Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report

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


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



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



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



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.



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.



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



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



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.



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.



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:



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



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).



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.



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



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.



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.



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



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).



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:



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.



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.



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



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



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



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.


Eden Westwood

NTS Figure 2: Bat Survey Map


eg16747 MD

03-08-16


Bat Transect Route: Medium to High Bat Activity

Bat Transect Route: Low Bat Activity



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.



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



Eden Westwood

NTS Figure 4: Dormouse Survey Map


eg16747 MD

03-07-16


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



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


Eden, Westwood (J27), Tiverton

NTS Figure 5: Ponds Requiring Great Crested Newt Surveys

Friends Life Ltd.

eg16747 MD

Aug 2016

Site Boundary

Pond


Pond 4

Pond 3

Pond 2

Pond 1



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



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.



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



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



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.



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



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.



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:


7. Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (UK Parliament). The National

Archives [online]. Available from:




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:


/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:


/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.



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


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.!!


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!


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!


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!

!


Site:'J27,'M5'–'Section'2' Date:'10B12B2014' Surveyor:'JW+EF!No.' Species' Age' Features! Tree'


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!



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*!


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!!


Site:'J27,'M5'–'Section'3' Date:'10C12C2014' Surveyor:'JW+EF!No.' Species' Age' Features! Tree'


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!



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!

!

Documents

Eden Westwood, Devon: Ecological Survey and Assessment Report