Bat Survey Report April 2011 Entec UK Limited · Viridor Waste Management Heathfield Integrated Waste Management Facility Bat Survey Report April 2011 Entec UK Limited

Viridor Waste Management

Heathfield Integrated Waste Management Facility

Bat Survey Report

April 2011

Entec UK Limited

Copyright and Non-Disclosure Notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Entec (© Entec UK Limited 2011) save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Entec under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report.

The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Entec. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.

Third Party Disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Entec at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. Entec excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.

i

h:\data\projects\project subfiles\25134 heathfield\eia_es_nov_10\final es issue\appendix f\25134 bat report final.doc © Entec UK Limited April 2011

Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose of this Report 1 1.2 Site Context 1

2. Methods 3

2.1 Desk Study 3 2.2 Field Survey 3 2.2.1 Building Inspections 3 2.2.2 Tree Inspections 4 2.2.3 Active Detector Surveys 4 2.2.4 Passive Detector Surveys 5 2.2.5 Sound Analysis 6 2.2.6 Trapping 6 2.2.7 DNA Analysis 6

3. Results 7

3.1 Desk Study 7 3.2 Field Survey 9 3.2.1 Building Inspections 9 3.2.2 Tree Inspections 9 3.2.3 Active Detector Survey 10 3.2.4 Passive Detector Survey 16 3.2.5 Trapping 18 3.2.6 DNA Analysis 18

4. Evaluation 19

4.1 Evaluation Methodology 19 4.2 Results of Evaluation 22 4.2.1 Overview 22 4.2.2 Common Pipistrelle 22 4.2.3 Soprano Pipistrelle 23 4.2.4 Nathusius’ Pipistrelle 23 4.2.5 Long-eared Bats 24

ii


4.2.6 Myotis Bats 25 4.2.7 Noctule 25 4.2.8 Serotine 26 4.2.9 Leisler’s Bat 26 4.2.10 Barbastelle 26 4.2.11 Greater Horseshoe Bat 27 4.2.12 Lesser Horseshoe Bat 28 4.2.13 Roost Significance 29

Table 2.1 Sources of desk study information 3 Table 2.2 Survey schedule 5 Table 3.1 Summary of bat records occurring within 4km of the site (from DBRC, 2009) 8 Table 3.2 Trees and groups of trees on the Heathfield site with potential to support roosting bats 10 Table 3.3 Summary of active survey results: number of passes per species 12 Table 3.4 Summary of Anabat survey results: number of passes per species (refer to Figure 2.3 for

Anabat locations) 17 Table 4.1 Estimated population sizes of UK bat species 19 Table 4.3 Conservation significance of bat roosts on the Heathfield site and guidelines for

proportionate mitigation 29

Appendix A Legislation and Policy Context Appendix B Figures Appendix C Weather Conditions During Bat Activity Surveys

1


1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of this Report Proposals exist to develop an Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) within Heathfield Landfill site, Kingsteignton, Devon (approximate central Grid Reference SX857761)1. The current proposals are a revision of the previously consented scheme for an IWMF which was given permission in May 2005 (ref 05/3070/04).

Entec UK Ltd (Entec) was commissioned by Viridor Waste Management Ltd (Viridor) to undertake an update ecological assessment in support of a planning application for the proposed works. The initial survey2 highlighted the presence of bats using habitats across the site.

Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9)3 states that the planning system has a significant part to play in meeting the Government’s international commitments and domestic policies for habitats, species and ecosystems, and sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system. The Statement and its accompanying guidance notes4,5 make it clear that protected species are capable of being a material consideration in determining a planning application. Regional and local development planning policies are designed to reflect national policy in this respect.

Entec was therefore commissioned to carry out further survey work to assess the status of bats on the site. The information gathered will be used to inform a mitigation and enhancement strategy, and an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed scheme on bat populations using the site as part of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). It will also enable site development to proceed without contravening the legislation relating to bats. This report details the methods adopted, the results of the survey work undertaken, and makes recommendations for further work where this is appropriate.

1.2 Site Context The site is located approximately 3km north of Kingsteignton and 2km southeast of Chudleigh Knighton. It measures 12.99ha and comprises a strip of land running east to west along the southern edge of the active landfill site (Figure 1.1). The site is set within a rural landscape

1 Hereinafter, the area of land to be directly affected by the redevelopment is referred to as the site. 2 Entec UK Ltd. (2011). Heathfield Landfill Site: Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report. Entec, London. 3 ODPM (2005). Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. 4 ODPM (2006). Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice. 5 ODPM (2005). Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact Within the Planning System. ODPM Circular 06/2005.

2


dominated by grazing pasture, an extensive network of hedgerows, woodland and a large area of active and disused mineral workings. John Acres Lane, a relatively quiet road that appears to be used predominantly by heavy vehicles accessing the landfill site, runs along much of the southern edge of the site. Within the boundaries of the site itself are areas of hardstanding and buildings, as well as narrow strips of mixed woodland, short sections of hedgerow, a large surface water attenuation pond, leachate lagoons, grassland and scrub.

3


2. Methods

2.1 Desk Study The Devon Biodiversity Records Centre (DBRC) was contacted for records of bats, to a distance of 4km from the site boundary. In addition, reports detailing previous survey work carried out on or adjacent to the site have been reviewed6. These predominantly relate to the documentation that was associated with an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) completed for the wider Heathfield Landfill Site in 2004. All sources of desk study information are listed in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Sources of desk study information

Topic Source of information

Records of bats within 4km Devon Biodiversity Records Centre (2009)

Greater horseshoe bat strategic flyways and sustenance zones for the South Hams Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

Natural England (2010): http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/product.aspx?ProductID=afe176aa-22d1-4262-bc1e-6e0f98050966 (accessed October 2010)

Details of South Hams SAC Joint Nature Conservation Committee website: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?EUCode=UK0012650 (accessed October 2010)

Heathfield Landfill Site Environmental Statement, February 2004: Ecology Chapter

SLR Consulting (2004)

Heathfield Landfill Site Bat Survey John K. Kaczanow, Specialty Chiroptera Research (2002-03)

Radio tracking study of greater horseshoe bats at Chudleigh Caves and Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest

English Nature (2002). Research Report Number 496.

2.2 Field Survey

2.2.1 Building Inspections The two farm outbuildings on the site (Figure 2.1) were inspected externally on 25 February 2010 using a pair of binoculars. Any potential bat roost sites, such as loft spaces, and gaps under tiles and bargeboards, were recorded, as were opportunities for bats to access potential 6 Note that Entec is not responsible for the validity, and therefore does not warrant any data gained through the desk study from external sources which have been used to inform this assessment.

http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/product.aspx?ProductID=afe176aa-22d1-4262-bc1e-6e0f98050966

http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/product.aspx?ProductID=afe176aa-22d1-4262-bc1e-6e0f98050966

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?EUCode=UK0012650

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?EUCode=UK0012650

4


roosts (e.g. cracks, holes, loose tiles, weatherboards). In addition, any evidence of bats (e.g. scratching, staining, lack of cobwebbing across potential bat access points, and droppings) around potential roost exits were noted. Access was possible to the ground floors only, for health and safety reasons. The accessible areas were inspected internally by a Natural England licensed bat ecologist (Katheryn Leggat, licence no. 20103804). Any roosting bats or evidence of bats (e.g. droppings, urine stains, discarded insect remains, absence of cobwebbing within potential roost crevices) were recorded, and the location of potential access points determined where possible.

Following investigations into the structural safety of the buildings, further internal inspections were carried out on 2 February 2011. This involved an inspection of suitable crevices in the structures for hibernating bats, as well as using a ladder to access the upper floors of the buildings to identify potential roosting opportunities.

2.2.2 Tree Inspections Mature trees on the site, and immediately adjacent to the site boundary, that may be affected by the proposed development were inspected from ground level using close focussing binoculars and a powerful light source. This involved searching for evidence of cavities, splits, cracks, loose bark and dense/woody ivy (Hedera helix) growth that could be used by bats for roosting. In addition, any evidence of bats (e.g. scratching, staining or droppings) around potential roost entrances was recorded.

A purpose built bat box is present on a tree within the woodland on the southern boundary of the site, which forms part of Fosterville Woods UWS. This box was not checked by Entec, however SLR checked the box for any signs of bat occupation in April 2010 and provided the resulting data for the purposes of this assessment.

2.2.3 Active Detector Surveys The site was divided into four initial survey transects (A, B, C and D), shown in Figure 2.2, which together encompassed all of the main areas of habitat on the site that could potentially be used by bats. Transect D was shortened following the first survey visit due to health and safety concerns associated with the road traffic (road races were found to take place late at night, and there are no verges along the northern section of the road). Based on early survey results, it was considered that further surveys in the eastern part of the site would not result in any additional data being obtained. It was therefore decided that effort during further survey visits would be focussed in the western part of the site. Transects A and B were therefore subject to further data collection, with two additional transects, E and F (Figure 2.2) being designed to obtain more detailed information from the habitats around transect B.

Transects were surveyed from May to October, with one to four survey visits each month. Each survey visit began 15-30 minutes before sunset and ended 3 hours after sunset, with the exception of the survey visit on 15 June, which was designed predominantly to detect bat emergence from the farm outbuildings on transect A. This visit therefore ended 1.5 hours after sunset, to encompass the usual emergence periods for all UK building-dwelling bat species. All other surveys of transect A involved approximately the first 2 hours spent observing the buildings for bat emergence, and the remaining 1.5 hours spent recording bat activity around the transect.

5


Table 2.2 details which transects were surveyed on each date. During each visit a combination of visual observation and aural frequency division bat detectors (Batbox Duet or Pettersson D-230), which enable bats’ ultrasonic calls to be heard, were used to record bat activity. All bat calls were recorded digitally (Edirol R-09, Roland R-05, or Zoom H2). Survey work was undertaken in line with best practice guidelines, as set out by the Bat Conservation Trust7. All visits took place when there was no excessive rain or wind and the temperature was above 10°C, these being conditions in which bats will not be deterred from flying.

Table 2.2 Survey schedule

Transect A

Transect B

Transect C

Transect D

Transect E

Transect F

Anabat deployed

17 May X X X

18 May X X X

24 May X X X

25 May X X X

1 June X X X

2 June X X X

15 June emergence X

16 June X X X

29 July X X X X

3 August X X X

18 August X X X

9 September X X

21 September X X

13 October X X X

2.2.4 Passive Detector Surveys In order to obtain additional information on bat activity throughout the night, on 12 of the survey dates (see Table 2.2) an Anabat SD1 bat detector was placed on-site from 15-30 minutes before sunset, until after sunrise the following morning. The locations at which the Anabat was situated on each date are shown on Figure 2.3.

The Anabat has internal storage and computing power that allows the unit to be used as a remote fixed-point detector. Recording is triggered by high frequency ultrasound, such as bat calls, in the vicinity of the detector, and any recordings are stored as discrete 15-second sound files on an internal compact flash card, along with date and time. If bat activity continues for more than 15 seconds successive sound files are created until ultrasound is no longer detected.

7 Bat Conservation Trust (2007). Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines. BCT, London.

6


The Anabat sound files may contain a number of individual bat passes (discrete groups of ultrasound calls). For the purposes of analysis, the recording of one or more passes by a single species of bat within a 15 second sound file is counted as a single bat pass. More than one pass of the same species is counted within a sound file if multiple bats were recorded calling simultaneously.

2.2.5 Sound Analysis Recordings made during the transect surveys were analysed using BatSound software, and bat calls recorded by the Anabat were analysed using Analook software, to confirm the identity of the bats present. Where possible, calls were identified to species level. Some records were not identified to species level due to the overlapping call parameters of some species, making species identification problematic. In these cases records were identified to groups of species where possible, with the following groups used:

• Myotis sp. (bat species in the genus Myotis)

• Plecotus sp. (brown or grey long-eared bats)

• Pipistrellus sp. (common or soprano pipistrelles)

• Rhinolophus sp. (horseshoe bats)8

• Bat sp. (calls that could not be ascribed to a species group).

2.2.6 Trapping On 1 June, 15 June, and 29 July 2010, attempts were made to capture bats emerging from building A, by licensed personnel, in order to aid species identification. Static hand nets with extended handles were positioned over potential roost exits before dusk, so that any bats emerging from these gaps in the roof of building A would be captured.

2.2.7 DNA Analysis Full internal access to the buildings was only possible once the safety of such had been confirmed. On 2 February 2011 therefore, the upper floor of building A was accessed in order that any bat droppings present could be collected. Droppings were then submitted to the University of Warwick School of Life Science laboratory for DNA analysis, to aid the identification of bat species using the building.

8 Horseshoe bat calls were not identified to species level when the bat was clearly heard by the surveyor, but the call was too quiet for the call to register visually in the BatSound software.

7


3. Results

3.1 Desk Study Chudleigh Caves SSSI, which forms part of the South Hams Special Area of Conservation (SAC), lies 800m north of the application site (Figure 3.1). The SAC receives statutory designation primarily for its internationally important population of the greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). South Hams is thought to hold the largest population of this species in the UK, and is the only roost containing more than 1,000 adult bats (31% of the UK species population). It contains the largest known maternity roost in the UK and possibly in Europe, and also acts as a hibernation site for bats.

The Heathfield Landfill site falls within the Roost Sustenance Zone (RSZ), and the Young Sustenance Zone (YSZ) for greater horseshoe bats at Chudleigh Caves. The RSZ is generally taken to be a 4km9 radius around a known greater horseshoe bat maternity roost where most foraging activity by adult females is concentrated. The YSZ is generally considered to be a 1km radius around the roost, the habitat within which is vital for juvenile bats when they are learning to hunt. Natural England has identified ‘strategic flyways’ for greater horseshoe bats within the RSZ of South Hams. These are the corridors considered most likely to link the SAC component roosts and foraging habitats with the contiguous landscape features most likely to be used by the bats. The strategic flyways are 500m wide to allow for a variety of actual flightpaths to be adopted by greater horseshoe bats under different conditions (e.g. seasonal or weather variations). One strategic flyway incorporates much of the Gappah Brake CWS, and includes a small area in the northwest of the current application site that lies adjacent to this designated site (Figure 3.1).

DBRC provided 86 records of bat activity from within 4km of the site, dating from 1971 to 2008. Only one of these records occurs within 1km of the site: an injured whiskered bat (Myotis mystacinus) that was collected approximately 930m to the southeast. The species recorded within the search radius, and the location of the closest records to the Heathfield site, are shown in Table 3.1.

9 Natural England (2010). South Hams SAC - Greater horseshoe bat consultation zone planning guidance. Natural England, Exeter.

8


Table 3.1 Summary of bat records occurring within 4km of the site (from DBRC, 2009)

Common name Linnean nomenclature

Number of records

Date range of records

Approximate distance (m) & direction from site of nearest record

Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus 4 1998-2008 1425 N

Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus 2 2008 3015 SW

Nathusius’ pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii 1 2008 3980 SE

Unidentified pipistrelle Pipistrellus sp. 17 1991-2008 1250 N

Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus 11 1991-2008 1250 N

Unidentified long-eared bat

Plecotus sp. 8 1991-2008 1405 N

Greater horseshoe bat

Rhinolophus ferrumequinum

6 1971-2008 2160 SW

Lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros

12 1986-2008 1250 N

Natterer’s bat Myotis nattereri 2 1994-2008 2690 SW

Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii 2 2005-2008 2160 SW

Whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus 4 1999-2005 930 S

Noctule Nyctalus noctula 4 1993-2008 2020 SW

Serotine Eptesicus serotinus 1 2006 2720 NE

Unidentified bat - 12 1993-2008 1890 W

Survey work in 2002/03 identified roosts of pipistrelle, lesser horseshoe and long-eared bat10 within the boundaries of the current application site. These roosts occurred within a farmhouse that has since been destroyed in a fire (Figure 3.2). During these surveys a night roost for greater horseshoe bat was found within disused piggery buildings 60m north, and a noctule roost was found within a Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) tree 220m north of the eastern end of the site (Figure 3.2).

The wooded habitats along the southern and eastern site boundaries were highlighted as a foraging and commuting route for greater horseshoe bats from the South Hams SAC during a radio-tracking study in 2002 (Figure 3.2). Previous survey work (not undertaken by Entec) on the wider landfill site, completed in 2002/03, also confirmed the presence of at least 10 bat species foraging/commuting nearby. These were barbastelle (Barbastella barbastellus), long-eared bat10, common pipistrelle, Daubenton’s bat, greater horseshoe, lesser horseshoe, Natterer's bat, noctule, soprano pipistrelle, and whiskered/brandt's bat (Myotis mystacinus/Myotis

10 Previous survey reports relating to the site highlighted roosting and foraging brown long-eared bat, however there is no evidence that the survey effort was sufficient to confirm the identification as brown long-eared rather than grey long-eared bat.

9


brandtii). The surveys highlighted the importance of foraging habitat adjacent to the site boundaries, although the previous bat survey work did not directly cover the current application site, focussing instead on the areas to the north.

Research currently being undertaken at the University of Bristol has highlighted a grey long-eared bat (Plecotus austriacus) roost in Kingsteignton. Individuals from this colony are known to use habitats within 2km east of the Heathfield site for foraging (pers. comm. Orly Razgour, University of Bristol, 2011).

3.2 Field Survey

3.2.1 Building Inspections Building A (Figure 2.1) is 1-2 storeys high with brick-built walls with no cavity. The single storey section has a sloping corrugated roof, while the two-storey section has a pitched, tiled roof with lead flashing around the edges. There are several holes present as a result of missing tiles on the roof, and wooden boards line much of the walls of the upper floor. Extensive gaps behind such boarding have the potential to support roosting bats. Crevices occur both within the structure of the roof and underneath lead flashing that have the potential to support bats.

Building B (Figure 2.1) comprises a two-storey brick building with a solid wall, and a pitched tiled roof under laid by wooden boards. On two sides this building has single storey extensions, comprising brick walls without a cavity, and corrugated roofs with no underlay. Potential bat roosting sites occur between the roof tiles and the wooden underlay, and within small gaps that occur where beams meet inside the roof space. Wooden boards around the eaves of the buildings also offer gaps within which bats may roost. The interiors of both the buildings are relatively well-lit owing to open doorways and windows.

A low number of bat droppings (maximum 5 in each building) were located on the walls and upper floors of the buildings during the building inspection work; however, the survey was undertaken during the winter and any droppings around features on the exterior of buildings would have been washed away by rainfall. A collection of moth wings was apparent in the corner of the upper floor of building B. Any droppings or feeding remains on the first floor of building A were likely to have been washed away or damaged since the previous active season due to large holes in the roof that let precipitation in.

In February 2011, a single long-eared bat was recorded hibernating in building B, in a gap where the ground floor ceiling meets the wall. A similar crevice in building A also supported a long-eared bat, while a common pipistrelle was present within a crevice in the brick structure of the doorway. (The long-eared bats were not sufficiently visible to permit identification to species.)

3.2.2 Tree Inspections The trees within the site itself are generally tall but very small in diameter, and do not have features that may be used by roosting bats, but 15 pedunculate oak (Quercus robur) trees within the site boundaries do offer potential roosting sites for bats. Trees considered to have the potential to support bats were particularly focussed along the eastern and south-eastern site boundaries, as indicated on Figure 3.3. Additionally, 4 pedunculate oak trees with the potential

10


to support roosting bats occur outside of, but very close to, the north-western site boundary (Figure 3.3). Further details are provided in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Trees and groups of trees on the Heathfield site with potential to support roosting bats

Tree reference (see Figure 3.3)

Description Features with potential for roosting bats

Trees within the site boundary, due to be removed

A 8 pedunculate oak trees ranging from approximately 5 to 12m tall, with a trunk diameter of around 50-100cm. All support some ivy growth.

All have a small amount of limb damage, splits and/or flaking bark. Further features on all the trees may be concealed by dense ivy growth.

B 2 pedunculate oak trees approximately 10m tall, with trunk diameters of 80 and 100cm. Both support some ivy growth.

Both have damaged limbs with cracks, splits and flaking bark. Further features may be concealed by dense ivy growth.

C 4 pedunculate oak trees approximately 10m tall, with trunk diameters of around 80cm. All are densely covered in ivy.

Dense ivy growth prevents a full visual assessment being made, and may conceal features with roosting potential.

D A single pedunculate oak tree approximately 20m tall with a trunk diameter of 100cm. It supports some ivy growth but this is not dense.

The tree has some damaged limbs with cracks, splits and flaking bark. Further features may be concealed by the ivy growth, or may not be visible from the ground due to the height of the tree.

Trees immediately adjacent to the site boundary (will not be removed)

E A single pedunculate oak tree approximately 15m tall with a trunk diameter of around 80cm. It supports some dense, woody ivy growth and has some broken limbs.

The tree has some damaged limbs with cracks, splits and flaking bark. Further features may be concealed by the ivy growth, or may not be visible from the ground due to the height of the tree. Where ivy growth is very dense, the woody stems may also form a suitable crevice in which bats may roost.

F 3 pedunculate oak trees approximately 20m tall with a trunk diameter of 100cm. All support some dense woody ivy growth and have broken limbs and/or woodpecker holes.

The tree has some damaged limbs with cracks, splits and flaking bark. Further features may be concealed by the ivy growth, or may not be visible from the ground due to the height of the tree. Where ivy growth is very dense, the woody stems may also form a suitable crevice in which bats may roost.

SLR confirmed to Viridor via e-mail on 21 February 2011 that the bat box that is present within the woodland strip along the southern site boundary showed no evidence of bat occupation in April 2010.

3.2.3 Active Detector Survey

Overview At least twelve species of bat were recorded on the site during these surveys, namely:

• Common pipistrelle;

11


• Soprano pipistrelle;

• Nathusius’ pipistrelle;

• Daubenton’s bat;

• Natterer’s bat;

• Long-eared bat11;

• Noctule;

• Serotine;

• Leisler’s bat (Nyctalus leisleri);

• Barbastelle;

• Lesser horseshoe bat; and

• Greater horseshoe bat.

Additionally it is expected that other species in the genus Myotis use the site, although these could not be identified to species level during the current survey. It is highly likely that whiskered bats use the site, with further potential for Brandt’s and/or Alcathoe bat (Myotis alcathoe) to occur. These latter two species are very similar to the whiskered bat, and the identification of the three species is commonly confused. Whiskered bat is thought to be slightly more common and widespread than Brandt’s bat. Alcathoe bat, however, was only confirmed as a resident UK species in 2010; previously it had been misidentified as whiskered/Brandt’s and therefore its status and distribution are not known.

A summary of the results from the active detector surveys, indicating the number of passes of each species recorded on each transect by survey date, is provided in Table 3.3. Figures 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 illustrate these results.

11 It is very difficult to distinguish between the two British species of long-eared bats: brown long-eared (Plecotus auritus) and grey long-eared (Plecotus austriacus). Both are known to occur in the vicinity of the Heathfield site, therefore it has not been possible to identify long-eared bat recordings to species level.

12


Table 3.3 Summary of active survey results: number of passes per species

Transect & Date CP12 P SP NP N S L B LE M D GH LH H Bat

Building emergence only

15 June 100 11 5 0 7 0 0 0 7 7 0 27 0 2 0

Transect A

17 May 35 2 6 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 0

24 May 101 80 28 14 1 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 3 0

1 June 42 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 5 7 0 4 1 0 0

29 July 75 3 25 0 3 1 0 0 1 2 0 11 1 1 0

3 August 98 0 15 0 8 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0

21 September 143 9 7 0 3 0 0 0 3 4 0 2 15 1 0

Transect B

17 May 44 16 25 0 1 0 0 0 0 16 13 1 0 2 0

24 May 119 5 45 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 14 2 2 0 0

1 June 129 16 83 0 5 0 0 0 5 8 14 2 2 0 0

12 CP = common pipistrelle; SP = soprano pipistrelle; P = Pipistrellus sp.; NP = Nathusius’ pipistrelle; N = noctule; S = serotine; L = Leisler’s bat; B = barbastelle; LE = long-eared bat; M = Myotis sp.; D = Daubenton’s bat; GH = greater horseshoe bat; LH = lesser horseshoe bat; H = Rhinolophus sp.; bat = not identified to species.

13



29 July 42 0 29 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 20 0 4 0 0

3 August 271 32 305 0 40 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 4 0

21 September 97 4 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0

Transect C

18 May 21 1 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0

25 May 174 7 63 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

2 June 120 9 85 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

16 June 101 41 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0

29 July 71 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Transect D

18 May 24 10 18 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

25 May 21 3 4 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0

2 June 13 4 9 0 0 0 1 0 2 10 0 4 0 0 0

16 June 16 4 17 0 1 0 0 1 0 7 0 1 0 0 0

Transect E

18 August 39 6 38 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 26 0 0 0 0

9 September 92 15 101 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 200 26 2 0 0

13 October 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Transect F

18 August 57 4 58 0 3 3 1 0 1 14 0 0 0 2 0

14



9 September 34 6 114 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0

13 October 59 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0

15


Pipistrelle Bats By far the most frequently encountered species was the common pipistrelle; this species was recorded throughout the site foraging or commuting in all habitats (Figure 3.5). In particular, foraging activity was focussed around the southern edge of the large attenuation pond and adjacent wooded habitats, around the farm outbuildings and over the adjacent compost plant, and around security lights at the eastern end of the site (Figure 3.5). This species was regularly seen less than 30 minutes after sunset, across the site. On each emergence survey of the farm outbuildings, at least 1 common pipistrelle bat emerged from building B (Figure 2.1), with 5 emerging on 15 June, and 2 on 21 September. Additionally, a single common pipistrelle was thought to have possibly emerged from building A on 15 June, and 5 individuals emerged from building A on 21 September.

Soprano pipistrelles were also detected regularly across the entire site, with a focus in foraging activity around the southern edge of the large attenuation pond and adjacent wooded habitats, along the track to the southeast of the compost plant, and over a lagoon that lies along the site track (Figure 3.5). This species was heard less that 30 minutes after sunset on around a third of the surveys, and on all transects with the exception of A, where the earliest soprano pipistrelles were recorded was 39 minutes after sunset.

Nathusius’ pipistrelle was recorded occasionally around the southern edge of the large attenuation pond and adjacent wooded habitats and around the farm outbuildings (Figure 3.5) no less than 34 minutes after sunset. On the single occasion that section 11 of transect D was surveyed, 2 passes of the species were heard in this location.

Long-eared Bats Long-eared bats were predominantly heard around the farm outbuildings, but were also recorded within the wooded habitats around most edges of the large attenuation pond. Occasional passes in the wooded areas of the eastern part of the site were also recorded (Figure 3.6). A single long-eared bat emerged from building A during each of the emergence surveys on 17 May and 15 June, with 2 emerging on 1 June and 13 emerging on 24 May. The bats emerged from various gaps in the roof structure. On 21 September, long-eared bat activity was also recorded inside building A 1 hour and 52 minutes after sunset.

Myotis Bats Myotis bats were recorded across most areas of the site, particularly foraging over the attenuation pond, where the bat could be seen during many passes and could be identified as Daubenton’s bat based on its flight behaviour (Figure 3.6). Other passes could not be identified to species, with the exception of a single pass by a Natterer’s bat near the farm outbuildings on 17 May (Figure 3.6), which was recorded clearly enough to be identified. The majority of the Myotis passes were heard more than 45 minutes after sunset, although Daubenton’s passes on 17 May, 18 August and 9 September were heard at 34, 36 and 39 minutes after sunset respectively in the western part of the site.

Serotine, Noctule, Leisler’s and Barbastelle Occasional serotine and Leisler’s bat passes were recorded during the survey work, predominantly around the western part of the site: over the attenuation pond and near the outbuildings (Figure 3.7). These species were also recorded along the site track, and Leisler’s bat was recorded in the lane that runs east to west along the outside of the site. All passes of

16


serotine and Leisler’s bat were heard more than 1 hour after sunset, with the exception of a Leisler’s pass recorded just 23 minutes after sunset on 3 August within woodland on the western edge of the application site.

Regular noctule passes were recorded during the survey work, particularly in the western part of the site where they were seen over the farm outbuildings and attenuation pond (Figure 3.7). This species was recorded less than 10 minutes after sunset on 2 survey visits, and less than 25 minutes after sunset on a further 4 dates.

A single barbastelle pass was heard near the farm outbuildings on 1 June, more than an hour after sunset (Figure 3.7).

Horseshoe Bats Both greater and lesser horseshoe bats were regularly recorded around the farm outbuildings, and were also heard within the woodland habitats that surround the attenuation pond on the north, west and south. Occasional passes were heard along John Acres Lane, outside the application site boundary (Figure 3.8). All horseshoe bat passes were heard more than 45 minutes after sunset, except those heard at transect A, which were generally between 30 and 40 minutes after sunset. On both 1 June and 15 June greater horseshoe bats were recorded repeatedly flying in and out of the farm outbuildings, particularly building A. On 21 September, lesser horseshoe bats displayed similar behaviour at building A, and 2 individuals were seen hanging from the ceiling of the ground floor room.

3.2.4 Passive Detector Survey A summary of the results from the Anabat survey, indicating the total number of passes by each species on each date, is provided in Table 3.4. The location of the Anabat on each date is shown on Figure 2.3.

17


Table 3.4 Summary of Anabat survey results: number of passes per species (refer to Figure 2.3 for Anabat locations)

Date CP12 P SP NP N S L B LE M GH LH Bat

In and around farm outbuildings

17 May 34 1 53 0 0 0 0 1 1 21 1 2 2

2 June 7 5 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

15 June 20 13 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 267 6 2

29 July 163 208 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0

3 August 125 44 5 0 26 0 0 0 0 2 3 10 1

18 August 24 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

On site track

25 May 21 15 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

1 June 12 2 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 5 0 0

16 June 48 1 59 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

13 October 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

John Acres Lane (outside of site boundary)

24 May 160 10 53 0 6 4 1 16 1 15 5 6 3

18 May 17 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18


The highest levels of activity for both greater and lesser horseshoe bats were recorded when the Anabat was placed inside building A, with 267 greater horseshoe recordings made on 15 June. The majority of this activity (254 passes) was recorded in the period 2 to 2.5 hours before sunrise. On 1 June the only greater horseshoe bat activity recorded was 2 passes approximately 45 minutes after sunset, and a further 3 passes approximately 30-40 minutes before sunrise.

High levels of common pipistrelle activity were also recorded in building A, although the Anabat also recorded high levels of common pipistrelle and unidentified pipistrelle bat activity in building B. Only single passes of Nathusius’ and Leisler’s bats were recorded by the Anabat, on the site track and on John Acres Lane respectively. A low number of serotine passes were recorded in similar locations. The highest recorded levels of barbastelle activity were on John Acres Lane, outside the application site, although a single pass was also recorded on the edge of a horse grazed field on the north-western boundary of the site.

Noctule bat passes were recorded predominantly at around 20 minutes after sunset and 10 minutes before sunrise on 29-30 July, when the Anabat was facing into building B. Similarly, noctule activity on 3-4 August, when the Anabat was inside building A, was focussed around 10 minutes after sunset and 10 minutes before sunrise.

3.2.5 Trapping Attempts to trap bats emerging from building A were not successful. Just 1-2 long-eared bats emerged from building A on 1 June and 15 June, and these exited from gaps in the roof of the building not covered by hand nets. No long-eared bats emerged from the building during the third trapping attempt, on 29 July.

3.2.6 DNA Analysis Much of the upper floor of building A was damp from rainwater as a result of the large gaps in the roof, and it is likely that this caused damage to any bat droppings that may have been present. That said, a small sample (approximately 5 droppings) was present in reasonable condition, and was therefore collected and submitted for analysis. Unfortunately the testing was inconclusive, and it was not possible to identify the species of bat from which the sample had come.

19


4. Evaluation

4.1 Evaluation Methodology The biodiversity conservation value of the bat populations identified at the Heathfield Landfill site has been assessed. The evaluation uses professional judgement in drawing together information about the characteristics of the bat populations and their distribution, the availability and quality of suitable habitats both on-site and in the wider landscape, and the findings of both the desk and field studies. The estimated UK, England and Devon bat population sizes referred to for the purposes of this evaluation are provided in Table 4.1. Unless otherwise indicated, these estimates have been taken from Battersby (2005)13. In addition, reference has been made to the conservation significance of bat roosts as set out in the Bat Mitigation Guidelines14, provided in Table 4.2. Regardless of the findings of the assessment, there is a need to recognise that bats are legally protected and measures must be taken to ensure that contravention of the relevant legislation is avoided.

Table 4.1 Estimated population sizes of UK bat species

Species Estimated UK population size

Estimated England population size

Estimated Devon population size

European status (IUCN Red List category)15

Status in the UK13

Common pipistrelle

2,430,000 Great Britain: 1,280,000

Data unavailable Least concern Common

Soprano pipistrelle

1,300,000 Great Britain: 720,000

Data unavailable Least concern Common

Nathusius’ pipistrelle

16,000 Great Britain: 4,000

Data unavailable Least concern Rare

Daubenton’s bat 560,000 95,000 Data unavailable Least concern Common

Natterer’s bat 148,000 70,000 Data unavailable Least concern Common

13 Battersby, J. (ed.) (2005). UK Mammals: Species Status and Population Trends: First Report by the Tracking Mammals Partnership. JNCC/Tracking Mammals Partnership, Peterborough. 14 Mitchell-Jones, A.J. (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough. 15 Temple, H.J. and Terry, A. (2007). The Status and Distribution of European Mammals. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Available from: http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2007-006.pdf [accessed 31 January 2011]. This document evaluates European species against a set of criteria, and categorises them on a scale of: least concern/near threatened/vulnerable/endangered/critically endangered/extinct in the wild/extinct.

20


Species Estimated UK population size

Estimated England population size

Estimated Devon population size

European status (IUCN Red List category)15

Status in the UK13

Whiskered bat 64,000 30,500 Data unavailable Least concern Common in west and north England; Rare elsewhere

Brandt’s bat 30,000 22,500 Data unavailable Least concern Common in west and north England; Rare elsewhere

Alcathoe bat Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable

Brown long-eared

245,000 155,000 Data unavailable Least concern Common

Grey long-eared bat

1,000 1,000 Data unavailable Least concern Very rare

Noctule 50,000 45,000 Data unavailable Least concern Uncommon; Absent from Northern Ireland

Leisler’s bat 28,000 9,750 Data unavailable Least concern Scarce in mainland Britain; Common in Ireland

Serotine 15,000 15,000 Data unavailable Least concern Uncommon, restricted to Southern England

Barbastelle 5,000 4,500 Data unavailable Vulnerable Rare

Greater horseshoe

6,600 Data unavailable 2,500-2,80016 Near threatened Very rare, confined to southwest England and south Wales

Lesser horseshoe

50,00017 9,000 Data unavailable Near threatened Rare, confined to southwest England and Wales

16 Devon Biodiversity Partnership (2009). The Nature of Devon: A Biodiversity and Geodiversity Action Plan. 17 Estimated UK lesser horseshoe bat population size in 2008, taken from: Bat Conservation Trust (2009). The National Bat Monitoring Programme: Annual Report 2009. JNCC.

21


Table 4.2. Conservation significance of roost types and guidelines for proportionate mitigation (from Mitchell-Jones, 200414)

22


4.2 Results of Evaluation

4.2.1 Overview Foraging habitat suitable to support bats is present across the entire site; this includes water bodies, scrub, grassland and woodland (Figure 3.4). The eastern part of the site, however, is well-lit and therefore of limited value to bat populations. While some bat species (e.g. noctule, Leisler’s, serotine and pipistrelle bats) will forage around artificial lighting, feeding on the insects that are attracted by the lights, other bat species (e.g. long-eared bats, Myotis species, barbastelle and horseshoe bats) avoid well-lit areas to the extent that lighting can form a barrier to their movement. Foraging around artificial lights increases the chances of predation, and lighting draws insects away from darker habitats, reducing prey availability for the light averse species.

The darker habitats in the western part of the site, including an estimated 2ha of woodland, 2.5ha of grassland and the large attenuation pond (approximately 1ha), do however provide good bat foraging areas (Figure 3.4). The large attenuation pond may provide a source of drinking water and invertebrate prey for bats. Furthermore the woodland strips that form the edges of the site are thought to provide connectivity with the local landscape. Despite light spill from the eastern part of the site, there is some evidence that the darker corridor provided by John Acres Lane, outside the site boundary, is also used by commuting light-sensitive bat species.

Results of the active and passive surveys have shown that the farm outbuildings provide summer daytime and night-time roosts as well as winter hibernation sites for bats. Building A is used by a maternity colony of long-eared bats, provides small day roosts for common pipistrelles, and night roosts for long-eared bats and greater and lesser horseshoes bats. It also provides a hibernation site for at least two of these species: long-eared bat and common pipistrelle. Building B supports small roosts of common pipistrelle bats, and may also provide a night-time roost for greater horseshoe bats. It also supports at least one species in hibernation: long-eared bat. A low number of trees on-site, and immediately adjacent to the site boundary near the farm outbuildings, have the potential to support roosting bats, although no evidence of bats emerging from these was noted during the evening transect survey work.

4.2.2 Common Pipistrelle The common pipistrelle is the most common and widespread bat species in the UK (see Table 4.1), and is very adaptable; large roosts are almost exclusively found in inhabited dwelling houses, and suburban gardens are commonly used for foraging. This is reflected in the current survey results, where the species was the most frequently encountered and widespread across the application site. Building B is used as a small roost for common pipistrelle, with at least 1 individual emerging on each survey visit, as well as 5 emerging on 15 June, and 2 on 21 September. Building A is also used occasionally by this species, with a single common pipistrelle thought to have emerged on 15 June, and 5 individuals emerging on 21 September. It is unlikely that either building is used by a breeding colony of common pipistrelle, as maternity roosts usually comprising 50-100 individuals18, although the five bats recorded emerging in

18 Dietz, C., von Helversen, O. and Nill, D. (2009). Bats of Britain, Europe & Northwest Africa. A & C Black Publishers, London.

23


June may represent a small gathering roost used by pregnant females prior to joining the rest of the maternity colony. The species was regularly recorded less than 30 minutes after sunset across the Heathfield site, indicating that other roosts are likely to be present in the wider area close to the site. A single common pipistrelle was recorded hibernating in building A and this structure, and that provided by building B, may support further hibernating bats within crevices that could not be fully seen. The surrounding landscape provides an abundance of habitats that are very suitable for common pipistrelle and are therefore likely to provide a wide range of roost sites and foraging habitat, of at least as good quality for common pipistrelle as that on the site.

4.2.3 Soprano Pipistrelle The soprano pipistrelle is also a common and widespread UK species and uses similar roosting and foraging habitat to the common pipistrelle, although this species will commonly use trees for roosting as well as buildings18. In general soprano pipistrelles tend to prefer roosting and feeding close to water bodies and waterways, which explains the focus of the activity on-site around the attenuation pond and the lagoon (Figure 3.5). There was no evidence during the current survey work that this species was roosting within the site boundaries, however it was recorded less than 30 minutes after sunset on approximately one third of the survey visits, indicating that roosts do occur close to the site. The wider landscape is considered to provide an abundance of habitats and roosting opportunities that are of at least as good quality for soprano pipistrelle as that found within the site.

4.2.4 Nathusius’ Pipistrelle Nathusius’ pipistrelle is a rare species in mainland Britain (Table 4.1), which is most frequently encountered during the autumn months when it is thought to undertake long-distance migration. Little is known about the status and distribution of the resident, breeding population in the UK, with only three confirmed maternity colonies known in 200119 and no more than seven confirmed by autumn 201020. Nathusius’ pipistrelle generally forages over freshwater, with aquatic insects making up the majority of their diet. In the UK roosts are generally within buildings, but may also be in trees, close to water. Low levels of occasional activity for this species were recorded on the application site, predominantly in the western part of the site (Figure 3.5) where the large attenuation pond provides the species’ preferred prey. The recordings of this species, made during the summer months, indicate a resident population in the local area, as opposed to being transient migrants as would be expected from recordings made only during the spring and autumn. That said, there was no evidence to suggest the species may be roosting on-site, and it is unlikely that the on-site habitats are of importance to the conservation of local populations of Nathusius’ pipistrelle.

19 Russ, J.M., Hutson, A.M., Montgomery, W.I., Racey, P.A. and Speakman, J.R. (2001). The status of Nathusius' pipistrelle (Pipistrellus nathusii Keyserling & Blasius, 1839) in the British Isles. Journal of Zoology. 254: 91-100. 20 Russ, J. (2004). Nathusius' pipistrelle in Great Britain & Ireland: Great Britain and Ireland distribution [online] (last updated 7th October 2010). Available from: http://www.nathusius.org.uk/Distribution.htm (accessed 19 January 2011).

24


4.2.5 Long-eared Bats The desk study has indicated that both brown and grey long-eared bats occur within 2km of the site. Previous survey work on the Heathfield site indicated that a brown long-eared bat roost occurred on the site in 2002/03, while ongoing research into grey long-eared bats involves a roost in the nearby settlement of Kingsteignton. It is impossible to distinguish between the two British species of long-eared bats through flight observations and sound recordings alone, therefore it was not possible to determine during this survey work which species is using the site.

The survey results indicate that building A provides one of a variety of roosts in the local area used by a long-eared bat maternity colony, with at least 13 individuals recorded during one survey within the bat maternity period, followed by several survey visits in which no long-eared bats emerged from the building suggesting that the colony had moved to an alternative roosting site in the local area. On average brown long-eared bat maternity colonies comprise between 5 and 50 individuals, while grey long-eared bat maternity roosts tend to support between 10 and 30 animals18. That said, the two species are known to regularly share roosting sites, and may occur together within a mixed species roost18. Both farm outbuildings act as hibernacula for long-eared bats, and the presence of a pile of moth wings in the corner of building B suggests it is probably used as a feeding perch. This type of night time roost is used by long-eared bats to hang up and consume larger prey items, with the indigestible remains (i.e. moth wings) discarded.

A low level of foraging activity was recorded on the site, focussed around the farm outbuildings and the wooded habitats around the western part of the site (Figure 3.6). The level of foraging and commuting activity is likely to be under-represented in the survey results, however, as long-eared bat echolocation calls are extremely quiet, typically only detectable by aural detectors within a range of 5m. These species tend to be light averse, and as a result the well-lit habitats in the eastern part of the Heathfield site are unlikely to be of importance in maintaining the local population of brown or grey long-eared bats. The majority of long-eared bat foraging activity is generally focussed within a 500m radius of the roost, although individuals will sometimes feed over 2km away, and grey-long eareds will more often feed over a larger area than brown long-eareds (up to 5.5km from the roost)18. Habitats within and to the north of the western part of the site however, are likely to provide important woodland foraging habitat for the colony roosting on-site. Furthermore, the Gappah Brake woodland provides cover close to the farm outbuilding roost and therefore enables bats to emerge earlier in the evening. John Acres Lane, which provides a darker corridor of habitat, may also provide a commuting route for these light-averse species when they are travelling greater distances from the roost. The connectivity that these features provide with the wider landscape is therefore likely to be valuable to the long-eared bat population.

The brown long-eared bat is a relatively common and widespread species throughout the UK; however the grey long-eared bat is one of the UK’s rarest species, and has been recorded in only a few locations in southern England. If the roost in building A and the surrounding habitats support the former species, it is likely that the site is of importance to the conservation of the local population of brown long-eared bats. If the roost in building A and the surrounding habitats support grey long-eared bats, however, the site may be of national importance to the conservation of the species. In the absence of further data regarding the species, the greater level of value must be assumed.

25


4.2.6 Myotis Bats The desk study indicated that at least three species of Myotis bats occur immediately adjacent to application site and in the wider local area: Daubenton’s, Natterer’s and whiskered bats. During the current survey it was, in general, not possible to identify the Myotis bats to species level, although many of the Daubenton’s bat recordings, and a single Natterer’s bat recording were identified. Given the nature of the habitats on-site, and the findings of the desk study, it can be assumed that the whiskered bat also uses the site for foraging and commuting. Brandt’s and Alcathoe bat may occur on-site.

Myotis species tend to be light averse, and are therefore unlikely to regularly use the well-lit habitats in the eastern part of the site for foraging, although the darker corridor provided by John Acres Lane outside of the site may be important for commuting bats, with Myotis recorded along this transect. Myotis bats were frequently recorded using woodland habitats in the western part of the site, particularly around the large attenuation pond (Figure 3.6). Up to 4 or 5 Daubenton’s bats, which is a species generally associated with water, were consistently recorded foraging over this water body, often less than 40 minutes after sunset. This species is generally late-emerging from the roost, 40-60 minutes after sunset7, suggesting that the roost is very close to the Heathfield site.

All of the Myotis species that might occur on the site will make use of tree roosts. While there was no evidence of the on-site trees being use for roosting during the current survey, there are numerous trees in the vicinity of the site that may be used, and any suitable trees on-site may be used transiently by roosting Myotis bats.

Based on the survey data, it is thought that the woodland strips in the western part of the site, the dark corridor provided along John Acres Lane, and the large attenuation pond all provide foraging and commuting habitat for Myotis bat species. That said, there are similar opportunities for woodland foraging, and far better opportunities for roosting within the wider landscape. Opportunities for foraging over large open water bodies do appear to be more limited in the local area however, and this feature may be of importance for the conservation of the local Daubenton’s bat population.

4.2.7 Noctule The noctule has until recently been viewed as relatively common, but recent concerns over population decline led to it being added to the UK BAP Priority Species list in 2007. This species generally emerges very early from the roost (within about 20 minutes after sunset): the results of the survey work therefore indicate that it is likely to roost very close to the site. The concentration of noctule passes shortly after dusk and shortly before dawn recorded during the passive surveys indicate commuting to and from a roost. The Anabat was located inside the farm outbuildings on these dates, but as noctules are large bats with low manoeuvrability, they would not be flying within the buildings, rather their loud calls being recorded as they passed over. The Gappah Brake woodland bordering this part of the site to the north does have trees that may support this species, which roosts almost exclusively in trees. This includes the four pedunculate oak trees that occur immediately adjacent to the site boundary, listed in Table 3.1 and shown on Figure 3.3. The likelihood of a roost close to the site is supported by the desk study data, which highlighted the presence of a noctule roost in a Scots pine tree just 220m from the application site boundary (Figure 3.2). Noctules may also use the trees on-site transiently, with tree-roosting bats known to switch roosts regularly. There was no evidence during the current surveys that this species uses the on-site habitats for sustained periods of foraging.

26


4.2.8 Serotine Serotine is a comparatively uncommon species (Table 4.1) with a limited UK distribution (mainly southern England/Wales), within which it is considered to be widespread but scarce. Only low levels of occasional activity were, however, recorded on-site (Figure 3.7), and with all passes occurring more than 1 hour after sunset there is no evidence that this early emerging species is roosting on or close to the site. Furthermore, this species roosts almost exclusively in old buildings with high gable ends and/or cavity walls, which are absent from the site. In addition, there was no evidence during the current surveys that this species uses the on-site habitats regularly, or for sustained periods of foraging. It is therefore unlikely that the on-site habitats are of importance to the conservation of serotine.

4.2.9 Leisler’s Bat Leisler’s bat is a scarce, but widespread species in mainland Britain (Table 4.1). Only low levels of occasional activity were recorded during the current survey (Figure 3.7), and there is no evidence that this species is roosting on-site. While Leisler’s bat commonly uses buildings for roosting, they may also use tree roosts, and the species is known to change roosts regularly (sometimes daily). Trees on or near the application site may therefore be used for roosting occasionally. A recording made on 3 August just 23 minutes after sunset, suggests that the species was roosting close to the site at that time. No previous records of Leisler’s bat were identified during the desk study, and it appears that the species’ dependence on the site for roosting or foraging is minimal.

4.2.10 Barbastelle The barbastelle is rare in Britain13, and only sparsely distributed through its range in Europe21, with populations categorised as vulnerable (IUCN, 2006; EU Red List). The most recent official population estimate is of 5,000 animals in the UK13. However, the population count is based on very limited data and more recent studies indicate that the true figure may be anywhere between 5,000 and 10,00022.

There are apparently no published figures for the number of maternity colonies since a quoted figure of five in the UK in 200123. However, at least 15 sites which support maternity colonies are known in the UK at the time of writing. The lack of population data is due largely to the rarity of the species, the difficulty in finding roosts of this species and the difficulty of detecting them using aural bat detectors. Although barbastelle are likely to be an under-recorded species there is no doubt it is a rare species under threat throughout Europe18.

Their characteristic short and directional echolocation call24, and fast and far-travelling flight18 make barbastelles difficult to hear and identify using bat detectors during transect surveys. In

21 Altringham, J.D. (2003). British Bats. HarperCollins. London. 22 Harris S. & Yalden D.W. (Eds.) (2008). Mammals of the British Isles: Handbook, 4th Edition. The Mammal Society. 23 Greenaway F. (2001). The barbastelle in Britain. British Wildlife. June 2001: pp327-334. 24 Denzinger, A., Siemers, B.M., Schaub, A. & Schnitzler, HU. (2001). Echolocation by the Barbastelle bat Barbastella barbastellus. Journal of Comparative Physiology A. 187: pp521-528.

27


addition, barbastelles are now known often to emit calls which are extremely quiet, 10-100 times lower in amplitude than those of other aerial-hawking species of bats. Nevertheless, their calls are reasonably detectable in the field at short distances using recordable detectors.

During the current survey a low level of activity was recorded in the western part of the site, and along John Acres Lane, outside of the site boundary (Figure 3.7). There are limited opportunities for roosting provided on-site for this species, which roosts almost exclusively in trees and is very sensitive to disturbance when roosting, with no evidence to suggest that any bats emerged from on-site trees during the current survey. Given their sensitivity to disturbance and lighting, it is considered very unlikely that barbastelle will use trees on the site. That said, they may use trees within the darker, less disturbed Gappah Brake woodland to the north of the farm outbuildings, including the four pedunculate oak trees with roost potential that occur immediately adjacent to the site boundary (Table 3.1, Figure 3.3).

There was no evidence during the current surveys that this species uses the on-site habitats regularly for sustained periods of foraging, however activity levels may appear deceptively low due to the difficulty in detecting the species. That said, optimal foraging habitat for barbastelle is not present on-site and it is more likely that the species uses the woodland strips around the site edges for commuting. The connectivity that these features provide with the wider landscape is therefore likely to be the most valuable aspect of the site to the local barbastelle population.

4.2.11 Greater Horseshoe Bat The wooded habitats along the southern and eastern site boundaries were highlighted as a foraging and commuting route for greater horseshoe bats from the Chudleigh Caves (SSSI and SAC) during an English Nature radio-tracking study in 2002 (Figure 3.2). The survey also identified a night time roost for the species within former piggery buildings approximately 60m north of the eastern part of the current application site. Night time roosts may be used by bats for resting and grooming for short periods between bouts of foraging activity. They may also be used as a feeding perch, where bats hang up to consume larger prey items. The current survey work however found that habitats in the eastern part of the application site, including the eastern site boundary and around the main site entrance, are very well-lit. As such they are considered unsuitable for many of the more light sensitive species, including the greater horseshoe bat. Indeed no greater horseshoe bats were recorded within the habitats in this part of the site during the survey, although a few passes of the species were noted outside the site, within the somewhat darker habitat on John Acres Lane (Figure 3.8).

There was little evidence that greater horseshoe bats were regularly using the length of the wooded habitat that borders the site track for commuting. That said, results from the Anabat data on 1 June suggest that a low number of greater horseshoe bats may have been crossing the track and commuting to and from the northern section of Fosterville Woods at dawn and dusk (location 6, Figure 2.3). This supports the findings of the 2002 study. In addition, the current survey indicates that greater horseshoe bats use the wooded habitats around the northwest and southwest borders of the site, and along the southeast edge of the attenuation pond, for foraging and commuting (Figure 3.8). This supports the Natural England consultation document, which identifies the habitat in the northwest corner of the site, along the edge of and adjacent to Gappah Brake CWS, as forming part of a strategic flyway for the species.

The farm outbuildings and surrounding habitats fall within the strategic flyway, and these appeared to be a particular focus for greater horseshoe bats on-site, with the highest levels of activity recorded there. This also supports previous survey work that identified Gappah Brake,

28


the woodland immediately to the north, as important foraging habitat for the species (Figure 3.2).

Greater horseshoe is one of the rarest bat species in the UK (see Table 4.1), found only in southwest England and Wales, and thought to have undergone a 90% decline in numbers in the last 100 years25. The species requires unimproved pasture and woodland to provide the required prey items, especially dung beetles and chafers, and large quantities of moths. For at least half the time spent foraging, greater horseshoe bats make use of hunting perches, scanning the habitat for prey while hanging from a perch, and only flying when suitable prey is detected18. The farm outbuildings and trees on the Heathfield site probably provide feeding perches for this species. The greater horseshoe is dependent on linear landscape features owing to its reluctance to cross open spaces. This species roosts mainly in underground sites such as caves and mines, but also within old buildings.

While the application site offers only a limited area of foraging habitat, the conservation of commuting routes across the local landscape is critical in maintaining the value of the greater horseshoe population. In addition, the farm outbuildings are thought to provide a night roost, and potentially a hunting perch, for the species. The outbuildings are generally unsuitable for daytime roosting greater horseshoe bats, which hang freely within their roosts, due to large gaps in the roof structure offering little protection from the elements and resulting in high light levels during the daytime.

4.2.12 Lesser Horseshoe Bat Survey work in 2002/03 identified a lesser horseshoe bat roost within a farmhouse next to building A (Figure 3.2), which has since been destroyed in a fire. The species was also highlighted as occurring in the local area, and using habitats immediately adjacent to the current application site for foraging and commuting. The field survey work carried out by Entec in 2010 highlighted that the farm outbuildings and surrounding habitats are of particular value for lesser horseshoe bats, with high levels of activity recorded there (Figure 3.8), and 2 individuals observed using building A as a night time roost. It is possible, given the time of year that these bats were observed, that the building is also used for mating.

Lesser horseshoe bat is a rare species in the UK, which has undergone a dramatic decline in the past 60 years, such that it is now restricted to Wales, the West Midlands and southwest England26. Recent indications are however that this population decline is slowly reversing, although lesser horseshoe bats are still considered vulnerable in the UK. South Devon is known to support one of the highest densities of the species in the UK26.

No lesser horseshoe bat activity was recorded in the eastern part of the site, where the high levels of security lighting are likely to act as a deterrent. The species was, however, recorded outside of the site boundary, commuting along the darker corridor provided by John Acres Lane (Figure 3.8). Dark linear features such as this are important for maintaining connectivity with the wider landscape, particularly for light sensitive species that are reluctant to cross open

25 Bat Conservation Trust (2010). Greater horseshoe Rhinolophus ferrumequinum. Available from: http://www.bats.org.uk/publications_detail.php/220/species_information_sheet_greater_horseshoe 26 Schofield, H. W. (2008). The lesser horseshoe bat conservation handbook. The Vincent Wildlife Trust, Ledbury.

29


spaces, such as the lesser horseshoe bat. Habitats within the eastern part of the site are therefore not considered to be of any significant value to the conservation of local lesser horseshoe bat populations, although those in the western part of the site provide some habitat of value for foraging and commuting. That said, suitable foraging habitat of equal value to that found on-site is widely available in the local area. The value of the habitat links, as well as the farm outbuildings, is likely to be of greater value to local lesser horseshoe bat conservation.

4.2.13 Roost Significance The conservation significance of the roosts present in buildings on the site, following the guidance shown in Table 4.2, is provided in Table 4.3. The table also sets out guidelines for proportionate mitigation that would be required should the roost be lost.

Table 4.3 Conservation significance of bat roosts on the Heathfield site and guidelines for proportionate mitigation

Building reference (see Figure 2.1)

Roost type Conservation significance14

Mitigation/compensation requirement14

A Long-eared bat maternity roost27 High Oppose interference with existing roosts or seek improved roost provision. Timing constraints. No destruction of former roost until replacement completed and significant usage demonstrated. Monitoring for as long as possible.

A & B Long-eared bat hibernation site Medium

A Common pipistrelle hibernation site

Medium

Timing constraints. More or less like-for-like replacement. Bats not to be left without a roost and must be given time to find the replacement. Monitoring for 2 years preferred.

A Feeding perch for lesser horseshoe bats

Medium-low

A & B Feeding perch for greater horseshoe bats

Medium-low

Provision of new roost facilities where possible. Need not be exactly like-for-like, but should be suitable, based on species’ requirements. Minimal timing constraints or monitoring requirements.

B Feeding perch for long-eared bats Low

A & B Small common pipistrelle summer roosts

Low

Flexibility over provision of bat-boxes, access to new buildings etc. No conditions about timing or monitoring.

27 As set out in section 4.2.9, in the absence of further data to enable the identification of bats using this roost to species level, the higher level of value is assumed (i.e. that the roost supports the rare grey long-eared bat as opposed to the more common brown-long-eared bat).

30


Appendix A Legislation and Policy Context

Legislation

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 All British bat species are listed in Schedule 5 of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The Act transposes into UK law the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (commonly referred to as the ‘Bern Convention’). All British bat species are listed on Schedule 5 of the Act in respect of Section 9, which makes it an offence, inter alia, to:

• intentionally or recklessly kill, injure, or take (handle) a bat;

• intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place that a bat uses for shelter or protection; or

• intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place that it uses for shelter or protection.

British bat species receive further protection under Regulation 41 of the The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, which make provision for the purpose of implementing European Union Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora 1992. All British bat species are listed on Annex IV of the Directive, which means that member states are required to put in place a system of strict protection as outlined in Article 12, and this is done through inclusion on Schedule 2 of the Regulations, which makes it an offence, inter alia, to:

• deliberately capture, injure or kill any bat;

• deliberately disturb a bat, in particular any disturbance which is likely

(a) to impair their ability

(i) to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young, or

(ii) to hibernate or migrate

(b) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the bat species; or

• damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a bat.

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); and

• Greater mouse-eared bat (Myotis myotis).

As Annex II species under the Habitats Regulations, the Directive requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) by EC member states to ensure that their populations are

maintained at a favourable conservation status. Where bats occur outside SACs the level of legal protection that these species receive is the same as for other bat species, however their inclusion on Annex II serves to underline their conservation significance and it is therefore less likely that adequate mitigation for loss of roosts of these species will be possible.

For projects in England: Further details of the above legislation, and of the roles and responsibilities of developers and planners in relation to bats, can be found in Natural England’s Bat Mitigation Guidelines, which can be downloaded from the NE website: http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/IN136

Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 and Biodiversity Action Plans Under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, seven bats species are of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity in England. Under section 41(3) of the Act, the Secretary of State must take steps (where they are reasonably practicable), and promote the taking of steps by others, to further the conservation of the habitats and species on the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP)28 list. Species Action Plans (SAP) for these species have been prepared in order to meet the aims of the UKBAP. The bat species listed as priority species are:

• Greater horseshoe bat;

• Lesser horseshoe bat;

• Barbastelle;

• Bechstein’s bat;

• Brown long-eared bat;

• Soprano pipistrelle; and

• Noctule.

Greater horseshoe bats are also listed as a priority on the Devon LBAP29. Greater horseshoe, barbastelle, brown long-eared, noctule, soprano pipistrelle, lesser horseshoe, common pipistrelle, brandt’s, daubenton’s, natterer’s, whiskered are all Teignbridge LBAP30 priority species.

28 The list of UKBAP priority species can be obtained from: http://www.ukbap.org.uk/NewPriorityList.aspx 29 Devon Biodiversity Partnership (2009). The Nature of Devon: A Biodiversity and Geodiversity Action Plan. Devon Biodiversity Partnership. 30 Teignbridge District Council (2006). Nature’s Future: A Biodiversity Action Plan for Teignbridge. Teignbridge District Council, Newton Abbot.

http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/IN136

http://www.ukbap.org.uk/NewPriorityList.aspx

Planning Policy Statement 9 The national planning policy statement for biodiversity, PPS931 refers to the steps that local authorities should take through the planning process in relation to species and habitats of principal importance. PPS9 states that:

“…species have been identified as requiring conservation action as species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. Local authorities should take measures to protect the habitats of these species from further decline through policies in local development documents. Planning authorities should ensure that these species are protected from the adverse effects of development, where appropriate, by using planning conditions or obligations. Planning authorities should refuse permission where harm to the species or their habitats would result unless the need for, and benefits of, the development clearly outweigh that harm”.

In addition, PPS9 and its accompanying guidance notes32,33 make it clear that protected species are capable of being a material consideration in determining a planning application.

31 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005). Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. HMSO. 32 ODPM (2006). Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice. 33 ODPM (2005). Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact Within the Planning System. ODPM Circular 06/2005.

Appendix B Figures

Figure 1.1 Site boundary

Figure 2.1 Buildings inspected for evidence of bats

Figure 2.2 Bat survey transects

Figure 2.3 Anabat survey locations

Figure 3.1 Location of South Hams SAC (Chudleigh Caves and Woods SSSI component) and strategic flyways in relation to the application site

Figure 3.2 Bat activity recorded in the vicinity of the site during previous survey work

Figure 3.3 Trees within and adjacent to the application site with potential to support roosting bats

Figure 3.4 Average number of bat passes recorded per survey, by transect section

Figure 3.5 Transect sections on which pipistrelle bats were recorded

Figure 3.6 Transect sections on which Myotis and long-eared bats were recorded

Figure 3.7 Transect sections on which noctule, serotine, Leisler's and barbastelle bats were recorded

Figure 3.8 Transect sections on which horseshoe bats were recorded

Appendix C Weather Conditions During Bat Activity Surveys

Survey date

Transect survey time (start – end)

Temperature (°C, start-end)

Relative humidity (%, start-end)

Rainfall Cloud cover (%)

Wind speed

Overnight Rainfall

17/05/2010 20:28 – 00:00

12.6 – 7.3 61.7 – 80.3 None 45 Calm None

18/05/2010 20:30 – 00:05

15.5 – 12.0 61 - 75 None 100 Light None

24/05/2010 21:40 – 00:07

22 – 12.9 87 - 79 None 0 Calm None

25/05/2010 20:40 – 00:09

15.3 – 13.6 72.7 - 82 None 3 Light None

01/06/2010 20:55 – 00:15

14.2 – 10.0 73.9 – 88.4 None 0 Light None

02/06/2010 20:48 – 00:18

15.4 – 8.9 67.8 - 84.7 None 0 Light None

15/06/2010 21:05 – 23:25

12 – 6.0 67 - 89 None 5 Calm None

16/06/2010 21:05 – 00:27

17.9 – 12.5 50.7 – 68.9 None <5 Calm None

29/07/2010 20:47 – 00:02

14.4 – 14.4 76.3 – 81.2 None 25 Calm - Light

None

03/08/2010 20:40 – 23:55

16.4 – 14.2 74.3 – 83.3 None 60 Moderate None

18/08/2010 20:10 – 23:30

15.9 – 13.0 77.9 – 86.7 None 15 Light None

09/09/2010 19:18 – 22:42

16.0 – 14.0 82.2 – 90.1 None 10 Light None

21/09/2010 18:47 – 22:14

16.2 – 12.7 82.8 – 90.4 None 10 Light None

13/10/2010 17:56 – 21:26

10.1 – 3.7 77.8 – 8.6 None 0 Calm None

Documents

Bat Survey Report April 2011 Entec UK Limited · Viridor Waste Management Heathfield Integrated Waste Management Facility Bat Survey Report April 2011 Entec UK Limited