Bat Survey Report Proposed Solar Farm Land at Traffwll ...

Bat Survey Report

Proposed Solar Farm

Land at Traffwll, West Anglesey

24 February 2021

Prepared on behalf of Low Carbon

by

Wychwood Biodiversity Limited

Report Date Version Author Approved

January 2021 5 C Halliday MSc GradCIEEM Dr G Parker MCIEEM

Parc Solar Traffwll, bat survey report

1 Wychwood Biodiversity Limited Company No. 08727254 VAT Registration No. 212 2899 17

This report has been submitted in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Code of Professional conduct and has been prepared with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the Client. Its contents are compliant with British Standard BS42020: 2013 Biodiversity Code of Practice for Planning and Development. Wychwood Biodiversity disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of this document. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and Wychwood Biodiversity accepts no responsibility to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, may be made known. Any advice, opinion or findings stated in this report are based on circumstances and facts as they existed at the time and should be read and relied upon only in the context of this document as a whole. They do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion and if this is required, the advice of a qualified legal professional should be secured.



Contents

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 4

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5

1.1 Species Legislation ............................................................................................................................. 5

1.2 National Policy .................................................................................................................................. 5

1.3 Local Policy ........................................................................................................................................ 5

2.0 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Desktop study ................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Tree and building inspections ............................................................................................................. 6

2.3 Transect surveys ................................................................................................................................ 6

2.4 Static detector surveys ...................................................................................................................... 8

3.0 Results ....................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Desktop study ................................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Tree and building inspections ........................................................................................................... 10

3.3 Transect and Static Surveys .............................................................................................................. 10

Transect survey ..................................................................................................................................... 11

Static detector surveys .......................................................................................................................... 15

4.0 Analysis .................................................................................................................... 23

4.1 Roosting Bats .................................................................................................................................. 23

4.2 Commuting and Foraging Bats.......................................................................................................... 24

4.3 Impacts per species / species group ................................................................................................. 25

5.0 Requirements and Recommendations ....................................................................... 27

6.0 References ................................................................................................................ 28

Appendix A. Potential roosting features – buildings (B), trees (T) and woodland (W) ....... 29

Appendix B. Bat transect survey routes ........................................................................... 34

Appendix C. Bat transect survey results maps ................................................................. 39

Appendix D. Static Bat Detector Results Maps. ............................................................... 51

Figures

Figure 1: Scoring system for valuing commuting routes and foraging areas (Wray et al., 2010) ...... 24



List of Tables Table 1: Conditions during bat transect surveys ............................................................................ 11

Table 2: Summary of bat species recorded during transect surveys in 2019 and 2020 .................... 12

Table 3: Weather conditions during static bat survey nights ......................................................... 15

Table 4: Static bat detector data May 2019 ................................................................................... 16

Table 5: Static bat detector data July 2019 .................................................................................... 17

Table 6: Static bat detector data August 2020 ............................................................................... 19

Table 7: Valuation of commuting routes ....................................................................................... 25

Table 8: Valuation of foraging areas ............................................................................................. 25



Executive Summary

This report presents the results of bat surveys for the proposed solar park at Traffwll in West Anglesey, North

Wales. Static and transect bat surveys were carried out in May and July 2019 on all seven plots and then in

August 2020 in plots 3, 4, 5 and 6, after removal of plots 1, 8 and 9 from the application.

No bat roosts were found within the site boundary but roosts were discovered adjacent to the site and within

the local area: a Brown long-eared day roost was confirmed in a barn adjacent to Plot 3 and a Soprano pipistrelle

maternity roost was confirmed in a house directly to the south of Plot 3. Noctules were recorded at early dusk

and late dawn flying over the south of Plot 6, presumably to and from a roost to the east of the plot. Static

detector surveys found there were likely further Noctule, Soprano pipistrelle and Common pipistrelle roosts in

the local area.

Mature trees were surveyed for suitable roosting features. Suitable features were found in mature sycamore

and oak trees beside Plot 3 and trees on the boundaries of plots 3 and 4, but no roosts were confirmed either

through visual inspection or transect detector surveys.

No trees or buildings are anticipated to be removed as part of the proposed development. Recommendations

are made in the event a roost could be impacted by the development. In addition, recommendations for habitat

improvements for bats are also made at the end of this report.

Static and transect surveys recorded ten bat species in total: Common pipistrelle, Soprano pipistrelle, Nathusius’

pipistrelle, Brown long-eared, Common noctule, Leisler’s, Daubenton’s, Whiskered, Brandt’s and Natterer’s.

Soprano pipistrelle accounted for most bat activity overall, making up half of all bat passes. Noctule accounted

for around one-third of bat passes and Common pipistrelle accounted for around one-tenth of passes.

Whiskered, Brandt’s and Daubenton’s bats were recorded in relatively equal numbers with each species making

up around one in thirty passes. Whiskered was mostly picked up by a single static detector in the north-eastern

fields of Plot 6, indicating regular foraging activity in that location. Daubenton’s made low numbers of passes

per survey but ranged widely throughout the proposal site. The remaining bat species each made up fewer than

one in a hundred passes.

The majority of bat commuting, and foraging activity was concentrated around the field boundaries, which

comprised of hedgerows, trees, ditches and stone walls. Noctule, Pipistrelle, Brown long-eared, Whiskered,

Brandt’s and Daubenton’s bats were recorded occasionally foraging within fields. In particular, Noctules were

observed foraging within a field in Plot 8, Brown long-eared bats were recorded foraging within the northern

sheep-grazed field in Plot 3, Myotis was observed foraging around the north-eastern fields of Plot 6 and

Pipistrelles were observed foraging over grasslands throughout much of the site, as well as within and around a

large open barn in Plot 4. Noctules were often observed commuting high over fields.

The site has been classified, according to “Valuing bats in Ecological Impact Assessment” as being of Regional

importance to commuting bats and of Regional importance to foraging bats.

Recommendations have been set out to ensure that the proposed development will, at a minimum, retain the

existing value of the site for commuting and foraging bats. The recommendations are likely in many cases to

improve habitat.



1.0 Introduction

Bat surveys were undertaken in 2019-2020 in relation to an application for planning permission for a solar park

on plots of land near to Llyn Traffwll in West Anglesey (Central grid reference SH 326 769). A total of seven plots

of land were originally surveyed in connection with this proposal.

1.1 Species Legislation All British bat (Chiroptera) species are “fully protected” by law in the UK.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) lists all British bat species under Schedule 5, giving them

full protection. Under section 9 it is an offence to:

• Intentionally kill, injure, or remove a bat from the wild

• Possess live or dead bats

• Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct a place bats use for shelter or protection

• Intentionally or recklessly disturb bats whilst occupying a place for shelter or protection

Furthermore, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017) also gives British bats full protection

and bats are listed in schedule 2 as European Protected Species. Under regulation 43 it is an offence to:

• Deliberately capture, injure, or kill a bat

• Deliberately disturb bats, including disturbance which may impair their ability to:

o Survive, reproduce, or nurture or rear young

o Hibernate or migrate

• Deliberately damage or destroy breeding sites or resting places

• Affect local distribution or abundance

• Be in possession of, transport, sell or exchange, dead or alive bats

1.2 National Policy Planning Policy Wales (2016), Edition 9, provides national policy relating to sustainability and ecology. Chapter

5: “Conserving and Improving Natural Heritage and the Coast” commits to:

• “promote the conservation of… biodiversity, in particular the conservation of native wildlife and

habitats;

• ensure that action in Wales contributes to meeting international responsibilities and obligations for the

natural environment;

• ensure that statutorily designated sites are properly protected and managed; and

• safeguard protected species.”

1.3 Local Policy Bat species are included in Anglesey’s Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAP) I & II: B3 Species Action Plans (SAPs)

(IACC, 2020). LBAP I includes Pipistrelle bats (all species) for whom there are concerns over possible losses of

roost sites due to building renovations, loss of maternity roost sites through use of toxic timber preservatives

and reduction in feeding areas due to declines in wetlands, hedgerows and woodlands, with proposed actions

being through promoting protection in development control and building control. In LBAP II are Noctule bats,

who are threatened by felling of trees, which are their main roosting sites. Mitigation actions include seeking to

safeguard roost sites and potential sites, especially in ancient trees, as well as promoting bat friendly tree surgery



practice, are specified. In LBAP II are also Lesser horseshoe bats who are dependent on underground hibernation

sites and undisturbed large houses and outbuildings as nursery roost sites. Actions specified are monitoring of

hibernation sites and survey work related to planning.

2.0 Methodology

2.1 Desktop study A data search was requested from the North Wales Environmental Information Service – COFNOD – for species within 2km of the site boundary, which included all submitted records for Chiroptera species.

The website of the Gwynedd bat group was consulted for information on local bat species. The Gwynedd bat group cover the three areas of Anglesey, Gwynedd, and Western Conwy (including Snowdonia National Park).

In addition, the Gwynedd bat group were contacted to seek further information on local bat species, especially Myotis species, as this group can be difficult to differentiate through detector surveys.

2.2 Tree and building inspections Trees and buildings on or immediately adjacent to the proposal site were inspected for their potential to support

bat roosts, in accordance with current Bat Conservation Trust survey guidance (BCT, 2016). Trees were checked

for ivy cover, crevices, and rotten sections from ground level, using a ladder and binoculars where necessary.

Buildings were inspected externally, and internally where possible, for any signs of roosting bats or bat roosting

activity including droppings, insect feeding remains, worn entrances and staining.

2.3 Transect surveys Bat transect surveys were carried out in accordance with current guidance from the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT,

2016). Surveys were carried out on the evenings of the 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th and 18th July 2019, evenings of the

6th, 7th and 8th August 2020 and mornings of the 6th, 8th and 9th August 2020 by experienced surveyors Clare

Halliday, Angus Layton, Erika Dahlberg, Lauren Annetts and assistant surveyor Laura Delves. Transect routes

were planned in advance, taking into account the grasslands within the proposal sites as well as features such

as field boundaries, hedgerows, trees and waterways or water bodies both onsite and adjacent to the site. In

some cases, it was not possible to complete the entirety of planned transect routes due to unforeseen safety

concerns, such as livestock considered to be unsafe. In such cases the routes were reassessed either directly

prior to, or during the survey. The transect routes were approximately 1.5km long, taking around an hour to

complete one circuit (N.B. in some cases one circuit involved back-tracking over the same route in some places).

In most cases this enabled surveyors to complete two circuits during a single survey. Survey routes as they were

conducted are displayed in Appendix B.

Dusk surveys were started at or before sunset and continued for between 2 and 3 hours after sunset with the

exact length depending on transect length and weather conditions. Dawn surveys were started between 2.5 and

2 hours before sunrise and continued until sunrise or slightly later. Surveys were conducted on nights with

suitable weather conditions: dry with temperatures above 10oC. In the case of moderate rainfall starting during

a survey, the survey was halted and then recommenced if rain became light enough to do so. Surveys continued

in light rainfall or mist due to the relatively high frequency of these weather conditions occurring locally.

The July 2019 routes focussed on boundary features although surveyors weaved further into the grasslands or

crossed fields where appropriate and possible. The August 2020 routes gave equal focus to both boundary

features and grasslands: routes were designed so that a surveyor would walk 50 paces (approx. 50m) along a



boundary feature and then walk across the field at right angles to the boundary. Plots with large numbers of

drains, boundary features or odd shapes were surveyed as evenly as possible with consideration to safety.

Each surveyor walked their assigned transect route at a slow but steady pace for the duration of the survey,

stopping only to make notes or to observe activity of particular interest.

Surveyors each carried an ultrasound bat detector recorder for the duration of the survey. The detectors

recorded GPS locations of all recordings. Bat detectors used were the following: Elekon Batlogger M; and

Echometer Touch Pro 2.0 + Smartphone recorder. Surveyors took notes throughout the survey describing the

activity of bats that were observed and/or recorded: commuting or foraging and the location of the activity:

field, hedgerow, or trees. Other wildlife activity was also recorded, such as birds of interest and mammals. Plants

of interest were also noted.

Data recorded on the bat detectors was analysed in the Elekon software BatExplorer version 2.0.5.0.

The transect data is represented visually using lines representing the amount of bat activity per length (lengths

are similar for each site and each length took approximately 5 minutes to walk). The thickness of the line (0.01cm

per individual bat, on A4) and colour of the lines (one colour per species) represent the number and species of

bats recorded using these routes. Curved coloured arrows have been used to represent locations where bats

were observed foraging, with one arrow displayed per individual foraging.

There were the following constraints to the surveys, which should be taken into account when considering the

results displayed in this report. All constraints were mitigated for wherever possible to establish as complete a

data set as was possible under the circumstances:

• In several cases – e.g. plots 8, 6 and 3 –livestock were present in the fields at the time of survey. These

animals were considered to pose a danger to the surveyors, or they became a risk during the survey and as

a result those fields were not surveyed fully. In such situations the surveyors reconsidered their survey

routes, either moving their transects to the outer boundaries of affected fields or removing the field from

their route. In such cases, where possible, static detectors were placed for at least one night, instead, to

help build a picture of bat activity.

• In some cases, there were sheep in the fields. These did not pose a threat to surveyors, but care was needed

to minimise disturbance to the animals as well as local residents, due to the potential noise disturbance.

• In some cases, the ground within the site was not suitable for walking on, due to being too wet for safe

walking in the dark. Such fields were avoided or safe transect routes were adhered to within these and only

walked in safe conditions.

• The GPS systems on the bat detectors were temperamental at times due to the remote location, especially

in cloudy weather. Sometimes this meant that the GPS readings were inaccurate or slow to update. All data

was cross-checked with written notes to gain as accurate a picture as possible of the activity.

• Different bat species make calls of varying volumes and thus the “louder” bats such as Noctule tend to be

recorded more often than the “quieter” bats such as Brown long-eared. This is a constraint with all detector-

based bat surveys and should be taken into account when making an analysis of the bats present and their

distributions.

• Myotis species are difficult to identify to species level due to the similarity of their calls and the changeability

depending on habitat conditions. Whilst great effort has been made to identify each species passing the

detectors, 100% accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Similarly, calls of Common pipistrelle and Nathusius’

pipistrelle are liable to overlap in different habitat conditions. Although each species has been classified as

accurately as possible, there remains potential for error.

• A further transect survey was due to take place in May 2020, but due to Covid-19 restrictions this was not

possible, meaning that no spring transect survey was carried out. Despite this, a full static detector survey



took place in the spring, identifying activity levels. The extent of survey work that has been carried out

provides a clear picture of bat activity throughout the site, allowing robust conclusions to be drawn as to

the potential impacts of the proposals on the existing bat community within the solar farm and in the local

area.

• Although a survey was carried out in August, this did not cover the typical “autumn” period meaning that

the main mating season was not accounted for through surveys. However, the spread of surveys through

the main part of the active bat year is considered to account for the majority of activity that would be

expected at the type of site.

Despite the above constraints, a thorough assessment has been made of bat activity throughout representative

habitats within the application site.

2.4 Static detector surveys Bat static detector surveys were carried out in accordance with The Bat Conservation Trust’s current guidance:

Bat Survey Guidelines 2016. Surveys were conducted during May and July 2019 and August 2020. Locations for

the static bat detectors were planned in advance but in some cases were altered due to unforeseen concerns,

such as the requirement to hide the detectors from livestock that might disturb the detectors in the planned

fields. Audiomoth bat detector recorders were used for the static surveys: these are small detectors that can

record bats up to 50 metres away. Detectors were updated with the latest Firmware and loaded with charged

batteries and empty SD cards and were then pre-set using Audiomoth Time and Configuration apps. They were

set to record for periods of 5 minutes and rest for 1 minute, from at least sunset until the following sunrise.

Detectors were placed inside thin ziplock plastic bags which protected them from any rainfall; these still enabled

soundwaves to reach the device. The bags were rolled and kept tightly shut using bulldog clips. These clipped

bags were placed either on a 1m pole in an open location, if circumstances allowed, otherwise they were placed

in a more hidden location beside hedgerow or trees and sometimes hung on a branch within a hedgerow.

Detectors were placed for periods of 3 nights. In July 2019 additional detectors were also placed for 1 night in

locations where additional data was deemed to be helpful to back up the transect data.

Sound data in the form of .WAV files was analysed using Kaleidoscope Pro software developed by Wildlife

Acoustics. The software was used to filter out “noise” files that did not include bat calls. Automatic Species ID

estimations were each verified manually by Dr Jack Merrifield, Clare Halliday, Angus Layton and Laura Merrifield.

Files were split into 10-second segments and a bat “pass” was considered to be a species present within that 10

second period.

Proportions of each species and the relative number of bat passes are displayed on pie charts on maps showing

the detector locations. As such, charts are of proportional size to each other. In cases where pie charts are too

small to be visible clearly on the map, a larger version of the chart is displayed at a standard size underneath the

explanatory box showing the detector number and deployment dates.

There were the following constraints during the static detector surveys, in addition to some of those already

described for the transect surveys:

• The majority of the fields throughout the survey area contained livestock, which were moved between

fields on rotation. Although originally the detectors were to be deployed in the middle of the fields, this

was not possible in many cases due to the potential for livestock to disturb them. In such cases, detectors

were instead placed along boundaries where they were less conspicuous.

• In some cases, for example detector J5, detectors were placed within the middle of fields but due to the

50-metre range of detection, bats could be picked up flying along boundary features as well as within

the site, making it difficult in these cases to conclude whether bats were using the grassland or



boundaries. The same applies for detectors placed along boundary features, where bats up to 50 metres

into the field could be picked up. Transect surveys have been important in making clearer which features

bats were using throughout the sites.

• In some cases, detectors placed to record failed after one night of recording, reducing the amount of

data available for analysis.

• The frequently damp weather caused some of the detectors to fail whilst they were deployed. In such

cases detectors were re-deployed wherever possible but it meant less data was collected than was

planned for.

Despite these limitations, the amount of data collected is enough to provide a full assessment of the site, within

the limits of the resources available. There remains the possibility that ecological features were missed due to

their absence at the time of the survey, or the year of survey, and as such absence during surveys does not rule

out the possibility of their being present at other times.

3.0 Results

3.1 Desktop study The data search requested from COFNOD within 2km of the site found the following species of bats:

• Whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus – 2 recorded between 1998 and 1999

• Natterer’s bat Myotis natteri – 1 recorded in 2011

• Noctule bat Nyctalus noctula- 18 recorded between 1991 and 2018

• Pipistrelle bats Pipistrellus spp. – 12 recorded between 1997 and 2014

• Common pipistrelle bat Pipistrellus pipistrellus – 1 recorded in 2014

• Soprano pipistrelle bat Pipistrellus pygmaeus – 49 recorded between 1999 and 2018

• Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus – 5 recorded between 1989 and 2015

The Gwynedd Bat Group, who record bats in North West Wales (Anglesey, Gwynedd, and Western Conwy (incl.

Snowdonia NP)), have recorded 14 bat species in total within their survey area. These include the following

commonly recorded species: Common pipistrelle, Soprano pipistrelle, Brown long-eared, noctule, Natterer’s,

Whiskered; and less common species: Leisler’s Nyctalus leisleri, Serotine Eptesicus serotinus, Nathusius’

pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii, Barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus, Brandt’s Myotis brandtii, Daubenton’s

Myotis daubentonii, Greater horseshoe Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and Lesser horseshoe Rhinolophus

hipposideros.

Myotis species known to be present in southern Anglesey, according to the Gwynedd Bat Group, are Brandt’s,

Daubenton’s, Natterer’s and Whiskered.



3.2 Tree and building inspections Annotated maps of identified potential roosting features are displayed in Appendix A.

There was one building present within the footprint of the proposed development: a large, corrugated sheep

shed within Plot 4 (B4.1) with the front open and the interior fully open to the rafters. Inspection of the interior

found there were no suitable roosting spaces and no roosting bats or evidence of bats were found. There were

an additional four buildings adjacent to the site: a derelict stone building with no roof, adjacent to the southern

section of Plot 6 (B6.1); a small single-storey barn adjacent to Plot 3 (B3.1), a house to the south of Plot 3 (B3.2)

and a small stone building to the south of Plot 4 (B4.2). Inspection of B6.1 did not find any obvious holes between

stones where bats were likely to roost but due to its containing scrub and ivy covering areas of the stonework,

found there was potential for bat roosting opportunities to be present in these areas inaccessible to inspection.

An inspection of B3.1 found a brown long-eared bat roosting on the 16th July. B3.2 had bat roosting potential

within the rafters and a Soprano pipistrelle maternity roost was discovered during a transect survey in August

2020. Inspection of B4.2 found potential access points into the building. The interior of the building could not

be accessed.

There were mature trees adjacent to plots 3 and 4, which were assessed individually or as groups depending on

their situation. Trees in Plot 3 along the entrance road (W3.2 and W3.3) were mostly mature sycamore,

interspersed occasionally with ash. These trees were largely intact with no visible cracks or holes. However

approximately half of the trees, in particular ash trees, had ivy covering. All trees had either low or moderate

bat roost potential. Additional mature sycamore and ash trees were present to the south (W3.4, T3.41) and east

(T3.17-22) of the middle southern field of Plot 3. The sycamore trees had no visible roosting features and were

deemed to have low roosting potential, whilst a large ash south of the field had ivy covering and was deemed

to have moderate roosting potential. To the east of the field were 6 mature ash trees (T3.17-22), some of which

contained holes or ivy, or were missing bits of bark and were therefore deemed also to have moderate bat

roosting potential. Further to the east of the field were three mature oak trees (T3.1-3) with holes and gaps

under bark, also deemed to have moderate bat roosting potential. All other trees within or around Plot 3 were

small and deemed of negligible value to roosting bats. No evidence of bats was observed roosting in any tree.

Trees adjacent to Plot 4 were found to be small, in general (W4.1, W4.3, W4.4) with negligible bat roosting

potential. Several mature pines to the southwest of the southern field (W4.2 and W4.6) may have had roosting

potential high up but the visible sections were not suitable. These trees were deemed to have low bat roosting

potential.

Further trees adjacent to plots 1, 6 and 8 were small and had negligible bat roosting potential. There were no

trees adjacent to Plot 9.

3.3 Transect and Static Surveys Summary

Overall, at least 10 species of bats were recorded throughout the transect and static surveys that took place in

2019 and 2020. These were the following: Common, Soprano and Nathusius’ pipistrelle; Brown long-eared;

Noctule, Leisler’s; and Myotis species Daubenton’s, Whiskered, Brandt’s and Natterer’s.

The majority of bat commuting and foraging activity was concentrated around the field boundaries, comprising

hedgerows, trees, ditches and stone walls. Noctule, Pipistrelle, Whiskered, Brandt’s and Daubenton’s bats were

also recorded foraging within fields during transect and static surveys. Of particular note were Noctules



observed foraging low over a field in Plot 8; Myotis recorded foraging around tall grasslands within the north of

Plot 6; and Pipistrelle bats foraging over several different fields throughout the site, as well as foraging within

the corrugated sheep shed in Plot 4.

Transect survey Transect surveys were conducted between the 12th and 18th July 2019 and between the 6th and 9th August 2020

during suitable weather conditions. Conditions during the surveys are displayed in Table 1 and survey results are

displayed in Table 2 below. The results are represented visually on maps in Appendix C.

Table 1: Conditions during bat transect surveys

Plot(s) Date Time of survey

Time of sunset / sunrise

Surveyors (detectors used)

Temp (oC); Cloud cover (%); Wind (Beaufort 0-8); Rain.

Comments

4 12/7/19 2145-2328 2142 CH (Elekon BL M) GL (Elekon BL M)

16oC; 100% cloud; 1 wind; occasional drizzle; rain from 2328

Survey finished early due to rain starting at 2328.

1 13/7/19 2141-0041 2141 CH (Elekon BL M) GL (Elekon BL M)

15oC; 10% cloud; 1-3 wind; dry

8 & 9 14/7/19 2137-0040 2140 CH (Elekon BL M) ED (Elekon BL M) GL (Elekon BL M)

19-14oC; 0% cloud; 2-4 wind; dry

Southern field in plot 8 inaccessible – heifers. Some of plot 9 inaccessible – marshy ground.

3 & 5 16/7/19 2137-0007 2137 GL (Elekon BL M) ED (Elekon BL M) CH (Elekon BL M)


Eastern field in plot 3 inaccessible – young bulls.

6 18/7/19 2130-0000 2135 CH (Elekon BL M) GL (EM Touch Pro 2) LD (Elekon BL M)


Horses in the north-west field and southern field made these inaccessible after dark.

3 6/8/20 2102-2309 2102 CH (Elekon BL M) LA (Elekon BL M)

18-17oC; 10-60% cloud; 0-1 wind

3 6/8/20 0340-0543 0543 CH (Elekon BL M) LA (Elekon BL M)

12-13oC; 5-10% cloud; wind; misty

4 & 5 7/8/20 2100-2330 2100 CH (Elekon BL M) LA (Elekon BL M)

17 oC; 50% cloud; 1-3 wind; Misty, drizzle at times.

4 & 5 8/8/20 0338-0555 0544 CH (Elekon BL M) LA (Elekon BL M)

14oC; 100% cloud. 0-1 wind

6 8/8/20 2045-2317 2059 CH (Elekon BL M)

16-15oC; 30-50% cloud; 1-2 wind

Horses in north-western field. Not surveyed after dark.

6 9/8/20 0338-0546 0546 CH (Elekon BL M)

16-15oC; 70-20% cloud; 1-3 wind

Horses in north-western field. Not surveyed.



Table 2: Summary of bat species recorded during transect surveys in 2019 and 2020

Bra

nd

t’s

/

wh

iske

red

Bro

wn

lon

g-ea

red

Co

mm

on

pip

istr

elle

Dau

ben

ton

’s

Leis

ler’

s

Myo

tis

spec

ies

Nat

hu

siu

s’

pip

istr

elle

Nat

tere

r’s

No

ctu

le

Pip

istr

elle

sp

ecie

s

Sop

ran

o p

ipis

trel

le

Plo

t

Dat

e

Du

sk /

daw

n

Firs

t b

at r

eco

rdin

g

Last

bat

rec

ord

ing

Myo

tis

bra

nd

tii /

mys

taci

nu

s

Ple

cotu

s a

uri

tus

Pip

istr

ellu

s p

ipis

trel

lus

Myo

tis

da

ub

ento

nii

Nyc

talu

s le

isle

ri

Myo

tis

spp

.

Pip

istr

ellu

s n

ath

usi

i

Myo

tis

na

tter

eri

Nyc

talu

s n

ocu

la

Pip

istr

ellu

s sp

p.

Pip

istr

ellu

s p

ygm

aeu

s

TOTA

L

1 13/07/19 Dusk 22:08 00:15

42

19

95

82 238

3 16/07/19 Dusk 22:01 00:23

8 21

44

11

397 481

4 12/07/19 Dusk 22:09 23:30

1 19 7

6

4 48

41 126

5 16/07/19 Dusk 22:17 23:59 3 1 37 1

5

69 116

6 18/07/19 Dusk 21:55 00:01

43

121

299

160 623

8 14/07/19 Dusk 22:12 00:33

31

1

109

52 193

9 14/07/19 Dusk 22:22 00:28

79 5

75

31 190

3 06/08/20 Dusk 20:53 23:15 1 10 10

12 12

84

235 364

3 06/08/20 Dawn 03:35 05:06

9 6 1

10

5

31 62

4&5 07/08/20 Dusk 21:16 23:18

3 44

10

33

116 206

4&5 08/08/20 Dawn 03:45 04:56

1 3

9

6

20 39

6 08/08/20 Dusk 21:22 23:15

2 14 18

5

125

61 225

6 09/08/20 Dawn 03:41 05:15

4 9

44

19

40 116

4 35 353 41 0 281 12 4 914 0 1335 2979

Plot 1

The survey in July 2019 recorded a total of 238 bat passes of at least four species: Noctule (95 rec.), Soprano

pipistrelle (82 rec.), Common pipistrelle (42 rec.) and at least one Myotis species (19 rec.). The first bat recording

was a Noctule, near the road to the north west of the main section of the plot. Further Noctule passes were

recorded with foraging and commuting activity towards the start of the survey. Pipistrelles (common and

soprano) were recorded regularly throughout the survey especially along field boundaries, but also foraging

within fields close to hedgerows (on nine occasions) with most activity in the southern and western fields. On

two occasions Soprano pipistrelle commuted across the middle of the south-eastern field. Myotis was also

recorded along field boundaries, especially to the west of the northern field and along the hedgerow dividing

two of the southern fields.

Plot 3

The survey in July 2019 recorded a total of 481 bat passes of at least five species: Soprano pipistrelle (397 rec.),

Common pipistrelle (21 rec.), Myotis sp. (44 rec.), Noctule (11 rec.) and Brown long-eared (8 rec.). The eastern

field could not be surveyed due to the presence of bullocks, so three static detectors were placed instead during



the following night, when the animals were not present. These detectors recorded 52 (east corner), 56 (middle)

and 253 (south corner) bat passes between sunset and sunrise. Recordings of Myotis bats on the static detectors

are separated into Daubenton’s and Whiskered/Brandt’s, with Daubenton’s recorded more frequently. Most

bat activity was recorded around trees adjacent to the southern field and along the main drain running north-

south through the site, with Pipistrelle, particularly Soprano pipistrelle, and Myotis, recorded most frequently.

Notably Myotis was most often recorded foraging around small trees beside access gaps between fields. Noctule

was recorded commuting over the site. A Brown long-eared roost was confirmed in one of the farmyard barns,

with one individual observed prior to the survey.

The dawn survey in August 2020 recorded a total of 62 bat passes of five species: Brown long-eared, Common

pipistrelle, Soprano pipistrelle, Noctule, Myotis (1 confirmed as Daubenton’s). Activity was concentrated around

the field boundaries although both Soprano pipistrelle and Brown long-eared were observed within fields.

The dusk survey in August 2020 recorded a total of 364 bat passes: Brown long-eared, Common pipistrelle,

Myotis (one confirmed as Brandt’s/Whiskered), Nathusius’ pipistrelle, Soprano pipistrelle and Noctule. Activity

was focussed on the southern site boundaries with Soprano pipistrelle in particular foraging around trees and

woodland. Soprano pipistrelle and Brown long-eared were also recorded within fields and one Brown long-eared

bat was observed flying around grassland in the north of the site, though not confirmed foraging. A Soprano

pipistrelle maternity roost was discovered at the end of the survey, with around 10 bats observed swarming

around the roost entrance in the apex of B3.2.

Plots 4 & 5

The dusk survey of Plot 4 in July 2019 recorded a total of 128 bat passes. Five bat species were recorded: Noctule

(48 rec.), Soprano pipistrelle (41 rec.), Common pipistrelle (19 rec.), Daubenton’s (7 rec.), Myotis (unidentified

(6 rec.) and Natterer’s (4 rec.)), and Brown long-eared (1 rec.). No bats were observed foraging within the

grassland, rather bats were observed commuting and foraging along tree lines, hedgerows, scrub, and wetland

features along the field boundaries. Daubenton’s bats were observed foraging around a marshy area within the

southern part of the western field, as well as over a large pond to the west of the northern most field. Natterer’s

bats were recorded foraging around an area of scrub in the south-eastern corner of the western field. Noctules

were recorded foraging in the woodland adjacent to the south western field. One Brown long-eared was

recorded during the survey, flying along the eastern hedgerow boundary, likely to have been commuting

between small wooded areas to the northeast and southeast of this field. At least four pipistrelles were observed

foraging around and inside the corrugated sheep shed (B4.1). A Myotis and a Noctule were recorded commuting

along the adjacent hedgerow. A barn owl was observed flying over the site and a grey heron was observed

roosting on the western field.

The dusk survey of Plot 5 in July 2019 recorded a total of 116 bat passes. At least six bat species were recorded:

Soprano pipistrelle (69 rec.), Common pipistrelle (37 rec.), Noctule (5 rec.), Whiskered/Brandt’s (3 rec.),

Daubenton’s (1 rec.) and Brown long-eared (1 rec.). The majority of bat activity was recorded along the southern

and south-eastern hedgerows especially near to mature trees. Bats were frequently recorded along the southern

boundary near to a connecting hedgerow that runs southwards from the middle of this boundary. A Daubenton’s

bat was seen commuting north-south over the field towards this connecting hedgerow. There was occasional

activity along the east and west boundaries and in the centre of the site, where both Soprano and Common

pipistrelles were occasionally foraging. The Noctule and Brown long-eared passes were both recorded along the

southern part of the eastern hedgerow.

The dusk survey of plots 4 and 5 in August 2020 recorded a total of 206 bat passes: Brown long-eared, Common

pipistrelle, Myotis, Noctule and Soprano pipistrelle bats were recorded. Activity was concentrated around trees



and wet areas, particularly within the northwest of Plot 4, where two individual Soprano pipistrelle and one

Noctule were observed foraging within 50m of hedgerows. Soprano pipistrelle, Common pipistrelle and a Myotis

were observed foraging around trees to the northeast corner of Plot 4. A Brown long-eared was recorded in the

southeast corner of Plot 5.

The dawn survey of plots 4 and 5 in August 2020 recorded a total of 39 bat passes of five species: Brown long-

eared, Common pipistrelle, Myotis, Noctule and Soprano pipistrelle. Of note were the individual Soprano

pipistrelle, Common pipistrelle and Myotis bats that appeared to be foraging in the eastern field of Plot 4 where

sheep were grazing. The remainder of bat passes were along field boundaries, concentrated on boundaries with

intact hedgerows or trees.

Plot 6

A total of 623 bat passes were recorded during the transect survey. At least four bat species were recorded:

Noctule (299 rec), Soprano pipistrelle (160 rec.), Myotis sp. (121 rec.) and Common pipistrelle (43 rec.). One

night’s worth of static data is also displayed on the results map for three fields that could not be surveyed much

beyond 30 minutes past sunset due to signs of aggression from horses using the field. These static detectors

recorded 69 (J4 middle of north west field), 198 (6B north boundary of south field) and 227 (6C south east field

boundary) bat passes between sunset and sunrise. The Myotis recordings on the static detectors were all found

to be Daubenton’s (9, 6 and 2 passes respectively). The static detectors JB and JC also picked up 6 passes of

probable Nathusius’ pipistrelle.

Bats were recorded throughout the site but were found to be particularly using the wide, intact hedgerows along

either side of the narrow road that bisects this site. Noctule was the most frequently recorded species and was

present throughout most of Plot 6, commuting along hedgerows and treelines. The presence of Noctule was

detected in the south-most field and the western field at the beginning of the survey. Both Pipistrelle species

were seen foraging along hedgerows and within fields, in particular the north-eastern fields where the

vegetation was longer than in the rest of the site. Myotis was recorded foraging along hedgerows throughout

the site and within fields in the northeast of the plot, in general within 5m of hedgerows although on occasion

further into fields, in particular around longer vegetation. Only Daubenton’s was confirmed during this survey

but Whiskered and Brandt’s bats were frequently recorded during the static surveys. Myotis were recorded

mainly during the second half of the survey, first appearing around an hour after sunset.

The dusk survey in August 2020 recorded a total of 225 bat passes. Brown long-eared, Common pipistrelle,

Myotis (18 passes confirmed as Daubenton’s), Noctule and Soprano pipistrelle were picked up. Noctule made

up the majority of passes, with most individuals flying overhead or along hedgerows. Pipistrelles were foraging

along field boundaries. A concentration of activity was observed along the hedgerows towards the southern

section of the road that bisects the plot.

The dawn survey in August 2020 recorded a total of 116 bat passes. Common pipistrelle, Myotis (9 confirmed as

Daubenton’s), Noctule and Soprano pipistrelle were recorded. Myotis were recorded foraging regularly along

field boundaries. In general activity was concentrated along the road leading through the site, in particular to

the south. Prior to sunrise two Noctules commuted over the southwestern field, flying towards the east.

Plot 8

The dusk survey in July 2019 recorded a total of 193 bat passes. The majority of passes were by Noctule (109

rec.), with Soprano pipistrelle (52 rec.), Common pipistrelle (31 rec.) and Myotis (1 rec.) also recorded. Noctules

were recorded from half an hour after sunset, with a group of eight individuals coming from west of the site and

foraging over the northern field, as low as 2 metres from the ground, for approximately 20 minutes before flying



eastwards. A further two Noctules were seen foraging and commuting over the fields soon after and further

individuals were recorded later in the survey. Pipistrelles were observed commuting along the hedgerow

dividing the north and south fields and in particular Soprano pipistrelle was seen foraging along the northern

and western boundaries of the southern field. Both pipistrelle species were commonly observed using hedgerow

boundaries. Throughout the survey the majority of bats were found to be using the roadside hedgerows and the

eastern boundary of the northern field. A Myotis was heard but not seen along the southern part of the eastern

boundary of the southern field.

Plot 9

The dusk survey in 2019 recorded a total of 190 bat passes. These were Noctule (75 rec.), Soprano pipistrelle (31

rec.), Common pipistrelle (79 rec.) and Myotis species (5 rec.), identified as Daubenton’s. The first bat, a Noctule,

was recorded at 2159, 19 minutes after sunset, commuting over the northern part of the site from east to west.

Noctules were heard and observed occasionally, either commuting over the site or foraging within the fields,

mostly near the boundaries. Both Soprano and common pipistrelles were recorded regularly until the end of the

survey, commuting and foraging along field boundaries, around the wetland area and within fields. Myotis bats

were recorded on three separate occasions in both the north and the south part of the site and one individual

was observed foraging in the southwest corner of the site.

Static detector surveys Static detector surveys took place under the following weather conditions in May 2019, July 2019 and August

2020 (Table 3):

Table 3: Weather conditions during static bat survey nights

Static bat detector surveys recorded a total of 10 bat species: Brandt’s, Brown long-eared, Common pipistrelle,

Daubenton’s, Leisler’s, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, Natterer’s, Noctule and Soprano pipistrelle and Whiskered. Some

of the Myotis and Pipistrellus recordings could not be identified to species level. Summaries of each month’s

data are displayed in tables 4-6 below and are shown visually on maps in Appendix D. The results are described

below for each Plot.

Data obtained from the Valley weather station located 1km south of the site at the nearest point

Month Date Sunset time Sunrise time Mean wind speed (kn) Min. temp. ('C) Max. temp. ('C) Rainfall

May 22-23 21:22 05:05 10.3 10.8 11.9 None

23-24 21:23 05:04 5 11.3 12.3 None

24-25 21:24 05:03 3.5 10.8 12.8 None

25-26 21:26 05:02 13.7 12.4 13.2 None

26-27 21:27 05:00 13.5 11.5 14.2 None

27-28 21:29 04:59 8 10.1 11.1 None

July 12-13 21:40 05:05 6.6 14.6 15.2 None

13-14 21:39 05:06 6.5 12.1 14.2 None

14-15 21:38 05:08 6.1 13.9 15.7 None

15-16 21:37 05:09 8.3 14.7 15.4 None

16-17 21:36 05:10 13.3 15.8 16 None

17-18 21:35 05:12 8.7 13.3 15.4 None

August 06-07 21:03 05:45 7.9 15.7 16.5 Drizzle 03:00-05:00

07-08 21:01 05:47 5.9 14.8 16.9 Light rain 23:00-00:00

08-09 20:59 05:48 9.3 15 18 None



Table 4: Static bat detector data May 2019

Bra

nd

t’s

/

wh

iske

red

Bro

wn

lon

g-

ear

ed

Co

mm

on

pip

istr

elle

Dau

be

nto

n’

s

Leis

ler’

s

Myo

tis

spe

cie

s

Nat

hu

siu

s’

pip

istr

elle

Nat

tere

r’s

No

ctu

le

Pip

istr

elle

spe

cie

s

Sop

ran

o

pip

istr

elle

Plot Detector Dates First bat recording

Last bat recording M

yoti

s b

ran

dti

i /

mys

taci

nu

s

Ple

cotu

s a

uri

tus

Pip

istr

ellu

s

pip

istr

ellu

s

Myo

tis

da

ub

ento

nii

Nyc

talu

s le

isle

ri

Myo

tis

spp

.

Pip

istr

ellu

s

na

thu

sii

Myo

tis

na

tter

eri

Nyc

talu

s n

ocu

la

Pip

istr

ellu

s sp

p.

Pip

istr

ellu

s

pyg

ma

eus

TOTA

L

1 M8 25-26 22:04:40 01:03:40 4 11 5 20

1 M8 26-27 21:19:20 05:10:50 5 1 9 12 27

1 M8 27-28 22:00:00 05:01:00 1 11 1 1 44 47 105

1 M9 23-24 21:50:10 01:09:20 6 1 30 25 62

1 M9 26-27 22:00:00 04:13:10 16 31 38 85

1 M9 27-28 21:53:40 05:03:50 27 6 2 52 62 149

3 M10 23-24 21:45:00 01:13:30 3 7 2 2 26 25 65

3 M11 23-24 21:46:30 04:32:50 1 1 10 6 1 22 39 80

3 M11 24-25 21:55:00 01:00:40 1 9 12 30 52

3 M11 26-27 21:57:30 04:18:00 2 17 4 2 8 1 25 59

3 M11 27-28 21:52:20 04:07:10 2 2 19 1 43 67

4 M1 22-23 22:09:00 04:13:40 1 17 2 46 11 77

4 M1 23-24 21:57:10 01:15:00 11 63 7 81

4 M1 27-28 21:49:10 04:04:20 2 12 38 11 63

4 M2 22-23 21:50:40 04:01:30 1 10 54 8 73

4 M2 23-24 21:45:00 00:58:30 2 5 2 62 6 77

4 M2 27-28 21:19:30 04:13:10 1 16 36 12 65

5 M3 22-23 21:45:20 04:03:20 2 27 16 45

5 M3 23-24 21:48:10 01:00:00 1 25 1 3 30



5 M3 27-28 21:57:00 01:56:30 6 33 1 40

6 M4 23-24 21:54:00 01:12:40 23 6 30 24 83

6 M4 26-27 21:54:20 04:31:50 4 1 1 64 19 89

6 M4 27-28 21:48:50 05:12:40 4 1 1 119 103 228

6 M5 23-24 22:01:40 01:07:10 2 101 3 2 55 295 458

6 M5 26-27 21:52:30 04:58:30 35 1 329 127 492

6 M5 27-28 21:51:00 04:37:40 9 31 3 1 318 64 426

8 M6 23-24 21:58:50 01:10:40 1 11 21 15 48

8 M6 26-27 21:21:10 03:37:20 3 20 2 25

8 M6 27-28 21:58:10 03:24:00 4 1 25 7 37

9 M7 23-24 22:03:00 01:12:50 1 8 13 19 41

TOTAL 22 9 385 69 3 7 8 0 1642 3 1101 3249

Table 5: Static bat detector data July 2019

Bra

nd

t’s

/

wh

iske

red

Bro

wn

lon

g-

ear

ed

Co

mm

on

pip

istr

elle

Dau

be

nto

n’

s Leis

ler’

s

Myo

tis

spe

cie

s

Nat

hu

siu

s’

pip

istr

elle

Nat

tere

r’s

No

ctu

le

Pip

istr

elle

spe

cie

s

Sop

ran

o

pip

istr

elle


Last bat recording M

yoti

s b

ran

dti

i /

mys

taci

nu

s

Ple

cotu

s a

uri

tus

Pip

istr

ellu

s

pip

istr

ellu

s

Myo

tis

da

ub

ento

nii

Nyc

talu

s le

isle

ri

Myo

tis

spp

.

Pip

istr

ellu

s

na

thu

sii

Myo

tis

na

tter

eri

Nyc

talu

s n

ocu

la

Pip

istr

ellu

s sp

p.

Pip

istr

ellu

s

pyg

ma

eus

TOTA

L

1 1A 18-19 Data not available

Data not available

13 2 6 28 49

1 1B 18-19 21:38:10 03:22:10 1 6 6 10 23

1 J8 15-16 21:25:40 03:27:00 3 16 2 6 35 62

1 J8 16-17 21:18:40 03:16:40 1 4 1 9 19 34

1 J9 15-16 21:39:30 03:24:00 2 11 3 5 26 47

1 J9 16-17 21:18:00 03:12:30 10 1 7 25 43



3 3A 18-19 21:19:40 03:25:50 3 1 8 5 3 7 28 55

3 3B 18-19 21:19:40 03:28:50 10 3 9 34 56

3 3C 18-19 Data not available

Data not available

2 1 12 12 4 15 207 253

3 3D 18-19 Data not available

Data not available

1 5 1 2 8 12 29

3 3E 17-18 (average of 2 nights)

Data not available

Data not available

5 8.5 24.5 25.5 1 5 16 206 291.5

3 3E 18-19 (average of 2 nights)

Data not available

Data not available

5 8.5 24.5 25.5 1 5 16 206 291.5

3 J10 15-16 20:42:10 03:22:20 4 15 8 12 1 54 61 155

3 J10 16-17 21:01:30 03:40:10 1 12 6 2 1 14 29 65

3 J11 15-16 21:03:20 23:04:50 6 18 2 14 212 252

4 J1b 13-14 21:03:00 03:37:00 5 10 15 30

4 J1b 14-15 21:00:30 03:46:50 12 2 34 9 57

4 J2 12-13 21:04:00 03:15:20 5 3 21 86 115

4 J2 13-14 21:36:50 03:44:10 1 23 2 7 47 80

4 J2 14-15 21:08:30 03:39:50 3 14 4 4 3 31 42 101

5 J3 15-16 21:22:20 03:46:30 1 2 18 8 29

5 J3 16-17 21:01:30 03:13:50 1 16 1 8 19 45

6 6B 18-19 21:09:20 03:46:00 61 6 6 36 86 195

6 6C 18-19 21:01:00 03:43:00 8 2 2 189 26 227

6 J4a 12-13 21:01:30 03:44:30 24 10 6 42 192 274

6 J4a 13-14 21:06:00 03:37:50 4 24 13 6 1 35 256 339

6 J4b 14-15 21:08:20 03:44:50 9 9 30 21 69

6 J5 15-16 20:58:50 03:43:00 104 20 12 12 2 3 70 118 341

6 J5 16-17 20:52:00 03:42:40 96 1 20 8 9 67 173 374

8 J6a 12-13 20:03:10 03:26:50 13 33 54 100

8 J6a 13-14 21:10:20 03:28:00 28 58 37 123

9 J7a 12-13 21:15:50 03:21:10 17 1 11 38 67



9 J7a 13-14 21:01:00 03:50:40 23 2 113 1 99 238

TOTAL 227 64 500 171 1 53 27 3 999 1 2464 4510

Table 6: Static bat detector data August 2020

Bra

nd

t’s

/

wh

iske

red

Bro

wn

lon

g-

ear

ed

Co

mm

on

pip

istr

elle

Dau

be

nto

n’

s

Leis

ler’

s

Myo

tis

spe

cie

s

Nat

hu

siu

s’

pip

istr

elle

Nat

tere

r’s

No

ctu

le

Pip

istr

elle

spe

cie

s

Sop

ran

o

pip

istr

elle


Last bat recording

Myo

tis

bra

nd

tii

/ m

ysta

cin

us

Ple

cotu

s a

uri

tus

Pip

istr

ellu

s

pip

istr

ellu

s

Myo

tis

da

ub

ento

nii

Nyc

talu

s le

isle

ri

Myo

tis

spp

.

Pip

istr

ellu

s

na

thu

sii

Myo

tis

na

tter

eri

Nyc

talu

s n

ocu

la

Pip

istr

ellu

s sp

p.

Pip

istr

ellu

s p

ygm

aeu

s

TOTA

L

3 A3.1 6-7 22:00:00 05:21:59 1 1 10 6 4 12 23 57

3 A3.1 7-8 22:00:59 04:55:59 5 8 1 6 20

3 A3.1 8-9 21:18:00 05:15:00 1 4 11 8 1 1 30 37 93

3 A3.2 6-7 02:00:00 03:48:00 2 2 1 8 3 16

4 A4.2a 6-7 22:06:00 04:55:59 12 1 1 1 17 32

4 A4.2b 7-8 20:12:00 04:24:00 3 1 1 3 3 11

4 A4.2b 8-9 22:00:00 04:00:00 1 2 1 1 5

4 A4.3 7-8 22:12:00 00:30:00 1 2 1 1 1 6

4 A4.4 7-8 20:36:00 03:00:00 2 2 4

5 A5.2 7-8 22:06:00 04:54:00 10 1 1 10 22

5 A5.2 8-9 21:42:00 04:42:00 1 8 7 1 2 12 31

6 A6.3 6-7 22:00:00 04:54:00 1 1 8 20 2 21 53

6 A6.3 7-8 21:24:00 05:06:00 4 17 9 11 41

6 A6.3 8-9 21:30:00 05:00:00 1 8 9 2 8 4 32

TOTAL 4 14 82 81 1 8 6 0 77 0 150 423



Plot 1

2019

There were a total of 12 survey nights covered by static detectors in Plot 1, with 8 bat species recorded. One

detector (J8) placed within a field >50m from the boundary covered 2 survey nights, recording 48 bats per night

on average. Three detectors (1A, 1B and J9) placed in fields <50m from boundary features, covered 4 survey

nights and recorded 23-53 bats per night on average. Two detectors (M8 and M9) placed on boundary features

recorded 51-99 bats per night on average.

Soprano pipistrelle was the species most often recorded by detectors placed within fields, with 56.3%, 51.3%,

60.4% and 43.5% of bat passes on detectors J8, J9, 1A and 1B, respectively. Noctule was recorded most

frequently along boundary features, with 42.1% and 38.2% of passes on detectors M8 and M9, respectively.

Soprano pipistrelle, Common pipistrelle and Noctule bats made up a total of between 69.6% and 97.4% of passes

per detector. Detector 1B, located in the south east of the plot, recorded 26.1% Daubenton’s passes, but only

recorded 23 bat passes overall during the one deployment night. Daubenton’s was also recorded at each of the

other locations, with 1.3% to 5.7% of total passes. Brown long-eared was recorded on J8 and J9 with 3 and 2

passes, respectively; Nathusius’ pipistrelle was recorded on M8 and M9 with 1 and 2 passes, respectively;

Brandt’s was recorded on detector 1B with 1 pass and Whiskered was recorded on M8 and J8 with 1 pass on

each.

Noctule was recorded within 15 minutes of sunrise and sunset on detectors M8 and M9. On the 26th May there

was a Noctule pass at 2119 on detector M8, six minutes before sunset. There was then a Noctule pass on the

following morning on 27th May at 0510, ten minutes after sunrise. On the morning of the 28th May there were

frequent Noctule recordings between 0450 and 0501, with sunrise at 0449. There were also two Noctule passes

on detector M9 at 0503 on the 28th May.

Plot 3

2019

Over the 14 survey nights covered by 7 detectors at Plot 3 there were up to 8 bat species recorded. Two

detectors (3B and 3D) were placed within fields >50m from boundary features in July. These detectors recorded

56 bats (3B – north east marshy field) and 29 bats (3D – sheep-grazed north west field) on the nights they were

deployed. These each recorded Soprano pipistrelle most frequently, with 60.7% of passes over 3B and 41.4%

passes over detector 3D. Common pipistrelle made up 17.9% (3B) and 17.2% (3D) of passes within fields and

Noctule made up 16.1% (3B) and 27.6% (3D). Myotis bats were recorded using both fields, with 3 passes near

detector 3B and 2 passes near to detector 3D. There were also 2 passes of Nathusius’ pipistrelle recorded by

detector 3D.

Six detectors (M10, M11, J10, J11, 3A and 3C) recorded for 10 survey nights along boundary features. Detectors

on boundaries recorded 65 (M10 – beside stream), 64.5 (M11 – by gap in hedgerow), 111.5 (J10), 252 (J11), 52

(3A) and 253 (3C) bat passes per night on average. Soprano pipistrelle was the most frequently recorded species

by all boundary detectors, with the species making up between 40.4% (J10) and 84.1% (J11) of recordings.

Noctule, Common pipistrelle and Brown long-eared were also recorded by all detectors. A Brown long-eared

day roost was also confirmed in a small barn within the farm directly south of the site, with one individual found

roosting prior to the survey. Daubenton’s was recorded on 5 detectors (not J11), Whiskered/Brandt’s were

recorded on two detectors (J10 and 3A) and Nathusius’ pipistrelle was recorded on detector J10.



One detector (3E) covered two survey nights within woodland just outside of the site boundary, recording 291.5

bat passes on average per night. Soprano pipistrelle was the most recorded species (71%), with Noctule,

Common pipistrelle, Brown long-eared, Daubenton’s, Whiskered/Brandt’s and Nathusius’ pipistrelle also

recorded using the small woodland.

There was a recording of a Noctule on detector J10 at 2142 on the 15th July, 5 minutes after sunset.

2020

In August 2020 two detectors, both placed along field boundaries, recorded over 4 survey nights picking up 8

bat species. On average there were 57 bat passes per night over detector A3.1 and 16 passes over A3.2. Soprano

pipistrelle was the most recorded species on detector A3.1, making up 38% of recordings. Noctule was the most

recorded species on detector A3.2, making up 50% of recordings. Noctule was the second most frequent species

over detector A3.1 with 25% of recordings and Common pipistrelle was also recorded often with 15%;

Daubenton’s made 12% of passes. Other species recorded were Brandt’s/Whiskered, Brown long-eared and

Leisler’s, Nathusius’ pipistrelle.

Plot 4

2019

Throughout the 11 survey nights covered by four static detectors in Plot 4 in 2019 there were up to 7 bat species

recorded. Three detectors were placed in open ground (M1, M2 and J1) at least 50 metres from boundary

features, recording for 6 survey nights in total. Detector M1 recorded 76 bat passes per night on average, M2

recorded 72 bats on average and J1 recorded 43 bats per night. The most frequent bats using open ground were

Noctule (67.5% at M1, 71.0% at M2, 50.0% at J1b), with Common and Soprano pipistrelle also regularly passing,

more so in July than May. In addition to these frequent species, 6 Brown long-eared, 6 Daubenton’s and 1

Whiskered/Brandt’s bat passes were recorded on the mid-field detectors.

One detector (J2) was placed along a stone wall dividing two fields, recording over a total of 3 nights, with an

average of 132 bats per night. The majority of recordings were Soprano pipistrelle: 69.4% of the total. Noctule

and Common pipistrelle were also frequently recorded. There were 4 recordings of Brown long-eared, 9 of

Daubenton’s, 4 of unknown Myotis and 3 of Nathusius’ pipistrelle throughout the three survey nights.

On the 27th May there were three recordings of Noctule bats between 10 and 8 minutes before sunset, at 2119

and 2121, on detector M2.

2020

In August 2020 there were a total of 5 nights of bat data recorded at Plot 4 in four different locations, three in

open ground >50m from boundary features (A4.2a, A4.2b and A4.3) and one along a hedgerow to the south

(A4.4). These recorded 32 (A4.2a), 8(A4.2b), 6 (A4.3) and 4 (A4.4) bat passes on average per night. Soprano

pipistrelle was the most recorded species at location A4.2a, with 53% of passes. At this location Common

pipistrelle made 12 passes out of the 32 total and Daubenton’s, unidentified Myotis and Nathusius’ pipistrelle

each made one pass. Noctule and Brown long-eared were equally most often recorded at location A4.2b with 3

passes each out of a total of 16 bat passes over two nights.

Plot 5

2019



During the five static survey-nights in Plot 5 (one detector in May and one in July) there were 5 bat species

recorded. Both detectors were placed in the middle of the field >50 metres from the field boundaries. On

average there were 38 passes per night in May and 37 passes per night in July. In May, Noctule bats made up

the majority of passes, with 74.6% of the total. Soprano pipistrelle made up 16.7% and Common pipistrelle made

up 7.9% of passes. In July Soprano pipistrelles made the majority of passes with 36.5%, followed by Noctule with

35.1% passes. Common pipistrelle made 24.3% of passes and Brown long-eared were also recorded with 2

passes over the two nights of survey.

2020

During two survey nights at one location in August 2020 there were 26.5 bat passes on average per night.

Soprano pipistrelle was most recorded, with 42% of passes. Common pipistrelle was recorded, with 34% of

passes and Daubenton’s made up 15% of passes. Brown long-eared and Noctule were also recorded, with 1 pass

and 2 passes, respectively.

Plot 6

2019

During the 14 survey-nights covered by static detectors in Plot 6 up to 9 species of bats were recorded. In May

both static detectors (M4 and M5) were placed on boundary features, due to the presence of horses in fields.

Similar compositions of bat species were recorded by both detectors, although M5 recorded over four times as

many bats per night (459 bats per night at M5, 100 bats per night at M4). Just over half of recordings on both

detectors were Noctule, just over one-third were Soprano pipistrelle and around 10% were Common pipistrelle.

Both also had 1 Nathusius’ pipistrelle pass, 7 Daubenton’s bat passes and 2 unidentified Myotis bat passes. There

were also 12 passes by Whiskered or Brandt’s bats picked up by detector M5.

In July two detectors (J4a and 6C) were placed on boundary features and a further three detectors (J4b, J5 and

6b) were placed in open locations, where horses were not present during the survey nights. Due to the small

sizes of the fields these detectors were within 50 metres of boundary features. Detectors on boundaries

recorded 306.5 (J4a) and 227 (6C) bats per night on average and detectors within fields recorded 69 (J4b), 357.5

(J5) and 198 (6B) bats per night on average.

Along the field boundaries, detector J4a recorded Soprano pipistrelle most often (73.1%) and of the less common

bats, recorded Daubenton’s 3.8%, unidentified Myotis 2%, Nathusius’ pipistrelle 0.2% and Whiskered/Brandt’s

0.7%. Detector 6C recorded mostly Noctules with 83.3%.

Within the fields, detector J4b recorded Noctules most often (43.5% of recordings), and Soprano pipistrelles the

second most (30%), with Common pipistrelle and Daubenton’s each making up 13% of recordings. Detector J5

most often recorded Soprano pipistrelle (35%), with Whiskered bats making up 28% of recordings, Noctule 19%

and Brown long-eared, Common pipistrelle, Daubenton’s, unknown Myotis and Nathusius’ pipistrelle also

recorded. Detector 6B recorded Pipistrelle bats most often with 44.4% Soprano pipistrelle, 31.3% Common

pipistrelle and 3% Nathusius’ pipistrelle; Noctule and Daubenton’s were also recorded.

Recordings of Soprano pipistrelle and Noctule were made within 15 minutes of sunset and sunrise. On the 27th

May there were recordings of Noctule within 15 minutes of sunrise on detector M5 and on the 28th May there

were recordings of Soprano pipistrelle within 15 minutes of sunset on detector M4. Both detectors were placed

near a major commuting route and these bats are likely to have been roosting nearby.

2020



Across the 3 static survey nights in August 2020, recordings were taken at one location (along a boundary within

the east of Plot 6) with an average of 42 bat passes recorded per night. 37% of passes were Common pipistrelle

and 29% of passes were Soprano pipistrelle, 15% were Daubenton’s and 14% were Noctule. There were also

Brandt’s/whiskered (1 pass) and Brown long-eared (2 passes) recorded.

Plot 8

2019

Static detector surveys at Plot 8 covered 5 survey nights, with 5 bat species recorded. Detector M6, placed in

the northern field more than 50 metres from the boundary, recorded 37 bats per night on average: 60% of

passes were Noctule, 21.8% were Soprano pipistrelle and 16.4% were Common pipistrelle. Detector J6a

recorded 111 bat passes per night, with 40.8% Noctule, 40.8% Soprano pipistrelle and 18.4% Common

pipistrelle.

Recordings of Soprano pipistrelle and Noctule were made within 15 minutes of sunset and sunrise on detector

M6. On the 26th May there was a Soprano pipistrelle recorded at 2121, 6 minutes before sunset and a Noctule

recorded at 2123, 4 minutes before sunset.

Plot 9

2019

Static detector surveys at Plot 9 covered 3 survey nights with two detectors: at least 5 bat species were recorded.

The detector placed in the field >50 metres from the boundary recorded 41 bats in one night. Detector J7a,

placed on the boundary dividing the north and south sections, recorded 162 bats per night over two nights.

Soprano pipistrelle was recorded most with 46.3% of passes on M7 and 48.3% of passes on J7a. Noctule made

up 31.7% and 38.2% of passes respectively and Common pipistrelle made up 19.5% and 12.3% of passes. One

Whiskered bat pass was recorded on detector M7 and two Daubenton’s passes were recorded on detector J7a.

4.0 Analysis

A full analysis of impacts to bats is provided in Chapter 11 of the Environmental Impact Assessment. Impacts are

only considered for plots 3, 4, 5 and 6 as plots 1, 8 and 9 are excluded from the application.

4.1 Roosting Bats There is negligible potential within the proposal site for roosting bats. The proposals will not impact on any bat

roosts within the site.

Adjacent to the site there is moderate potential for bats to roost in trees by Plot 3 and a low potential for bats

to roost in trees by Plot 4. No trees or major tree limbs are proposed for removal due to the proposals. However,

if any mature trees or major tree limbs require removal due to unforeseen reasons, these will first require further

assessment by an ecologist for bat roosting potential, with a full bat inspection and further survey required

depending on the results of this assessment. Any removal of trees will be carried out mindfully of the Local

Biodiversity Action Plans and additional roosting features will be provided accordingly by placing appropriate

bat boxes onto nearby mature trees.

Two buildings adjacent to plot 3 contain known bat roosts: a brown long-eared day roost in a barn and a soprano

pipistrelle maternity roost in a house loft. No buildings will be removed, or disturbed to a greater extent, as a



result of the proposals and therefore known bat roosts in buildings will not be impacted by the proposed solar

farm. However, if through unforeseen circumstances it becomes necessary to remove or disturb a building,

either with a known bat roost or with potential to be used as a bat roost, further assessment by a licensed

ecologist will be required, with the appropriate follow-up survey work, licensing and mitigation if found to be

necessary.

Static and transect surveys found that there were likely to be further roosts for all recorded species within the

local area, within buildings and mature trees. None of these will be impacted directly by the proposals but it is

of importance that the amount and quality of foraging habitat is retained throughout the site in order to avoid

negatively impacting any bats.

4.2 Commuting and Foraging Bats Common, rarer, and rare bat species were found to mostly utilise boundary and edge habitats, but some activity

was also found within fields. Overall, an assessment of the site’s value, according to the metric provided in

“Valuing Bats in Ecological Impact Assessment” (Wray et al., 2010; Figure 1), found the site to be of Regional

importance to commuting bats and of Regional value to foraging bats (Tables 7 and 8). The major contributor to

these scores (20 points) is the rarity, in Wales, of some of the species using the site: Noctule, Whiskered, Brandt’s

and Nathusius’ pipistrelle: classified as “Rarest” species in Wales due to having populations of under 10,000.

Figure 1: Scoring system for valuing commuting routes and foraging areas (Wray et al., 2010)



Table 7: Valuation of commuting routes

Species Number of

bats

Roosts/potential

roosts nearby

Type and complexity of

linear features

TOTAL

score

Geographic frame of

reference

Rarest Small number

of bats

Moderate

number/Not

known

Well-grown and well-

connected hedgerows,

small field sizes

20 10 4 4 38 Regional (31-40)

Table 8: Valuation of foraging areas

Species Number of

bats

Roosts/potential

roosts nearby

Foraging habitat

characteristics

TOTAL

score

Geographic frame of

reference

Rarest Small

number of

bats

Moderate

number/Not known

Larger or connected

woodland blocks,

mixed agriculture, and

small villages/hamlets

20 10 4 4 38 Regional (31-40)

There is little evidence to date to show the extent to which bats use solar farms for foraging and commuting

purposes, or how much impact solar farms might have on bats overall. A short study by Montag et al. (2016),

which was ultimately inconclusive due to a lack of data, found that bats did use solar farms for foraging and

commuting, seemingly less than they used control plots but at rates that differed substantially between sites.

Available evidence on bat collisions with solar panels (Taylor et al, 2019; Natural England, 2019) suggests that

because panels are tilted rather than flat or vertical, bats are highly unlikely to mistake them for either water or

open flight paths. Furthermore, bats are highly intelligent animals, meaning that they are likely to quickly learn

how to use novel environments such as solar farms. The greatest threat of a solar farm to bats is likely to be

potential loss of foraging habitat resulting from the construction of solar panels.

Based on the available evidence, the proposed solar farm at Traffwll would be unlikely to substantially change

bat foraging habits throughout the site: due to the retention of all existing habitats, including trees, hedgerows,

and grasslands. If the solar farm were to discourage bats from using the grasslands, impacts would be to

common and wide-ranging species and would be negligible/minor due to the presence a large amount of similar

grassland in the local area.

4.3 Impacts per species / species group Brown long-eared

Brown long-eared bats made up around 3% of recordings and this species largely used boundary features,

though were occasionally observed flying over fields. A day roost was found in a barn to the south of Plot 3. The

proposals would have a negligible impact on Brown long-eared, as the grasslands will be retained and margins

will be enhanced.



Leisler’s

Leisler’s were recorded very rarely throughout surveys with a total of just five passes. This species is not seen to

make use of the site, rather passing overhead, and would not be impacted by the proposals.

Myotis species

Myotis were often not identified to species level but four species were identified, all of which were recorded

throughout the proposal site. Most Myotis activity was around trees and along boundary features. Brandt’s and

Whiskered are classed as “Rarest” species in Wales due to their populations being below 10,000.

Whiskered bats were most frequently foraging in the northeast of Plot 6 and one individual Myotis bat was

recorded foraging within the eastern field of Plot 4. Transect surveys concluded that Myotis activity was

concentrated along hedgerows with bats rarely seen further than 5 metres into fields, although individuals did

fly further into fields on occasion. Daubenton’s were recorded along field boundaries in wet areas, in particular

the south of Plot 4.

The proposals are expected to have a negligible impact on Myotis bats overall. The majority of Myotis activity

was observed to remain within 5 metres of hedgerows and boundary features, with most bats foraging along

the features themselves and as these features will remain, there will not be an impact. The proposals will not

substantially alter the existing sheep-grazed fields, save for the addition of solar panels, which are considered

unlikely to disrupt these bats. In the long term the proposals have the potential to cause a decrease in habitat

quality for Myotis bats foraging in Plot 6, due to the change that will occur in the management regime: horses

are unlikely to be able to graze within a solar farm; and the ground will become more heavily shaded. As a

result, this decrease in value is required to be compensated for in the form of creating habitat of similar

management and quality elsewhere in the local area, on existing low-quality land.

Noctule

Noctule made up around a third of bat recordings throughout the site. Noctule is classed as a “Rarest” species

in Wales due to having a population below 10,000. There appears to be a good population local to the proposal

site and appear to be one or more roosts nearby. Most individuals were recorded flying high overhead but at

least 8 individuals were also observed foraging 2 metres above fields within the proposal site.

The proposals would have a negligible impact on Noctule bats using the proposal site. Plot 9, which was the

most heavily used by Noctules, has been removed from the proposals. The other plots were used rarely by

foraging Noctule. The foraging behaviour of Noctule is fairly broad and the presence of solar panels is not likely

to discourage these bats from foraging or to decrease the value of the grasslands on which they forage.

Pipistrelle species

Soprano pipistrelle was the most frequently recorded bat species with around half of all bat passes throughout

the site. A maternity roost was found in the loft of a house adjacent to Plot 3. Common pipistrelle was the third

most frequently recorded species with around one-tenth of passes. Nathusius’ pipistrelle made up around 1%

of all passes.

Pipistrelle bats frequently used boundary features for commuting and foraging, with foraging also common

alongside these features. Soprano and Common pipistrelle were the most frequent bats found to be foraging

over fields, throughout surveys, with bats recorded foraging within all plots.



The proposals would have a negligible impact on Pipistrelle bats, as the development will not constitute a loss

of foraging habitat. Both Soprano and Common pipistrelle have broad foraging preferences and the grassland

throughout the site will remain of a similar value to foraging bats once the development is in place. Nathusius’

pipistrelle tend to be found near to water and their main threats are decreases to water quality. The proposals

would not lead to any reduction in water quality on site or in the nearby area and therefore there would be

negligible impact on this species.

5.0 Requirements and Recommendations

The following measures will be put in place in order to minimise any potential impacts to bats, both during and

after the construction of the proposed solar farm:

During construction

- If any trees or major tree limbs need removing, full survey is required and an EPS mitigation license from

NRW if roosting bats are found.

- Less intrusive equipment will be used to drive piles, in all areas close to known or potential bat roosts,

to reduce noise and vibration and minimise potential disturbance to background levels.

- The majority of works, in particular works that produce more noise or disruption, are recommended to

take place outside of the maternity or hibernation season. Works are best to take place in March, April,

September and October.

Post-construction

- New lighting must be avoided or minimised throughout the development. If any new lighting is required,

it must be directed away from boundary features so as there is no increase to lighting levels along these

features.

- The proposals must ensure that post-development, fields are vegetated with grasslands of either a

similar or a higher quality than exist at present. Any grassland that may reduce in quality as a result of

the proposals, as is likely to be the case in Plot 6, will need to be compensated for by increasing the

value of a similar sized area of grassland nearby, using similar management regimes – low intensity horse

grazing, in the case of Plot 6.

- Field margins will offer bats maximum possible foraging opportunities, through allowing the heights of

the grassland to increase and allowing scrub to colonise some areas.

- Conservation measures have been designed to increase and improve habitats for bats within the

proposal site, and by extension, within the wider environment. These measures will include:

o Infilling gaps in hedgerows to improve connectivity for commuting bats, especially more

sensitive species,

o Planting new hedgerows and trees, to increase cover and foraging opportunities,

o Maintaining and creating tall and species-rich grasslands,

o Retaining wet areas and ditches and grazing, will all provide benefits to bats within the proposal

site and in the local area, through improvements in habitat connectivity and grassland quality.

The proposals as a whole are expected to have a neutral or small positive impact on bats,

o Installing new bat roosting features on trees adjacent to the site. A minimum of 10 long-lasting

bat boxes will be installed on suitable mature trees at a height of at least 3 metres from ground

level.



6.0 References

Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). The Bat Conservation Trust, London. ISBN-13 978-1-872745-96.1 Natural England (2016) Evidence Review of the impact of solar farms on birds, bats and general ecology (NEER012) Available at http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6384664523046912 Isle of Anglesey County Council webpage (2020). What are we doing to help biodiversity? Pdfs available at https://www.anglesey.gov.uk/en/Residents/Countryside/Biodiversity/What-are-we-doing-to-help-biodiversity-on-Anglesey.aspx Montag H., Parker G., and Clarkson T. (2016) The effects of Solar Farms on Biodiversity: A Comparative Study.

Clarkson and Woods and Wychwood Biodiversity.

Taylor R., Conway J., Gabb O. and Gillespie J. (2019). Potential ecological impacts of mounted photovoltaic solar

panesl [Online] Accessed October 2020.

Wray S., Wells D., Long E., Mitchell-Jones A.M. (2010). Valuing Bats in Ecological Impact Assessment. In Practice

(Dec 2010) 23-25. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.

http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6384664523046912

https://www.anglesey.gov.uk/en/Residents/Countryside/Biodiversity/What-are-we-doing-to-help-biodiversity-on-Anglesey.aspx

https://www.anglesey.gov.uk/en/Residents/Countryside/Biodiversity/What-are-we-doing-to-help-biodiversity-on-Anglesey.aspx



Appendix A. Potential roosting features – buildings (B), trees (T) and woodland (W)



Appendix B. Bat transect survey routes



Appendix C. Bat transect survey results maps



Appendix D. Static Bat Detector Results Maps.

May 2019



July 2019



August 2020

Bat Survey Report Proposed Solar Farm Land at Traffwll ...

Documents

Transcript of Bat Survey Report Proposed Solar Farm Land at Traffwll ...