they also use connected hedgerows of suitable quality even if they are
not detected in nest tubes.
4.35 A full set of bat data was not collected from the static dataloggers during the
month of August 2014 as one of the dataloggers was stolen from site. This
reduced the overall amount of data by only a small proportion, and it was still
possible to draw reasonable conclusions about the level of bat activity and the
species recorded using the available data.
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 13
4.36 It has not been possible to access all of the site during every survey. The
survey results in this report provide an adequate baseline of the development
area, which is sufficient to make an assessment of the impacts of the proposal
and the mitigation and enhancement that is appropriate.
4.37 The original field surveys were completed over the course of 2014. This data is
now two years old and is being verified through further surveys in 2016. There
is no statutory limit to the age of survey data upon which a planning
submission can rely, as it very much depends on the particular circumstances
and the nature of the site. In cases where full surveys have been completed
and the site has not been changed in the intervening time, it is not usually
necessary to repeat all of the surveys as the results will remain valid for the
purposes for which they were intended. For example, whilst repeating the
dormouse surveys might detect dormice in hedges from which they weren’t
originally found, the fact that dormice are likely to be present in all of the
connected hedges has already been established anyway and there is no
reason to assume that dormice are now absent from any of these hedges. It is
therefore possible to evaluate the likely effects of the proposal on dormice and
to ensure that appropriate mitigation is applied. These principles also apply to
other species that have been recorded from the site.
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 14
5 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Habitats and Designated Sites
5.1 There are no statutory designated wildlife sites within 1 km of the proposed
development site. There are nine non-statutory designated wildlife site within 1
km of the proposed development site including seven Unconfirmed Wildlife
Sites (UWS), one County Wildlife Site (CWS) and one Other Site of Wildlife
Interest (OSWI), designated for broadleaved woodland, possible floodplain
grazing marsh and a canal with associated wetland flora.
5.2 Table 5-1 below lists the designated sites that are within 10 km of the site.
Table 5-1: Statutory Designated Sites within 10 km of the Site
Site Name Designation
Distance
and Direction
from Site
Reason(s) for Designation
Grand
Western
Canal
Local Nature
Reserve
(LNR)
1.4 km north 11 km of canal designated for its
variety of flora and fauna
Maiden
Down
Site of
Special
Scientific
Interest
(SSSI)
4 km north-
east
Lowland heath plant and animal
communities
Lower
Whipcott SSSI 5 km north Geological interest features
Stout’s
Cottage SSSI 5.5 km north Geological interest features
Black Down
and
Sampford
Commons
SSSI 6 km east
“…the finest and most extensive
surviving examples of [the]
heathland, carr woodland and
marshy grassland habitats…”
Tidcombe
Lane Fen SSSI 7 km north
Fen meadow vegetation with an
unusual variation in its flora
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 15
Site Name Designation
Distance and
Direction
from Site
Reason(s) for Designation
composition
Ashculm
Turbary SSSI 10 km east Wet heathland plant communities
5.3 In addition to these sites, there are four European designated sites within 20
km of the Eden Westwood proposal:
• Quants Special Area of Conservation (SAC) 14 km east, designated for
its population of marsh fritillary butterflies;
• Holme Moor and Clean Moor SAC 12 km north-east, designated for its
fen habitats;
• Exmoor Heaths SAC 16 km north, designated for its wet and dry heath
habitats; and
• Culm Grasslands SAC 20 km north-west, designated for its purple
moor-grass meadows and its population of marsh fritillary butterflies.
5.4 The UK Biodiversity Action Plan and Devon Biodiversity Action Plan list the
following species that are relevant within and adjacent to the site. UK
Biodiversity Action Plan species of principal importance are marked with (*)
and Devon Biodiversity Action Plan species of principal importance with a (**):
• Otter* **;
• Water Vole * **;
• Hedgehog (Erinaceus erupaeus)*;
• Hazel dormouse* **;
• Barn owl (Tyto alba)**;
• Brown hairstreak (Thecla betulae)*; and
• Primrose (Primula vulgaris)**.
5.5 A Phase 1 Habitat map of the site is provided in Figure 1. The site is
dominated by species-poor semi-improved grassland fields, largely grazed by
© Environmental Gain Ltd. Based on Ordnance Survey map with the permission of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown Copyright Environmental Gain Ltd. Licence No. WL7882
Eden Westwood
NTS Figure 1: Phase 1 Habitat Map
AXA / Friends Life Ltd
eg16747 MD
03-07-16
Environmental Gain Ltd The Old Church School, Butts Hill, Frome, Bath. BA11 1HR T +44(0)1373 888330 F +44(0)1373 888462 [email protected] www.engain.com
A A
A
A A
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
A
Species-rich Hedge
Dry Ditch
Broad-leaved Tree
Broad-leaved Woodland
Dense Scrub
Amenity Grassland
Pond
Species-poor Semi-improved Grassland
Arable
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 16
sheep or horses. The dominant plant species are perennial rye-grass,
Yorkshire fog, creeping bent and crested dog’s-tail forming a closed, grass-
dominated sward with low abundance of broad-leaved herbs These swards are
referable to the NVC type MG6 Perennial rye-grass Crested Dog’s-tail
grassland. There are small areas of marshy grassland where soft rush is
abundant, which are broadly referable to the NVC type MG10 Yorkshire fog
Soft-rush pasture.
5.6 The hedgerows dividing the fields are species-rich, intact hedges with large
numbers of mature trees. The most common shrubs are hawthorn and
blackthorn, with other woody species including elder, holly, blackthorn, hazel,
oak, elm, rose species, ash and sycamore. The ground-flora is moderately
diverse, including shield fern, broad buckler fern, hart’s-tongue fern and male
fern.
5.7 The woodland copses (which are locally designated as “Unconfirmed Wildlife
Sites”) are typical of the most common lowland woodland type (known as Ash-
Field Maple-Dog’s Mercury woodland) but are not particularly species-rich
examples of the type.
Protected Species
Bats
5.8 Records received from a 4 km radius of the site from the Devon Biodiversity
Records Centre were mainly of common species of bat, including common
pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), serotine (Eptesicus serotinus), brown long-
eared (Plecotus auritus) and noctule (Nyctalus noctula) bats. Single records of
the rarer lesser horseshoe (Rhinolophus hipposideros) and greater horseshoe
(Rhinolophus ferrumequinum) bats were also provided.
2014 Bat Activity Surveys
5.9 Overall, an assemblage of twelve bat species was recorded across the site
during activity transect surveys. Species included frequent common and
soprano pipistrelles and noctule bats. Low numbers of, daubenton’s (Myotis
daubentonii), whiskered (Myotis mystacinus), brown long eared (Plecotus
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 17
auritus) and lesser horseshoe bats and even fewer barbastelle (Barbastella
barbastellus), serotine (Eptesicus serotinus), natterer’s and brandts bats were
recorded on site.
5.10 A small number of call recordings lacked the defining features to confidently
differentiate between the numerous Myotis species of bat. Therefore these
recordings have been labelled as unidentified Myotis species.
5.11 Throughout the entire 2014 bat survey season, 54.7 % of bats recorded during
transects were common pipistrelle, 23.2 % were soprano pipistrelle, 13.3 %
were noctule, 3.4 % were lesser horseshoe, 1.5 % were daubenton’s, 1.5%
were unidentified myotis species, 1.3 % were whiskered, 0.3 % were serotine,
0.1 % were natterer’s, 0.1 % were Brandt’s and 0.1 % were barbastelle bats.
5.12 Bat activity throughout the survey season was relatively low intensity, with no
particular area being used substantially more than any other. The transect
routes and an illustration of the relative levels of bat activity is shown in Figure
2.
5.13 Pipistrelle foraging activity was observed relatively frequently with repetitive
passes along hedgerows and around mature trees. Noctule bats were
frequently recorded high above the grassland fields and crop field in the north
of the site. Other bat species however were mainly observed briefly commuting
within the dark habitat corridors across the site, rarely staying in one area for
long.
5.14 Consistent bat activity was recorded around the majority of hedgerows within
the site. However, the internal hedgerows separating the sheep-grazed
grassland fields in the middle of the proposal site had the highest levels of bat
activity. These hedgerows have numerous mature trees within them, are
relatively wide and tall in structure and the majority have wet ditches at their
base, therefore they provide good quality foraging habitat for bats. A
comparatively low number of bats were recorded using the large arable fields
to the north of the A38. Pipistrelle bats were often recorded flying around the
Swallow Court complex and individual bats were observed flying above the
crop field and around the mature trees in the field boundary.
© Environmental Gain Ltd. Based on Ordnance Survey map with the permission of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown Copyright Environmental Gain Ltd. Licence No. WL7882
Eden Westwood
NTS Figure 2: Bat Survey Map
AXA / Friends Life Ltd
eg16747 MD
03-08-16
Environmental Gain Ltd The Old Church School, Butts Hill, Frome, Bath. BA11 1HR T +44(0)1373 888330 F +44(0)1373 888462 [email protected] www.engain.com
Bat Transect Route: Medium to High Bat Activity
Bat Transect Route: Low Bat Activity
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 18
5.15 During transect surveys, lesser horseshoe bats were recorded on four
occasions (7th May, 9th June, 25th June and 22nd July) with repetitive passes on
some occasions.
5.16 On the 7th May an individual lesser horseshoe bat was recorded approximately
one and a half hours after sunset flying within a field corner to the north of
Moorhayes Farm.
5.17 On the 9th June 2014 lesser horseshoe bats passed a surveyor repetitively at
five different locations across the site. The first recording was made twenty
minutes after sunset and the last recording was made forty-five minutes after
sunset. The lesser horseshoe bats were recorded close to the Moto service
station, primarily in fields to the south of Leonard House.
5.18 On the 25th June 2014 a lesser horseshoe bat was recorded flying along the
lane in front of Leonard House, heading south at approximately forty minutes
after sunset.
5.19 On the 22nd July 2014 a lesser horseshoe bat was recorded in a field to the
east of the Moto service station at approximately an hour and a half after
sunset.
2014 Static Data Loggers
5.20 Twelve bat species were identified from static data logger recordings. The
majority of recordings were identified as common pipistrelles, soprano
pipistrelles and noctules. High numbers of daubenton’s bats were also
recorded. Lower numbers of natterers, whiskered, Brandt’s, serotine and
brown long eared bats were also recorded. Lesser horseshoe bats were
recorded on four occasions on three different static dataloggers in April, May
and September 2014.
5.21 In April, one lesser horseshoe bat was recorded in the north of the site, close
to a small woodland copse in the eastern corner of the large crop field adjacent
to the M5 motorway. The other lesser horseshoe bat recorded in April was in a
field to the north of Moorhayes Farm in the middle of the site.
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 19
5.22 In May, a lesser horseshoe bat was recorded close to the same woodland
copse in the north of the site as in April.
5.23 In September, a lesser horseshoe bat was recorded in a field just to the east of
the Moto service station.
Tree Inspection Surveys
5.24 A total of 103 trees were identified as having potential to support roosting bats.
There were 55 trees with low potential, 44 trees with medium potential and six
trees with high potential. The full results of the ground level tree assessment
are provided in a table in Appendix 1, and illustrated in Figure 3.
Dormouse Survey
5.25 There are no statutory or non-statutory sites designated for dormice within 1
km of the site. Devon Biodiversity Records Centre provided no records of
dormice within a 1 km radius of the site.
5.26 Dormouse surveys were carried out in 2014 in connection with highways works
to the M5 junction adjacent to the site, and dormice were recorded during
those surveys.
5.27 The survey area and results of the dormouse surveys conducted for the Eden
Westwood project are shown in Figure 4.
5.28 During the nest tube check on the 26th August 2014, four dormouse nests were
found in separate nest tubes clustered together within hedgerows bordering
the small grassland fields to the east of the service station. One of these nest
tubes had an active dormouse in it. Five wood mouse nests were found in
nest tubes scattered throughout the site; with two in the hedgerow bordering
the M5 motorway in the far north of the site, two in the hedgerow bordering the
road along the eastern site boundary and one in the centre of the site close to
the service station.
5.29 During the nest tube check on the 24th September 2014, six dormouse nests
were found in six separate nest tubes. Four of these nests were in the
hedgerows bordering the small sheep grazed fields to the east of the service
Eden, Westwood (J27), Tiverton
NTS Figure 3: Ground Level Tree Assessment
Friends Life Ltd.
eg16747 MD
Aug 2016
Site Boundary Trees: Groups: Low Potential Low Potential Medium Potential Medium Potential High Potential
Environmental Gain Ltd The Old Church School, Butts Hill, Frome, Bath. BA11 1HR T +44(0)1373 888330 F +44(0)1373 888462 [email protected] www.engain.com
© Environmental Gain Ltd. Based on Ordnance Survey map with the permission of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown Copyright Environmental Gain Ltd. Licence No. WL7882
Eden Westwood
NTS Figure 4: Dormouse Survey Map
AXA / Friends Life Ltd
eg16747 MD
03-07-16
Environmental Gain Ltd The Old Church School, Butts Hill, Frome, Bath. BA11 1HR T +44(0)1373 888330 F +44(0)1373 888462 [email protected] www.engain.com
A A
A
A A
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
pSI
Hedges surveyed for dormouse
Hedges with evidence of dormouse
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 20
station, one nest was in a hedgerow running from east to west in the centre of
the site and the sixth was in a hedgerow bordering a field in the far east of the
site. Four of these nests were in use, with one nest being used by two
dormice. Two active wood mice and their nests were found during the survey,
one in the hedgerow to the east of the service station close to the dormice
nests and the second was in a hedgerow running across the centre of the site.
Badger Survey
5.30 Devon Biodiversity Records Centre provided three records of badgers within a
1 km radius of the application site.
5.31 No signs of badger foraging activity have been recorded during the systematic
survey or during the other protected species surveys.
Great Crested Newts
5.32 Four ponds on site were assessed for their potential to support great crested
newts (Figure 5). Table 5-2 provides the results of the habitat suitability index
assessment of these ponds.
Table 5-2: Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index Score
Parameter Pond Number
1 2 3 4
Grid Ref ST 0504512988 ST0508212907 ST0525513088 ST0460212780
Pond Size
(m2) 288 264 36 64
Drying Rarely Sometimes Never Never
Invertebrates Low – Moderate Low – Moderate Moderate – Good Poor
Shade (%) 80 90 40 50
Water fowl Absent Absent Minor Duck breeding pond
Fish Absent Absent Possible Probably absent
© Environmental Gain Ltd. Based on Ordnance Survey map with the permission of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown Copyright Environmental Gain Ltd. Licence No. WL7882
Eden, Westwood (J27), Tiverton
NTS Figure 5: Ponds Requiring Great Crested Newt Surveys
Friends Life Ltd.
eg16747 MD
Aug 2016
Site Boundary
Pond
Environmental Gain Ltd The Old Church School, Butts Hill, Frome, Bath. BA11 1HR T +44(0)1373 888330 F +44(0)1373 888462 [email protected] www.engain.com
Pond 4
Pond 3
Pond 2
Pond 1
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 21
Parameter Pond Number
1 2 3 4
Ponds within
1km 17 17 14 14
Terrestrial
habitat
Good (surrounded by woodland
Good Good Good
Macrophytes
(%) 0% (although winter survey) 100% 60% Probably 0%
HIS Score 0.0243 0.0175 0.0151 0.0000015
HSI Class Poor Poor Poor Poor
5.33 The HSI pond scores show that of the four ponds, one is unsuitable, and the
remaining three have a low probability of being used by great crested newts.
Access permission was not granted for Ponds 2 and 3, and Pond 4 was
entirely unsuitable for great crested newts due to the high number of ducks
present. As a result the only pond surveyed was Pond 1.
5.34 Pond 1 was surveyed a total of four times on 13th May, 19th May, 8th June and
11th June. All four surveys included bottle trapping and egg searches. A torch
survey was undertaken in three of the surveys, however, on the 19th of May the
water was too turbid to perform a torch surveys so a net survey was
undertaken instead.
5.35 No evidence of great crested newts was found during any of the surveys.
Breeding Bird Survey
5.36 A moderate assemblage of birds were recorded using the site during the
breeding bird surveys. The wide, dense hedgerows in the centre of the site
were used by numerous nesting birds. Three UK BAP species, song thrush
(Turdus philomelos), skylark (Alauda arvensis) and house sparrow (Passer
domesticus) were identified flying over the site and singing and calling from
within hedgerow habitat on site. Three Amber Birds of Conservation Concern
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 22
were recorded flying over the site, including swift (Apus apus), swallow
(Hirundo rustica) and house martin (Delichon urbica).
5.37 There are seven probable breeders on site: blackbird (Turdus merula), robin
(Erithacus rubecula), wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), great tit (Parus major),
song thrush (Turdus philomelos) and blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus), all of
which exhibited signs of breeding on site via territorial behaviour, anxiety calls
or nest building.
5.38 There are seven possible breeders on site including house sparrow (Passer
domesticus), blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla), dunnock (Prunella modularis),
goldfinch (Carduelis carduelis), chaffinch (Fringella coelebs), chiffchaff
(Phylloscopus collybita) and greater spotted woodpecker (Dendrocopos
major). These species were observed during the breeding season within
suitable nesting habitat or a singing male bird or breeding calls were heard.
5.39 Buzzard, carrion crow (Corvus corone), magpie (Pica pica) and herring gull
(Larus argentatus) were also identified flying over the site.
Water Vole Survey
5.40 Devon Biodiversity Records Centre reported no records of water voles within a
1 km radius of the site, and this species is very uncommon in Devon.
5.41 No evidence of water voles (such as latrines or active burrows) were recorded
on the stream or wet ditches on site.
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 23
6 EVALUATION, AVOIDANCE, MITIGATION & ENHANCEMENT
Designated Sites
6.1 The closest designated site is the Grand Western Canal LNR. There are no
direct ecological or hydrological connections between the Eden Westwood
proposal site an the canal. It is possible that there would be an increase in
visitors to the canal once the Eden Westwood proposal was operational, but
because the Eden Westwood site is self-contained this effect is likely to be
small or non-existent. It is therefore not anticipated that there would be any
adverse effect on the Grand Western Canal LNR.
6.2 There are no direct ecological connections between the Eden Westwood site
and any of the SSSI in the surrounding landscape. Furthermore the road
connections between these sites and the Eden Westwood proposal are limited,
so considering this and the distances involved, it is unlikely that visitors to a
largely self-contained retail and leisure facility would also visit any one of these
SSSI. It is therefore not anticipated that there would be any adverse effect on
any SSSI.
6.3 The one exception to this is the Maiden Down SSSI, which is bordered on one
side by the M5 motorway and the A38 road, and is therefore potentially
vulnerable to deposition of airborne pollutants (i.e. oxides of nitrogen) as a
result of increases in traffic, or to increased visitor pressure. An independent
air quality assessment conducted for Devon County Council in 2014 concluded
that the Eden Westwood development would not result in any increase in
nitrogen deposition on the SSSI, and showed that there would be no difference
in the rates of deposition with or without the Westwood development. There
are no public rights of way into the SSSI, and no public car parks. Considering
these factors it is not anticipated that there will be any adverse effects on the
SSSI, although this will be examined in detail in the ecological impact
assessment of the Eden Westwood proposal.
6.4 The Culm Grasslands SAC has also been highlighted in development planning
documents in Devon as vulnerable to increased NOx deposition as a result of
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 24
increased traffic resulting from new development. Based upon the work done
so far it is not anticipated that there would be any significant effect, as the
changes in traffic levels are so small and the predicted changes in NOx
deposition are tiny. Natural England was consulted on this matter and they
concurred that the Eden Westwood project on its own was unlikely to have a
significant effect on the SAC. Owing to the complexity of predicting any effects
that could occur in combination with other plans and projects (the extent of
which is not certain, pending the adoption of relevant Local Plans), the
ecological impact assessment for the Eden Westwood project will examine in
detail whether there is likely to be any significant effect on the SAC as a result
of cumulative effects.
Bats
6.5 Bats are predominantly using the boundary hedgerows and tree lines, and
there is less activity recorded over the open fields. The hedgerows, and the
other linear features such as the stream corridor and woodland edge provide
good connectivity to the surrounding landscape and habitat for foraging bats.
The majority of the bat activity on site is that of the commoner species, but
some of the rarest species were also recorded, albeit in very low numbers.
These results are typical of what would be expected in a landscape of this
character: the hedgerows are important features for common species but there
are no habitats likely to be critical to the favourable conservation status of any
bat species.
6.6 In the absence of avoidance, mitigation or enhancement, the construction of
the proposed development would result in the loss of trees with roosting
potential, a loss of foraging and commuting habitat and an overall reduction in
the functional connectivity of the site and the surrounding landscape for bats.
Artificial lighting could further reduce the functional connectivity of the habitats
once the development was built and operational.
6.7 Should works be required to trees with potential for bats, an inspection using
an endoscope will be conducted to search for evidence of bats, and
emergence and/or re-entry surveys of the trees may be required. Given the
nature and extent of the potential roosting habitat involved, it would be
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 25
possible to mitigate for the loss of any bat roosts through the provision of new
artificial roosting habitat in the form of bat roosting boxes.
6.8 Lighting for the construction and operational phases will be carefully designed
to avoid the illumination of retained habitats. The preferred lighting type for
artificial lights close to areas where bats could be present will be to use lamps
with low or no ultra violet content (Bat Conservation Trust, 2009)20. The height
of lighting columns will be as short as possible and directed downwards at an
acute angle to reduce horizontal spill. Timers may be fitted to lights and
adjusted to the minimum required time to reduce the ecological impact of
lighting on the proposed site.
6.9 As much of the existing hedgerow network as possible has been retained in
the proposed development design. Retained hedgerows will not be illuminated
by artificial lighting and will be managed to promote fruiting, flowering and tall,
bushy growth.
Dormice
6.10 Devon is a stronghold for dormice, and the population at the Eden Westwood
site is a relatively small proportion of the County population. As a nationally
protected species that is at risk of decline throughout its range, the Eden
Westwood site is nevertheless an important component of the overall
favourable conservation status of the species. In the absence of avoidance or
mitigation, the proposed development would result in the loss of dormouse
habitat and the killing or injury of a small number of dormice.
6.11 A European Protected Species licence will be sought prior to any works to the
hedgerows on site. This would entail a method statement to detail the means
of moving dormice away from hedgerows that will be lost and into retained
habitat. Prior to this translocation, the retained habitats will be enhanced
through management and the provision of nesting boxes to increase the
overall carrying capacity for dormice. Given the scale of the development
proposals, it is likely that the habitat enhancement and translocation of
dormice would occur over a phased period, which would lessen the short term
impact on dormice.
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 26
6.12 By retaining and enhancing the woodlands and a proportion of the hedgerows,
and planting new hedgerows and woodland, it will be possible to ensure that
the current dormouse population is maintained and there will be no overall
adverse effect on the favourable conservation status of the species as a result
of the proposed development.
Great Crested Newts
6.13 There was no evidence of any newts (of any species) using the pond. There
was spawn and tadpoles of common frogs (Rana temporaria).
6.14 The surveys are sufficient to conclude that great crested newts are not present
and would therefore not be affected by the development proposals. There is a
very small likelihood that great crested newts are present in the ponds that
were not surveyed. However, given the quality of the ponds and surrounding
habitat, the geographic location and the lack of desktop records, it is near
certain that they are not present.
6.15 The development design incorporates the provision of additional ponds and
watercourses, which will increase the habitat available for amphibians.
Breeding Birds
6.16 A moderate assemblage of breeding and over-wintering birds has been
recorded on site including several UK BAP and red listed species. Both the
breeding and over-wintering assemblages are of local value. The habitats of
greatest value for these species in the proposed development area are the
hedgerows and hedgerow trees and woodlands, with improved grassland used
to a lesser extent.
6.17 There will be some loss of nesting, foraging and sheltering habitat for birds
within the site during construction. Birds will be able to continue to use retained
habitat throughout the construction period although this will be subject to
increased disturbance.
6.18 The proposals will retain large areas mature hedgerow, scrub and trees and
include additional planting of woodland, hedgerows and scrub including native
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 27
berry bearing species to provide continuing habitat for nesting and foraging
bird species.
6.19 The removal of suitable nesting habitat should occur outside of the nesting
season (March to August) or have a suitably experienced ecologist present to
inspect vegetation prior to removal.
Conclusions
6.20 The locally designated wildlife sites within the development’s boundary will be
protected, enhanced and managed favourably as part of the development
proposal.
6.21 The proposed development would not have any direct effects on statutory
designated sites. It is unlikely to have a significant effect on the Culm
Grasslands SAC. A detailed assessment of effects will be presented in the
ecological impact assessment for the project. There is potential for the Eden
Westwood project to contribute to a significant positive impact on the SAC
through the mechanism of Devon Wildlife Trust’s “Working Wetlands” project
which aims to help landowners carry out targeted habitat management,
creation and restoration projects.
6.22 The Eden Westwood proposal site presents a typical example of the range of
wildlife found in Devon’s countryside. This includes some legally protected
species such as bats and dormice, and a wide range of other flora and fauna.
6.23 There is sufficient scope within the site’s red line boundary to avoid, mitigate
and compensate for any adverse effects on protected species.
6.24 The habitat creation, management and enhancement proposed as part of the
Eden Westwood project has the potential to increase functional connectivity
between currently isolated woodlands, increase the net amount of habitat
available to species such as bats and dormice, and create a landscape better
able to support breeding populations of these and other species. Subject to
these measures being embedded in the scheme, the Eden Westwood project
can meet and exceed the requirements of ecological legislation and planning
policy and contribute to sustainable development in the County.
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 28
7 REFERENCES
1. The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (UK Parliament). The National Archives
[online]. Available from:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1160/contents/made [September
2014]
2. Council of the European Communities (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC
of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora (EN). Official Journal of the European Communities [online]. 35,
7-50. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:1992:206:TOC [September 2014]
3. European Parliament and the Council of 30 November 2009 (2010)
Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (EN). Official Journal
of the European Union [online]. 53, 7-25. Available from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2010:020:TOC [September
2014]
4. The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations
2012 (UK Parliament). The National Archives [online]. Available from:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1927/contents/made [September
2014]
5. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (England and Wales)
(Amendment) Regulations 2004 (UK Parliament). The National Archives
[online]. Available from:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/39/contents [September 2014]
6. Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (UK Parliament).
The National Archives [online]. Available from:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/contents [September 2014]
7. Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (UK Parliament). The National
Archives [online]. Available from:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/contents [September 2014]
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 29
8. Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) National
Planning Policy Framework [online]. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data
/file/6077/2116950.pdf [September 2014]
9. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Circular (2005) Government Circular:
Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their
Impact within the Planning System [online] Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data
/file/7692/147570.pdf [September 2014]
10. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2011) Biodiversity
2020: A Strategy for England’s Wildlife and Ecosystem Services [online]
Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data
/file/69446/pb13583-biodiversity-strategy-2020-111111.pdf [September
2014]
11. Mid-Devon Local Development Framework – Core Strategy 2026
(Adopted July 2007) [online] Available at:
http://www.middevon.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=7872&p=0
[September 2014]
12. Natural England (2013) Magic [online]
Available from: http://magic.defra.gov.uk/home.htm [September 2014]
13. Hundt, L. (2012) Bat Surveys: Good Practise Guidelines, 2nd edition. Bat
Conservation Trust.
14. Mitchell-Jones, A.J. (2006) Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature (now
Natural England).
15. Mitchell-Jones, A.J. & McLeish, A.P. Ed. (2004) 3rd Edition Bat Worker’s
Manual.
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747
Page 30
16. Dormouse Conservation Handbook, 2nd edition (2011) [online] Available
from: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/80018 [August
2014]
17. Harris, S., Cresswell, P. & Jeffries, D. (1989) Surveying Badgers. Mammal
Society.
18. National Rivers Authority (1992). River Corridor Surveys. Conservation
Technical Handbook Number 1. - See more at:
http://www.cieem.net/habitats-aquatic#sthash.KkBTUHrL.dpuf
19. Oldham, R.S., 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.
20. Bibby, C.J, Burgess N and Hill D (1992) Bird Census Techniques. British
Trust for Ornithology and Royal Society for The Protection of Birds.
21. Bat Conservation Trust – Bats and Lighting in the UK (2009) [online]
Available from:
http://www.bats.org.uk/data/files/bats_and_lighting_in_the_uk__final_versi
on_version_3_may_09.pdf
Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report
On Behalf of: Friends Life Ltd 10 August 2016 eg16747 Appendix 1
APPENDIX 1: GROUND LEVEL TREE ASSESSMENT FOR BATS
!Ground'Level'Tree'Assessment'Survey'Sheet'! ! ! ! !
Site:'J27,'M5'–'Section'1' Date:'10B12B2014' Surveyor:'JW+EF!No.' Species' Age' Features! Tree'
Category1'Description! Height! Direction! Distance!from!trunk!
Feature!Category!
1! Oak! M! Tall!and!leggy,!spares!ivy!cover,!no!obscured!features.!Rot!on!upper!branches!may!go!back!into!trunk,!may!be!some!smaller!cavities.!
! ! ! ! 2!!!
2! Oak! M! Sparse!ivy!cover,!similar!to!1.!Possible!small!crevices!half!way!up!trunk,!may!not!go!anywhere.!Smaller!lower!branches!rot!back!towards!the!trunk.!Forked!trunk.!Long!leggy!trunks.!Both!same!features.!
! ! ! !
2!
3! Oak! SFM! Small!rot!holes,!sparse!ivy!at!bottom.! ! East! 6m!high! ! 2!4! Oak! SFM! Dense!ivy,!could!be!obscuring!small!features.! ! ! ! ! 2!Gp!1! Spruce! ! Pair!of!spindly!spruces,!dense!ivy.! ! ! ! ! 2!5! Oak! M! Leaning!tree,!loose!bark,!with!cavities!underneath.!! ! ! ! ! 2!6! Oak! M! Double!trunk,!sparse!ivy,!some!rot!in!branches!in!canopy.!No!
cavities!in!those.!Lower!branches!over!field!have!transverse!splits.!A!few!features.!
! Field!side!looking!N!
3F5m! !1!
Gp!2! Ash! SFM! Pair!of!Ash,!long!a!leggy,!sparse!to!moderate!ivy!cover,!both!have!a!knot!hole!
! S! 7F8m! ! 2!
7! Ash! SFM! Leggy,!long!tall,!moderate!to!dense!ivy,!from!half!way!up!to!canopy.!Good!condition.!!
! ! ! ! 2!
8! Oak! M! In!hedge!line.!Several!dead!limbs!in!upper!and!middle!canopy!rotting!back!towards!trunk.!Dense!ivy!cover!could!be!obscuring!roosting!features.!
! ! ! !1!
9! Oak! M! In!hedge!line.!Split!limb!about!¾!up.!No!other!features!of!interest.!No!ivy.!
! E! ! ! 2!
10! Oak! M! In!hedge!line.!Small!branches!with!transverse!splits!about!half!way!up!tree.!Moderate!ivy!cover!to!half!way!up.!Rot!hole!half!way!up!about!4m.!!
! ! ! !2!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!Category!1*!–!Tree!with!multiple,!highly!suitable!features!capable!of!supporting!larger!roosts;!Category!1!–!Trees!with!definite!bat!potential,!supporting!fewer!suitable!features!than!Category!1*!trees!or!with!potential!for!use!by!single!bats;!Category!2!–!Trees!with!no!obvious!potential,!although!the!tree!is!of!a!size!and!age!that!elevated!surveys!may!result!in!cracks!or!crevices!being!found,!or!the!tree!supports!some!features!which!may!have!limited!potential!to!support!bats;!Category!3!–!Trees!with!no!potential!to!support!bats.!!
!Ground'Level'Tree'Assessment'Survey'Sheet'! ! ! ! !
11! Oak! M! Along!Drovers!Track.!Rot!hole!about!7m!high,!visible!for!arable!field.!Sparse!ivy!at!base!of!trunk,!on!western!side!there!is!a!rotten!branch.!
! S! 7m!up! !1!
12! Oak! M! Forked!trunk.!Southern!most!split!of!trunk!is!dead!with!vertical!splits!all!the!way!up,!some!upto!1”!wide.!!
! ! ! ! 1!
13! Oak! M! In!hedge.!Couple!of!rot!holes!in!main!trunk.!Some!obscured!by!ivy.!Dead!limbs!in!middle!of!trunk.!No!potential!for!roosting!bats.!Rot!hole!on!underside!of!branch.!Crows!nest.!
! E! 6m! !2!
14! Oak! M! In!hedge.!Moderate!ivy!cover!but!good!condition.!No!rot.!! ! ! ! ! 2!15! Beech! SFM! On!edge!of!woodland.!Vertical!split!through!horizontal!branch.!
Small!rot!hole!worth!checking.!Frost!crack!about!9m!! E! 5m! ! 1!
16! Beech! Young! Tall!and!leggy!in!wood.!Old!scar!2m!up!from!base!on!northern!side.!Possible!for!one!or!two!bats.!May!need!an!endoscope.!
! ! ! ! 2!
17! Beech! Young! Inside!pheasant!pen.!Left!hand!fork!has!a!frost!crack!with!bracket!fungus.!Not!suitable!for!climbing.!
! ! ! ! 2!
Gp!3! Beech! Young! Pair!one!dead!one!alive.!!Dead!has!LOW!potential.!Live!tree!has!a!large!hole!about!6m!up!going!back!into!tree.!
! ! ! ! 1!(live!tree)!
18! Beech! Young! Spindly,!moderate!dense!ivy!possibly!obscuring!features!but!in!good!condition.!
! ! ! ! 2!
19! Beech! Young! Tall!spindly,!small!partly!healed!tear!in!trunk,!with!shallow!hole.! ! ! 14m! ! 2!20! Beech! Young! Spindly,!rot!holes!within!first!3m!could!be!reached!by!ladder.! ! E! ! ! 1!21! Sycamore! ! Moderate!to!dense!ivy!about!half!way!up.!Small!cracks!but!
probably!low!potential.!!! ! ! ! 2!
22! Sycamore! SFM! Vertical!crack!partially!healed!with!some!rot!back!into!trunk.! ! W! 7m! ! 2!23! Sycamore! ! MultiFstemmed,!edge!of!wood,!a!few!woodpecker!holes!on!
branches.!Could!check!with!ladder.!In!field!next!to!tree!23,!there!is!evidence!of!badger!foraging!(discarded!maize!husks).!
! NFW!and!SFE!
! !1!
Gp!4! Sycamore! ! 3!trees.!First!is!partly!dead!with!a!few!woodpecker!holes.!Second!has!very!thin!trunk!with!a!couple!of!rot!holes.!Third!is!slightly!further!down!woodland,!long!tear!at!about!5m.!
! ! ! !1!
24! Beech! SFM! On!edge!of!woodland.!A!vertical!tear,!partly!healed!but!rotted!back.!Could!be!climbed!to!for!inspection.!!
! ! ! !1!
!Ground'Level'Tree'Assessment'Survey'Sheet'! ! ! ! !
25! Sycamore! SFM! On!edge!of!wood,!rot!hole!at!about!1m!up,!wet!at!base,!but!may!dry!further!in.!worth!checking!with!an!endoscope.!
! ! ! ! 1!
26! Sycamore! Young!! Multi!stemmed.!Several!rot!holes!with!different!aspects.!Each!hole!quite!small.!
! ! ! ! 1!
27! Beech!! SFM! Several!woodpecker!and!rot!holes.!Close!to!footbridge!over!ditch.!Possibly!climbable!with!ladder.!Needs!checking.!
! W! ! ! 1!
28! Beech! Young! Tall!and!leggy,!two!branches!have!fused!back!together!about!2F3m.!No!signs!that!bats!are!using.!
! N! ! ! 2!
29! Oak! SFM! Edge!of!woodland,!by!arable!field.!At!about!10m!high!there!is!a!broken!limb,!rotted!back!to!trunk.!Under!side!curves!back!into!cavity.!!
! W! 10m! !1!
30! Sycamore! Young! Several!rot!holes!worth!checking!with!ladder.!Inside!edge!of!woodland.!
! SFW! ! ! 1!
31! Sycamore! SFM! Rot!hole/!long!tear!rotting!back!into!trunk.!Could!be!checked!with!ladder.!
! W! 5m! ! 1!
32! Sycamore! SFM! Double!stem.!Several!rot!holes.!Quite!a!lot!of!rot!in!centre!of!trunk.!Couldn’t!view!top!of!some.!!
! S! 5m! ! 1*!
Gp!5! Oak! M! Pair!of!trees,!edge!of!wood.!One!has!side!branch!with!rot!hole!on!under!side!visible!from!field!facing!West.!The!other!has!big!dead!branch!with!narrow!horizontal!split!1”!wide.!
! ! ! !1!
33! Sycamore! Young! Cavity!facing!field!on!edge!of!wood.!Could!reach!with!tall!ladder.!
! ! ! ! 1!
34! Ash! M! On!edge!of!wood.!Small!hole!dug!out!by!woodpecker.! ! E! 5F6m! ! !35! Sycamore! Young! Cavity!running!from!bottom!of!trunk.!Split!at!top,!unsure!of!
deep.!Would!need!further!investigation.!!! ! ! ! 2!
36! Ash! SFM! Large!hole!facing!east,!visible!from!edge!of!wood.! ! On!fork.! 7F8m! ! 1!37! Oak! M! Dense!ivy!covering!the!trunk,!possibly!obscuring!features.!
Spindle!bush!growing!out!of!it.!! ! ! ! 1!
38! Oak! M! Small!splits,!not!much!ivy!cover.!Splits!and!cracks!are!all!quite!low!down!over!the!field.!
! ! ! ! 2!
39! Oak! M! Moderate!ivy!cover!up!much!of!the!trunk.!Several!rot!holes!going!into!a!number!of!branches.!One!large!hole!about!5m!up,!facing!North!on!road!side.!Broken!limb!out!over!field.!
! Over!field! 15m!! !1!
!Ground'Level'Tree'Assessment'Survey'Sheet'! ! ! ! !
40! Oak! M! In!hedge.!Dense!ivy!around!main!part!of!trunk.!Smaller!rot!holes!in!lower!branches.!!
! ! ! ! 1!
41! Oak! M! Next!to!B!road!and!arable!field.!Moderate!ivy!cover.!Some!broken!limbs!with!loose!bark!around!top,!small!rot!hole!sin!upper!branches.!
! ! ! !1!
42! Oak! M! Mostly!if!not!entirely!dead.!Moderate!ivy!cover!over!main!trunk!and!branches.!Dead!limbs!at!the!top,!mostly!rotted!on!outside.!
! ! ! ! 1!
43! Oak! M! Several!dead!limbs!with!longitudinal!splits,!which!may!be!worth!checking.!
! ! 10F15m! ! 2!
44! Oak! M! In!hedge.!Dense!ivy,!difficult!to!see!branches.!Some!holes!could!go!back!into!trunk.!!
! ! ! ! 1!
45! Oak! M! Good!condition,!a!few!small!outer!dead!branches.!Dense!ivy!further!up!in!mid!section!that!could!be!obscuring!crevices.!
! ! ! ! 2!
Gp!6! Copse! SFM! No!holes!or!cavities.!Most!trees!have!ivy!cover!and!are!mature!or!semiFmature!ash.!Each!tree!is!LOW!potential.!A!few!spruce!species.!
! ! ! !1!
46! Oak! M! In!hedgerow.!Smaller!dead!limbs!may!have!splits!which!rot!back!into!tree.!
! ! ! ! 1!
!
!Ground'Level'Tree'Assessment'Survey'Sheet'! ! ! ! !
Site:'J27,'M5'–'Section'2' Date:'10B12B2014' Surveyor:'JW+EF!No.' Species' Age' Features! Tree'
Category1'Description! Height! Direction! Distance!from!trunk!
Feature!Category!
1! Oak! M! In!hedge.!Isolated.!Longitudinal!splits!in!outer!branches!on!eastern!side.!Knothole!facing!south.!Moderate!ivy!cover.!!
! ! ! !1*!
2! Ash! M! Moderate!ivy!cover.!Reasonable!condition.! ! ! ! ! 2!Gp!1! Oaks! ! 5!trees.!3!with!sparse!ivy!cover,!hazard!beam!feature,!
MOD!potential.!Large!woodpeckers!holes!in!leggy!oak,!which!is!barely!alive,!high!ivy,!cover.!HIGH!potential.!!
! ! ! !1!
3! Oak! M! Tall!and!leggy.!Thick!ivy!stems!although!ivy!is!dying,!so!not!much!leaf!cover.!
! ! ! ! 2!
4! Poplar! M! Moderate!ivy!cover!on!first!15m!of!trunk.! ! ! ! ! 2!5! Sycamore! ! Long!tear!which!has!rotted!back!about!half!way!up.!! ! ! ! ! 1!6! Stump!
(sycamore)!! Rot!hole!at!top!may!be!exposed!inside,!about!5m!up.! ! ! ! ! 1!
7! Oak! M! Moderately!dense!ivy!in!canopy..!No!apparent!rot!holes.!
! ! ! ! 2!
8! Oak!! M! Quite!exposed,!loose!bark!at!crown!of!tree.! ! ! ! ! 2!9! Oak! M! Small!hole!on!north!eastern!side,!may!go!deeper.!Small!
split!on!branch!out!towards!motorway.!! ! ! ! 2!
10! Sycamore! M! Spindly!tree,!split!facing!westXNW.! ! ! ! ! 2!11! Birch! M! Spindly,!hole!facing!East!–NE,!may!rot!back!into!trunk.!
Small!tree.!!! ! ! ! 1!
12! Birch! M! Long!scar!at!bottom,!partly!healed!and!rots!back!into!trunk!at!around!3m!up.!Could!be!checked!by!
! ! ! ! 2!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!Category!1*!–!Tree!with!multiple,!highly!suitable!features!capable!of!supporting!larger!roosts;!Category!1!–!Trees!with!definite!bat!potential,!supporting!fewer!suitable!features!than!Category!1*!trees!or!with!potential!for!use!by!single!bats;!Category!2!–!Trees!with!no!obvious!potential,!although!the!tree!is!of!a!size!and!age!that!elevated!surveys!may!result!in!cracks!or!crevices!being!found,!or!the!tree!supports!some!features!which!may!have!limited!potential!to!support!bats;!Category!3!–!Trees!with!no!potential!to!support!bats.!!
!Ground'Level'Tree'Assessment'Survey'Sheet'! ! ! ! !
stepladder.!13! Sycamore!! M! Partly!healed!tear!half!way!up,!6m,!thin!trunk.! ! ! ! ! 2!Gp!2! Sycamores! M! Spindly!tress!both!with!long!tears!partly!healed.!Thin!
trunks.!! ! ! ! 2!
14! Sycamore! M! Two!split!on!trunk.! ! ! ! ! 2!15! Ash! M!
!Two!big!woodpecker!holes!at!around!20m! ! SW! ! ! 1*!
16! Sycamore! M! Rotten!at!bottom,!cavity!from!base!of!tree.!Knot!hole!going!back!into!trunk.!
! S! 2X3m! ! 1!
17! Sycamore! SXM! Multi!stemmed,!at!base!of!one!of!stems!is!a!large!hole!leading!into!cavity.!
! ! ! ! 2!
18! Oak! M! Broken!branch!over!field,!rot!goes!back!into!branch.!! ! ! 6X7m! ! 2!19! Oak! M! Edge!of!woodland,!branch!towards!motorway!(west)!
has!long!split.!Potential!for!crevice!dwelling!bats!(individual).!
! ! ! !2!
20! Oak! M! Broken!branch!out!into!field,!with!horizontal!split.! ! ! ! ! 2!Gp!3! Oak! M! 2!trees!in!good!condition.! ! ! ! ! 2!21! Ash! M! In!woodland,!several!woodpecker!holes.!! ! S! ! ! 1*!22! Ash! M! Edge!of!wood,!dense!ivy!all!the!way!up,!may!be!
obscuring!holes.!! ! ! ! 1!
23! Oak! M! Inside!edge!of!wood.!Some!rotten!branches!although!most!of!tree!in!good!condition.!One!branch!has!reasonable!sized!cavity!entrance.!
! SXE! 20m! !1!
24! Beech! SXM! One!rot!hole!goes!back!into!trunk.!Rot!that!goes!back!into!trunk,!with!smaller!cavities.!
! ! ! ! 1!
25! Oak! M! Edge!of!woodland.!Canopy!reduced,!dead!limbs.!Two!extend!out!over!field!with!horizontal!splits,!may!not!have!any!cavities.!
! ! ! !2!
26! Oak! M! On!edge!of!wood.!Y!shaped.!Four!big!branches!coming!out!top!of!trunk.!Ferns.!Branches!facing!field!have!2!
! ! ! ! 1*!
!Ground'Level'Tree'Assessment'Survey'Sheet'! ! ! ! !
possible!cavities.!Could!go!in!quite!deep!with!reasonable!potential.!Endoscope!required.!
27! Oak! SXM! In!hedgerow!with!2!rot!holes!which!may!both!go!back!into!trunk.!Reached!by!ladder!potentially.!!
! S! 4X6m! !1!
28! Oak! M! In!hedgerow!with!2!broken!branches.!Loose!bark!and!horizontal!splits.!
! S! 6m! !2!
29!! Oak! M! In!hedgerow,!rot!hole!3m!up!facing!south.!Upward!facing!split!may!need!closer!look.!
! ! ! !1!
30! Oak! M! By!stream!in!hedgerow.!Rotten!branches!throughout!canopy.!Still!alive.!Some!ivy!on!lower!trunk!on!western!side.!Some!broken!limbs!with!horizontal!cracks.!Possible!small!holes!from!fallen!branches.!!
! ! ! !
2!
31! Oak! M! Dying!moderately!dense!ivy.!A!fair!bit!of!rot!on!tree.! ! ! ! ! 2!32! Oak! M! In!hedgerow.!Few!dead!branches!at!various!heights!in!
canopy.!On!of!which!at!5m!rots!back!into!trunk!facing!east.!Hole!at!8m!facing!east,!may!go!back!into!trunk.!Few!small!splits!and!missing!bark.!
! ! ! !
1!
Gp!4! Oak! M! 2!trees.!Moderate!to!dense!ivy!all!the!way!up!trunk!and!most!of!canopy!branches.!A!few!small!fallen!branches!have!left!rot!holes!over!lane.!May!be!rot!holes!further!up.!
! ! ! !
2!
33! Ash! SXM! In!hedgerow.!Frost!cracks!on!lowest!branch.!Viewed!from!west,!a!crack!faces!east,!a!may!go!in!a!short!way.!
! ! ! !2!
34! Oak! M! On!hedgerow.!On!eastern!facing!branches!there!is!a!small!rot!hole!going!into!branch.!
! ! ! !2!
35! Oak! M! Hardly!any!ivy,!small!split!on!branch!facing!east.!! ! ! ! ! 2!36! Oak! M! In!hedge.!On!one!branch!facing!west,!a!small!split!goes!
right!and!left.!Some!of!the!split!goes!back!into!branch.!! ! ! !
2!
37! Oak! M! Moderate!ivy!with!thick!stems.! ! ! ! ! 2!!
!Ground'Level'Tree'Assessment'Survey'Sheet'! ! ! ! !
Site:'J27,'M5'–'Section'3' Date:'10C12C2014' Surveyor:'JW+EF!No.' Species' Age' Features! Tree'
Category1'Description! Height! Direction! Distance!from!trunk!
Feature!Category!
1! Oak! S'M! A!few!broken!branches!and!long!splits.! ! W! ! ! 2!2! Oak! M! Corner!of!field.!Moderate!ivy!cover.!Some!rot!goes!back!
towards!trunk.!No!obvious!big!cavities.!! ! ! ! 2!
3! Oak! M! On!hedge!bank,!pretty!good!condition!with!a!few!dead!branches.!Small!cavities!likely.!
! ! ! ! 2!
4! Oak! M! Small!areas!of!rot,!dead!branches!going!back!into!main!trunk.!!
! ! ! ! 1!
5! ! ! Split!branch!slightly!pointed!upwards,!partly!healed!split.!Both!visible!from!eastern!side!of!tree.!
! ! ! ! 1!
6! Oak! M! 1!small!rot!hole!on!branch!facing!east.! ! ! ! ! 2!Gp!1! ! ! 5trees!(5!oak,!2!ash)!moderate!ivy!on!main!trunk,!no!other!
features.!! ! ! ! 2!
7! Oak! M! Dead.!A!fair!bit!of!rot!and!a!woodpecker!hole!at!northern!most!point!of!trunk.!
! ! ! ! 1!
8! Oak! M! Covered!in!moderately!to!sparse!ivy.!Some!rot!on!outer!branches.!One!hole!leading!to!cavity!halfway!up!trunk.!!
! ! ! ! 1!
9! Oak! S'M! Quite!small,!quite!thick!ivy!cover.!Trunk!not!visible.! ! ! ! ! 2!10! Oak! S'M! Quite!dense!ivy!across!most!of!trunk!and!canopy.!Thick!
stems.!Good!condition.!! ! ! ! 2!
11! Ash!! M! Small!narrow!tree,!unlikely!to!be!of!interest.! ! ! ! ! 2!12! Ash! M! Top!of!trunk!has!vertical!branch!that!has!broken!off.!Some!
woodpecker!holes!worth!a!check.!!
! ! ! !2!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!Category!1*!–!Tree!with!multiple,!highly!suitable!features!capable!of!supporting!larger!roosts;!Category!1!–!Trees!with!definite!bat!potential,!supporting!fewer!suitable!features!than!Category!1*!trees!or!with!potential!for!use!by!single!bats;!Category!2!–!Trees!with!no!obvious!potential,!although!the!tree!is!of!a!size!and!age!that!elevated!surveys!may!result!in!cracks!or!crevices!being!found,!or!the!tree!supports!some!features!which!may!have!limited!potential!to!support!bats;!Category!3!–!Trees!with!no!potential!to!support!bats.!!
!Ground'Level'Tree'Assessment'Survey'Sheet'! ! ! ! !
Gp!2! ! ! 2!Oak!trees!and!a!sycamore.!Oak!to!the!west!has!rot!hole!in!lowest!branch!pointing!north,!may!go!in!a!way.!Sycamore!has!rot!hole!in!trunk!about!3'4m!up!facing!north.!Oak!to!east!has!long!healed!tear!on!underside!of!branch!pointing!east,!no!cavities!visible.!Worth!checking.!
! ! ! !
1!
13! Oak! M! Moderate!ivy!cover!on!trunk!and!lower!branches.!Good!condition!but!a!few!dead!branches.!Loose!bark!on!one!branch!pointing!west.!
! ! ! !2!
14! Oak! M! In!hedge!by!shed.!As!above.!Reasonable!condition.! ! ! ! ! 2!Gp!3! ! M! Poplar!and!Oak!together.!Moderate!ivy!cover.!Bits!of!trunk!
visible.!A!little!bit!of!rot!on!the!Oak.!Poplar!has!dead!branch.!! ! ! ! 2!
Gp!4! Ash! M/S'M!
6!S'M,!1M.!Mature!has!dense!ivy,!S'M!have!moderate.!! ! ! ! ! 1!
15! Oak! M! Large!broken!branches.!Moderate!ivy.!Big!splits!on!some.!Pointing!N,S!and!W.!No!features!visible,!but!ivy!does!obscure!some!potential!features.!
! ! ! !1!
16! Oak! M! Dense!ivy!near!top!of!tree.!A!bit!of!rot!into!side!branches.!Small!crevices.!
! ! ! ! 2!
17! Ash! M! Dense!ivy!on!trunk!and!lower!branches.!Good!condition.!Reduction!of!canopy!to!south,!some!dead!branches.!
! ! ! ! 1!
18! Oak! M! On!lane.!1!broken!branch!has!created!a!rot!hole,!one!hole!facing!south.!
! ! ! ! 1!
19! Oak! M! 1!woodpecker!hole!in!northern!face!one!in!southern!face.!! ! ! ! ! 1*!Gp!5! Oak! M! 3!trees,!with!ivy!cover!and!could!be!obscuring!potential!
features.!! ! ! ! 2!
20! Oak! M! Sparse!ivy!cover,!bit!of!rot,!a!few!broken!branches,!small!splits,!nothing!of!great!potential.!Possible!tear!into!rot!hole!about!10m!up,!visible!from!N.!
! ! ! !1!
!