L U A B P N 3G S P S C R - planning.org.uk

LANDSCAPE USE ASSESSMENT FOR BATS PROPOSED NEW 3G SPORTS PITCH

LEVERINGTON SPORTS AND SOCIAL CLUB CHURCH ROAD LEVERINGTON

A report to:

Surfacing Standards Limited Office 2 - Empingham House

Uppingham Gate Ayston Road Uppingham

Rutland LE15 9NY

By:

B J Collins – Protected Species Surveyors Ltd

Elvina Cottage Wilson's Lane

Morton Southwell

Nottinghamshire NG25 0UF

Tel: (01636) 830058 www.bjcollins.co.uk

October 2021

http://www.bjcollins.co.uk/

Leverington Sports and Social Club. Ecology and Landscape Use Assessment by Bats, 2021

2

Prepared by BJ Collins Protected Species Surveyors Ltd www.bjcollins.co.uk

Report to: Surfacing Standards Limited

Report Title: Landscape Use Assessment for Bats

Survey Site/Job: Leverington Sports and Social Club, Church Road, Leverington,

Wisbech.

OS Grid Reference: TF44481115

Survey Date(s): 14th June 2021 and 5th July 2021

Surveyed by:

Mr B J Collins MSc MCIEEM (Natural England Class Licence:

2015-13152-CLS) and registered Low-Impact Class Licence

Holder (RC110)

Architect/Agent: Surfacing Standards Limited

Planning Reference: TBC

Versioning and Quality Assurance

Report Status Date Author(s) Reviewed by

Final version 06/10/2021 B J Collins MSc MCIEEM B J Collins MSc MCIEEM

DISCLAIMER

This document has been prepared by B J Collins Protected Species Surveyors Limited. We accept no

responsibility or liability for any use that is made of this document other than by the client for the

purposes for which it was originally commissioned and prepared.

The evidence which we have prepared and provided is true and has been prepared and provided in

accordance with the guidance of The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s

Code of Professional Conduct.


3


CONTENTS

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 4 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Legislation applicable to bats ................................................................................................ 6 1.2 Other relevant wildlife legislation ........................................................................................ 6

2 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 Location of the Survey Site ................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Description of the proposed development area .................................................................. 7

3 SURVEY METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Desktop Study...................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Desk Study ........................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Transect Route Design ........................................................................................................ 10 3.4 Static/automated bat survey .............................................................................................. 11 3.5 Weather conditions ............................................................................................................. 12 3.6 Personnel ............................................................................................................................. 12

4 SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 13

4.1 Desktop Study Results – Bats .............................................................................................. 13 4.2 Static/automated bat survey .............................................................................................. 13

4.2.1. Eastern Boundary by Pitch and Treeline/Highway............................................................. 13 4.2.2. North-west boundary of the playing fields ......................................................................... 14

4.3 Walking Transect Surveys ................................................................................................... 15 4.4 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Results ............................................................................ 16

4.4.1. Desktop study - preliminary ecological appraisal .............................................................. 16 4.4.2. Habitats ............................................................................................................................... 17 4.4.3. Invasive species ................................................................................................................... 19 4.4.4. Fauna ................................................................................................................................... 19 4.4.5. Target notes ......................................................................................................................... 20

5 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 22

5.1 Species composition ............................................................................................................ 22 5.2 Existing Sports Pitch Floodlighting ...................................................................................... 22 5.3 Mitigation Actions ............................................................................................................... 24

5.3.1. Reducing the impact of commuting/foraging bats ............................................................ 24

6 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 26

6.1 Bat Commuting and Foraging Activity ................................................................................ 26 6.2 Other ecological considerations ......................................................................................... 26

7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 27

Appendix 1 - Relevant wildlife legislation ...................................................................................... 28


4


SUMMARY

The attached report provides the results of a landscape use assessment for bats of the area of sports field where a new 3G Sports Pitch has been proposed. The new pitch will be located on the grounds of the Leverington Sports and Social Club in Leverington, Wisbech.

Landscape Use Assessment

The predicted impact upon foraging and commuting bat species from the artificial lighting associated with the proposed new 3G Sports Pitch is summarised in bullet points below:

• The boundaries of the playing fields were utilised predominantly by one bat species and one that is known as a relatively ‘light tolerant’ bat. There was also a greater abundance of activity on the northern boundary than the eastern boundary where the pitch is proposed.

• Both boundaries of the sports field, at the east side of the proposed new 3G sports pitch and north of the playing field, were absent of the ‘light averse’ bat species, such as Plecotus and Myotis genera.

• No scarce bat species were recorded by the study.

• The mitigated lighting is below the lux level that has been found to adversely affect bats away from roosts. The design of the lighting has been amended such that no greater than 2 lux will be encountered on the boundary tree canopy of the pitch, below the level of 3.6 lx which Stone identified as detrimental to foraging and commuting bats.

• The design of the lighting has been prepared in accordance with steps 1 to 4 of the best practice guidance (ILP, 2018).

It is therefore concluded that the proposed new 3G Sports Pitch floodlighting design, in the form as specified within Bugg (project code SIS013, dated 21.07.2021), is likely to have a negligible impact upon bat activity on the boundaries adjacent to the new 3G pitch installation.

Other ecological considerations

Habitats

The preliminary ecological appraisal identified the following habitats and conclusions:

• The habitats affected by the development proposal comprise of amenity grassland of low conservation value. No further mitigation is recommended.

• Construction fencing and, if necessary, root protection methods should be incorporated to ensure there is no impact upon the mature deciduous trees which line the eastern boundary of the new 3G sports pitch. Materials and machinery should not be stored underneath the tree canopy.

• The eastern boundary contains habitats of value to commuting and foraging bats and birds, along with nesting habitat for birds. The eastern boundary habitats of the sports ground should be protected from construction activities.

• There is no potential impact from protected amphibians or other wildlife species, with no evidence of protected fauna or flora being present on the sportsground

Fauna

The preliminary ecological appraisal identified three species or groups which could be adversely affected by the construction of the new 3G Sports Pitch.

Badger and Hedgehog (Mitigation and Best Practice)

The site may potentially be used by hedgehog, and occasionally by commuting badger. The following measures are recommended to ensure best practice and adopt a precautionary approach:

• During development, in order to protect any foraging or commuting animals, any trenches dug during works activities that are left open overnight should be left with a sloping end or ramp to allow any mammals that may fall in a route to escape.

The above mitigation will equally protect and provide for both hedgehog and badger.


5


Nesting Birds (Mitigation)

If there is any requirement to remove any habitat feature with potential to support nesting birds then this should be timed to avoid the bird breeding season, which runs from March to September (inclusive). This is to avoid adverse impacts to any active nests present.

If any potential bird nesting habitat is identified on an area of proposed works and during the nesting season then a precautionary prestart survey should be carried out by a suitably qualified ornithologist to identify and map bird nests, in advance of any work.

Further survey or mitigation requirements

The nature of the site, specifically that which is directly affected by the construction activity for the new 3G sports pitch and consequently from floodlighting of the sports pitch, is a plot of intensively managed amenity grassland and as such its conversion does not represent a significant impact to wildlife in the local area. There is therefore considered to be no requirement for further surveys for the construction phase of the project, beyond those described for nesting birds above.


6


1 INTRODUCTION

This report has been prepared by BJ Collins – Protected Species Surveyors Limited for Surfacing Standards Limited on behalf of the Leverington Sports and Social Club, Church Road, Leverington, Wisbech, postcode PE13 5DE.

The report provides the results of a landscape use assessment for bats, along with preliminary ecological appraisal, to inform the installation of a new 3G sports pitch, with associated floodlighting, on the south-east corner of the playing fields. The new sports pitch is to be centred upon the eight figure Ordnance Survey grid reference of TF44481115.

The aim of the survey was twofold: 1. To carry out a preliminary ecological appraisal to identify any constraints to the construction of the pitch from protected sites and wildlife. 2. To inform the potential impact upon bat species from the proposed floodlighting of the sports facility, in accordance with National Best Practice Guidelines (2016 and 2018):

The legislation with regards to the target species relevant to the survey is listed below.

1.1 Legislation applicable to bats

All species of British bat and their roosts are protected under British law by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and bats are classified as European Protected Species under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (‘the 2017 Regulations’). This has recently been amended by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations (2019) which continue the same provision for European protected species, licensing requirements, and protected areas after Brexit.

The legislation makes it an offence to kill, injure or disturb a bat and/or to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place for a bat. It is also an offence to disturb the animals such that it impairs their ability to survive, to reproduce, to nurture their young, or such that it impairs their ability to hibernate or migrate. Under this legislation development work that could affect a bat or bat roost can only be permitted under a licence from Natural England.

Licences in respect of European Protected Species affected by development can be granted under Section 55(2) (e) of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations (2019), for the purpose of preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.

Under Section C Regulation 55(9) of the Regulations licences can only be issued if Natural England is satisfied that:

• There is no satisfactory alternative to the work specification and

• The action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

Natural England aim to process EPS licence applications within 35 working days of receipt and Low Impact Class licenses are typically registered within 14 working days of receipt.

Lighting in the vicinity of a bat roost, which may cause disturbance and even a potential abandonment of the roost, may be classed as an offence both to a population and/or individuals.

1.2 Other relevant wildlife legislation

Legislation with regards to other species which may be affected by the construction is included within appendix 1 of this report.


7


2 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Location of the Survey Site

Figure 1 – showing the survey area and the approximate location of the proposed sports pitch (to be within the red outline) in relation to the surrounding habitats courtesy of Google Earth.

The survey site comprises the Leverington sports ground, located in the centre of the village, where there is a proposal for a new 3G Sports Pitch installation. The area surveyed comprised the area enclosed within the yellow outline within figure 1 above.

The sports ground is located in the centre of an area of residential development to the north and south and with arable farmland extending east and west. The survey area is characterised by intensively managed amenity grassland surrounded by linear tree planting to the west, forming a shelterbelt, a small area of deciduous woodland to the north and a tree line and hedgerow with trees adjacent to the highway to the east.

2.2 Description of the proposed development area

The proposed new 3G sports pitch is to be installed within the area of sports ground highlighted red in figure 1 above.

The new 3G Sports Pitch will be located entirely upon an area of regularly mown amenity grassland currently used as a football pitch. The sward of this area is dominated by the typical species of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and white clover (Trifolium repens).

The boundary of the proposed new 3G sports pitch is bounded to the south by the pavilion and car parks, west by a further expanse of regularly mown amenity grassland, north by the tarmac playground and east by the tree line of mature deciduous specimens with the managed hawthorn hedgerow below the canopy, beyond this is the highway.


8


The following photographs show the range of habitats which will be directly affected by the proposed new 3G Sports Pitch installation.

Photograph 1 – view northerly from the southern boundary of the proposed new 3G sports pitch with the end of the treeline visible to the right, the tarmac playground visible in the distance to the north and the expanse of amenity grassland to the west and beyond.

Photograph 2 - showing the line of mature deciduous trees with managed hawthorn hedgerow below the canopy segregating the sportsground from the adjacent highway.


9


Photograph 3 – view of the southern boundary of the playing field, behind the advertising hoardings is an area of tarmac car parking and left of this is the pavilion and community building.

Photograph 4 – view from the north-west corner of the footprint for the proposed new 3G sports pitch looking south-easterly across the development area.


10


3 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

3.1 Desktop Study

3.2 Desk Study

A desktop study for designated and non-designated sites and wildlife records was undertaken for a 2 km circumference of the survey area using the following resources:

• www.magic.gov.uk (the Multi-Agency Geographic Information website for maps of statutory designated nature conservation sites).

• A desktop search by Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Environmental Records Centre. The data search was provided on the 13th of September 2021. This provided records of non-designated wildlife sites and species for a 2km circumference from the centre of the proposed new 3G Sports Pitch.

• Records of bats and bat roosts for a 2-kilometre circumference of the proposal provided by the Cambridgeshire Bat Group.

3.3 Transect Route Design

A transect route was established using two data sources. Firstly, after carrying out a daylight walkover of the site and secondly by examination of aerial photography.

With this information the transect route was designed to sample the edge habitats which were considered to have value to foraging and commuting bats and compare those which will be affected by the proposed sports pitch with those outside of the impact zone. The transect route then extended beyond the playing field extending to the linear woodland feature of the sea bank to the east of the village on the first transect and the roadway leading past the church and graveyard on the second transect.

The result was a walked transect which covered the entire peak survey period as specified by national guidelines and sampled different habitats within the local area to allow comparison with the habitats directly affected by the new sports pitch.

The transect survey was designed by Mr B J Collins MSc MCIEEM, a licensed bat ecologist with two decades of experience assessing habitat use by bats. B J Collins was the lead ecologist on the project.

The transect ensured all habitats considered to offer potential commuting and foraging opportunities for bat species were assessed and information about the range of species that utilise the Sports Ground collected.

The methodology for sampling bat activity followed the methodologies designed by the Bat Conservation Trust NBMP Field Survey and those recommended within national best practice guidelines (Collins, 2016). This involved recording bat activity via a combination of static point counts and counts between. The surveyor was static for a five-minute period at each of the designated stop points (point count) but then continued to record bat passes for the three-minute walking period between. All bat activity over the entire walked transect was recorded for subsequent analysis as necessary.

The transect route was also designed to sample within the peak activity period for bats, namely a period of approximately 90 minutes following sunset. This was achieved by dividing the transect route into 10 separate point counts, on the second survey the transect route was reversed, being carried out on an outward and return walk on both occasions to take account of varying extents of bat foraging activity to time after sunset.

The transect route is shown in figure 2 overleaf.

http://www.magic.gov.uk/


11


Figure 2 – the designed transect route and stop points used during the survey (red dashes indicate the walk route on both transects, the orange dashes indicate the comparison sections undertaken during the first transect, the blue dashes indicate the comparison section undertaken during the second transect).

The transect was undertaken twice, first on the 14th of June 2021 and secondly on the 5h of July 2021. Each survey began approximately 20 minutes after sunset. The transect was reversed on the second visit to allow sampling of activity close to emergence times at both ends of the site.

The transect was undertaken by one surveyor, who was equipped with an Anabat Scout Full Spectrum detector, continuously recording bat echolocation calls throughout the survey. All bat activity/passes were counted and attributed to species (where possible) during the transect, with species identification confirmed by sonogram analysis using Anabat Insight software.

3.4 Static/automated bat survey

A period of remote monitoring was undertaken with the objective of establishing the species affected by the proposed 3G Sports Pitch, the extent and duration of bat activity in that location, and to establish the peak foraging and commuting times, to allow comparison with the operational times of the proposed new floodlights.

To facilitate this, two Wildlife Acoustics Song Meter Mini Bat detectors were placed firstly onto the eastern woodland boundary, close to transect stop point 1. This allowed an assessment of bat activity directly alongside the new 3G sports pitch.

The second unit was placed onto a tree on the northwest boundary, positioned by stop point 5. This was positioned alongside the habitat considered to offer the optimum foraging and commuting potential for bats on the playing field.

To operate the units were set to switch on 30 minutes before sunset and run continually until 30 minutes after sunrise. On completion, the units were collected, and sonograms analysed.

The detectors were set to monitor over a 20-night period from 14th of June 2021 to the 5th of July. This


12


comprised a total of 8.5 hours per night and 340 hours of night-time study between the two units combined.

Figure 3 – location of the static recording units.

3.5 Weather conditions

The weather for the first transect on the 14th of June 2021 was dry with a high grey cloud (100% cloud cover). Ambient temperature at the beginning of the survey was 18° C. Wind speed was estimated between Beaufort 0/1 across the survey. Sunset was at 21:25 hours and the transect ran from 21:44 to 22:48 hours.

The weather conditions for the second transect on the 5th of July 2021 were dry with cloud (100% cloud cover). Ambient temperature at the beginning of the survey was 19.6° C and the wind strength was estimated at 2 as per the Beaufort scale. Sunset was at 21:24 hours and the transect ran from 21:35 to 22:34 hours. The survey was terminated at 22:42 hours due to persistent heavy rain and a lack of bat activity.

3.6 Personnel

The walkover survey was carried out by Mr B J Collins MSc MCIEEM (Natural England Class Licence: 2015-13152-CLS), registered Low-Impact Class Licence Holder (RC110).

The walking transects was designed and carried out by experienced bat ecologist Mr B J Collins MSc MCIEEM. The remote monitoring units were set up and placed out by Mr BJ Collins MSc MCIEEM.

Sonogram analysis was carried out by Mr B J Collins.

Detector 2

Detector 1


13


4 SURVEY RESULTS

4.1 Desktop Study Results – Bats

There are only 6 records of bats from the 2-kilometre search area surrounding the site from the Cambridgeshire Bat Group, comprising Common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and the Brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus), with a total of three records. There was then a further three records allocated to Pipistrelle species only.

None of the records are associated with roosts.

4.2 Static/automated bat survey

To provide detailed information with regards to the bat species which are present in the local area, the bat species which utilise different parts of the sports complex and school boundaries and the time that activity occurs a period of remote monitoring was undertaken utilising full spectrum bat detectors.

As previously described, these were positioned in two locations.

Firstly, a unit was placed onto the mature tree which is located close to the northeast corner of the new facility. The second detector was then placed on the northern boundary of the playing field, on the edge of the area of deciduous woodland segregating the playing field from the residential area beyond.

These locations ensured that the habitats with the most viable bat foraging or commuting potential, including that which could be affected by the floodlighting scheme for the new 3G Sports Pitch, were covered by the remote monitoring detectors. These were specifically the mature tree lines and boundary features of the sports ground.

Analysis of the 20-night monitoring identified the species of bat present and the abundance of each species using the area. As the impact of lighting has varying effects on bat species this allows an assessment of the impact on a site basis.

4.2.1. Eastern Boundary by Pitch and Treeline/Highway

The static detector which was positioned on the eastern boundary fixed to a bough of the mature horse chestnut, by the northeast corner of the proposed pitch, recorded activity by Pipistrelle bat species, principally comprising of Common pipistrelle, along with a smaller amount of Soprano pipistrelle and Noctule bat activity.

Whilst research generally identifies that the impacts of artificial illumination on biodiversity are detrimental and that artificial illumination has negative impacts on all bat species, there are a group of bats which for the purposes of this report, when considering the impact from sports pitch floodlighting are labelled as ‘light tolerant bat species’ with reference to table 5.2 from Stone, E.L. (2012).

Activity recorded from this a group of bats amounted to a total of 1312 sonograms over the 20-night period. 1292 were from Common pipistrelle, 8 from Soprano pipistrelle and 11 passes by Noctule bat.

There were no passes or sonograms recorded from ‘light averse bats’, these are bats which are known to be significantly adversely affected by lights in both the roost and foraging/commuting habitats, in this locality of England this is considered to be species such as the Barbastelle bat, Myotis bats and Plecotus bat species.

Furthermore, the peak activity recorded from bats was between the hours of 23:00 and 03:00 over the June/July monitoring period. This is beyond the general 22:00 hour curfew on sports pitch lighting.

There were no sonograms generated from this detector from either Myotis, Plecotus or Barbastella, the light averse species present in this part of England.


14


4.2.2. North-west boundary of the playing fields

There was a significant difference in the occurrence of activity recorded by the detector on the northern boundary to that which occurred alongside the proposed new 3G sports pitch. This matched a similar trend for extent of activity recorded during the transect surveys, with a lack of bat activity during the early part of the evening alongside the pitch but an abundance of bat activity on the northern boundary of the playing field during this period.

Comparing the amount of sonograms for each species there was little variance. There was 1560 passes by Pipistrelle species but in contrast to the static recorder adjacent to the pitch, there were 206 passes from Soprano pipistrelle compared to only eight passes by the pitch, this accounts for most of the variance in bat activity between the two locations.

There were no sonograms generated from this detector from either Myotis, Plecotus or Barbastella, the light averse species present in this part of England.

Figure 4 –the total number of passes per hour by light tolerant bat species, comprising of Pipistrellus (white text total) and Nyctalus (Yellow text) on the tree line adjacent to the eastern boundary of the playing field and proposed new 3G pitch.

Figure 5 –the total number of passes per hour by light tolerant bat species, comprising of Pipistrellus and Nyctalus, and the time of day when the activity occurred on the edge of the deciduous woodland north of the playing field.


15


4.3 Walking Transect Surveys

The combined results from the two transect surveys are shown below in figure 6. The figure contains a cumulative total of the number of passes recorded at the relevant stop point and the subsequent walking section following it.

Figure 6 - showing the transect point count locations (yellow pins) and alongside each the total number of bat passes encountered at the point count and the walked section before summed. The black number includes this total for ‘light tolerant’ species over both surveys combined, the red ‘light averse’ bat totals.


16


The bat species categorised under the methodology of this assessment as being ‘light averse’ species, principally represented by Myotis and Plecotus bats, are indicated by red numerals in figure 6. These bats were entirely absent from the transect survey results as they were from the extensive period of static monitoring.

In comparison the bats categorised as being ‘light tolerant’ species, were present in the greatest numbers on the north, north-western and western boundaries of the playing fields.

The total number of bat passes was attributed to a small number of bats, of both Common and Soprano pipistrelle, which were constantly foraging during the transects in this location as well as, particularly during the first transect survey, feeding along the western boundary where a total of approximately three bats were constantly foraging on the arable field side of the poplar tree line.

There were very few passes on the eastern boundary, which is alongside the proposed 3G sports pitch. There was also limited activity recorded on the areas outside of the sports field which were being monitored to allow comparison with bat activity on site with that off-site.

4.4 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Results

The proposed siting for the new 3G Sports Pitch is to be placed onto a single habitat, an area of regularly mown and regularly used sports turf comprised of amenity grassland.

The eastern boundary of the playing field where the new pitch is proposed comprises a line of mature deciduous trees with a native hawthorn hedgerow below which segregates the main field from the adjacent highway.

The other boundaries assessed as part of this study included for the western boundary, which is segregated from the proposed pitch location by another expanse of regularly managed amenity grassland and beyond a tall established and mature line of poplars, planted as a shelterbelt. The northern boundary then comprises a small stand of mature deciduous woodland. Finally, the southern boundary comprises a tarmac car parking area with residential development beyond and the sports pavilion.

To inform the survey design, a preliminary ecological appraisal was undertaken in accordance with CIEEM 2017. A standard habitat map was produced, and this is provided within figure 7 below.

4.4.1. Desktop study - preliminary ecological appraisal

The desktop study for records of bats and bat roosts is included within the relevant section above

Designated and Non-designated Nature Conservation Sites

Examination of the MAGIC website identified no records of designated wildlife sites directly adjacent to or affected by the proposal.

There are two County Wildlife Sites within 2 kilometres of the survey area, neither of which is within 1 kilometre of the site and neither will be affected.

The proposed new 3G sports pitch sits on an area of amenity grassland which is already intensively managed and is sufficiently distanced that it will not have any impact on any nature reserves.

Species

The following records of protected species are included within the desktop study (with the exception of bat species which are described earlier within this report).

• There are no EPS licenses for bats within 2 km of the survey area (Magic website);

• there are two records for the specially protected great crested newt, both of these are over 2 km to the southeast;

• there are 16 flowering plants of conservation significance from the 2 km search area, none of these are associated with the sportsground, or associated with terrestrial habitats within the


17


village of Leverington;

• there are no invasive plant species recorded within the desktop study;

• there are no invertebrate species of scarcity recorded within the confines of the village;

• there are nine records of four mammal species (with the exception of bats) from the desktop study. Those of relevance to the potential development are included within mitigation section of this report.

4.4.2. Habitats

The following phase 1 habitats were recorded from the survey site (the proposed footprint and boundary of the new pitch):

• Amenity grassland - JNCC Habitat Code J1.2

• Specimen trees/Treeline - JNCC Habitat Codes A1.3

• Broad-leaved woodland - JNCC Habitat Code A1.1

• Defunct Native Hedgerow with Trees – JNCC Code J3.2

Amenity Grassland - JNCC Habitat Code J1.3

The location for the proposed new 3G Sports Pitch is entirely located upon a footprint of amenity grassland. This is typical of a sward which is mown on a regular basis. It is dominated by perennial ryegrass and white clover. Over the entire area of sports-field the following grasses and herbs were recorded.

Perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), White clover (Trifolium repens), Annual meadow-grass (Poa annua), Hoary plantain (Plantago media), Meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis), Daisy (Bellis perennis), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) and Creeping bent (Agrostis stoloniferous).

Photograph 6 – showing the habitat which will be immediately affected by the proposed new 3G Sports Pitch


18


Specimen trees/Treeline – JNCC Code A1.3

There is a line of mature trees are planted along the eastern boundary of the section of playing field that abut the eastern side of the proposed new pitch, shading the roadside hedgerow and forming the boundary between the highway and the playing field.

This comprises a mixture of species including for horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), beech (Fagus sylvatica), Cherry (Prunus sp.) and Larch (Larix decidua). Other trees within this eastern boundary hedge north of the pitch proposal include for a row of Ash (Fraxinus excelsior).

The proposed 3G sports pitch runs parallel to this line of trees. The form and size of the trees are shown in photograph 2 within this report.

On the opposite side of the sports ground is a further line of trees planted as a woodland shelterbelt and forms the boundary between the amenity grassland and the arable field beyond. This is dominated by a single species, Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra spp Italica).

Photograph 7 - showing the tree line on the western boundary of the sports ground

Broad-leaved woodland - JNCC Habitat Code A1.1

The northern boundary of the playing fields is formed by a small stand of deciduous woodland dominated by Ash. This extends into mature tree lines in the distance. Other species within this woodland include for overgrown Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), Hazel (Corylus avellana) and Cherry.

This area will be entirely unaffected by the new sports pitch proposal.


19


Photograph 8 - extract from aerial photography showing the stand of broadleaf woodland at the northern end of the sports ground

Defunct Native Hedgerow with Trees – JNCC Code J3.2

Beneath and adjacent to the canopy of the mature treeline on the east boundary of the playing field is a hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) hedgerow with trees. The hedgerow is managed to approximately 1.2 m and contains an abundance of Ivy (Hedera helix). The species within the hedge bottom include for ground elder (Aegopodium podagraria), cleavers (Galium aparine), cow parsley (Anthriscus sylvestris), white deadnettle (Lamium album), Nettle (Urtica dioica) and Oxeye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare).

4.4.3. Invasive species

No invasive plant species were identified during the survey.

4.4.4. Fauna

The following faunal groups were considered as part of the preliminary ecological appraisal:

Bat roosting habitat

There was a lack of potential bat roost features provided by the pavilion building and the trees immediately adjacent to the boundary of the proposed sports pitch. Trees in the further area were not assessed for their potential for roosting bats, being outside of the zone of influence from the sports pitch and its proposed floodlighting.

Badger

There are limited records of this species from the village but this species was encountered away from the playing field area during the transect surveys. The location of badgers records is withheld due to the risk of persecution, but the species does not reside within the sports ground. Precautionary mitigation is included within this report.

Reptiles and Amphibians

There are limited records of a single common amphibian species from the dataset and no reptile species. The sports pitch proposal is unlikely to have any impact upon reptiles and amphibians.


20


Breeding birds

There is no breeding bird habitat directly affected by the development proposal. As a result, no further mitigation is required.

If there are any plans in the future to remove any trees or shrubs or have any impact upon tree canopies then this should be undertaken outside the breeding bird season, which runs from March to September inclusive on an annual basis, or alternatively the works will need to be informed by a suitably qualified ecologist.

Hedgehog

There are no records of hedgehog from the search of the “big hedgehog map” or from the desktop study but it is considered that this is a potential occurrence within the village and there is the potential for the playing field to be used as a foraging resource by hedgehog and that the boundary features could be used for refuge. The mitigation actions provided and will also cover accidental discovery of hedgehogs during the construction activity.

4.4.5. Target notes

The following wildlife issues and target notes are identified on the extended phase 1 habitat plan overleaf.

Target note 1 - Habitat with good breeding bird potential.

The habitat map is included overleaf:


21


Figure 7 - extended phase 1 habitat map of the habitats on site.


22


5 DISCUSSION

5.1 Species composition

The combination of the transect survey and the static monitoring survey identified that a minimum of three species of bat were sufficiently active to be identified by the survey effort. The results were almost totally dominated by Common pipistrelle but with smaller records from Soprano pipistrelle and Noctule bat.

There were no bat species that are identified as being particularly averse to artificial illumination. The remote monitoring period and transects combined recorded no Brown long-eared bats, even though there is a single record from the village, and no Myotis bats.

The domination of Common pipistrelle activity was identified by a total of 1292 sonograms generated by this species on the mature tree adjacent to the proposed 3G pitch boundary compared to a total of just 19 passes by the other species.

At the northern end of the pitch Common pipistrelle was again dominant with some 1354 sonograms generated but with a larger proportion of Soprano pipistrelle passes, 206 sonograms, but with a similar low occurrence of Noctule passes with only three sonograms.

Research to date has identified light levels which have a detrimental impact upon bat species which are categorised as being “light averse”. These species are typically found commuting and foraging on hedgerows with levels of light, at or around 0.45 lux. Furthermore, the level in which light averse species are significantly affected by artificial lighting has been demonstrated as low as 3.6 lux (Stone et al, 2013). No species from this group were identified and the only bats present were categorised as being the least light averse than any other bat species recorded within the UK.

There were no records of any scarce bat species from the desktop study, the transect walks or the static monitoring. It is therefore likely that species such as Barbastelle bat are probably absent, but at most a very rare constituent of the landscape surrounding Leverington.

5.2 Existing Sports Pitch Floodlighting

The football pitches on the Sports and Social Ground at Leverington are already affected by floodlighting and the car park and buildings on site are also lit by security lights.

Firstly, throughout the transect survey period security lights were on covering the pavilion. It is not known whether the lights operate over the entire period of darkness. The existing level of illumination is demonstrated by the photograph below which was taken from the north-west corner of the playing fields.

Secondly, there are a range of floodlights attached to lighting poles distributed around the playing field as a whole, used for football matches and training activities. This is also shown within the photograph overleaf.


23


Photograph 8 – showing existing levels of artificial illumination during the survey period and associated with the pavilion and existing sports facility. Below is a photograph identifying the extent of existing floodlight stanchions around the ground.


24


5.3 Mitigation Actions

5.3.1. Reducing the impact of commuting/foraging bats

In consultation with the project ecologist the lighting engineer has mitigated a standard floodlighting installation to arrive with a scheme as close to compliance with that described by best practice by the Institute of Lighting Professionals (2018) as is viably practical for sports-turf floodlighting.

To principal objective of the mitigation strategy has been to limit the impact from the overspill of artificial lighting onto the boundary features to the immediate east of the proposed 3G Sports Pitch.

To demonstrate the level of mitigation achieved, figures 8 and 9 overleaf identify the level of light spillage from the current and modern lighting design.

This results in spillage limited to approximately 2 lux onto part of the western side of the tree canopy and no spillage onto the largest area of tree canopy as well as the eastern side of the canopy alongside the hedgerow and the unlit highway.

This results in a dark corridor alongside the eastern boundary of the installation, created by the lighting design and the mature tree canopy as well as the hedgerow with trees between the playing fields and the highway. The floodlighting scheme has therefore been mitigated to result in a reduction of lighting on the western tree canopy of up to 2 lux, and no light spill on the eastern side of the canopy.

This is particularly significant for all bat species which could be present in the locality. Zeale et al (2018) installed temporary streetlights upon dark hedgerows and measured the impact upon “light tolerant” and “light averse” bat species. In this experiment a mean light level of 55.01 lux (± 3.90) was placed onto the hedgerow, in line with the same lighting levels used on previous experiments by other researchers.

Zeale found that for a light tolerant species such as the Pipistrelle, the only species present in the data set at Leverington, foraging activity was not affected.

However, whilst this was the only species present during the study at Leverington, the research by Zeale noted that even ‘light averse species’ remained active on the dark side of a hedgerow that had been illuminated to approximately 55 lux.

Zeale stated that activity by these light sensitive bats ‘remained stable during lit treatments, indicating that good management of light spill, can mitigate disturbance to both R. hipposideros and Myotis spp’.

The management of light spill from the proposed new 3G Sports Pitch has been achieved by the revised lighting design indicated in figure 8 and 9 overleaf.


25


Figure 8 - the figure above shows the light spillage contours from the proposed 3G floodlights.

Figure 9 - the figure above identifies the level of floodlighting which will occur 1.8 m above ground level and shows the dark corridor created by the tree canopy and the management of lighting using modern technologies.


26


6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Bat Commuting and Foraging Activity

The predicted impact upon foraging and commuting bat species from the artificial lighting associated with the proposed new 3G Sports Pitch at the Leverington Sports and Social Club site is summarised in the bullet points below:

• The boundaries of the playing fields were utilised predominantly by Common pipistrelle, a bat that is known as a relatively ‘light tolerant’ species. There was also a greater abundance of bat activity on the northern boundary than that recorded on the eastern boundary where the pitch is proposed.

• Both boundaries of the sports field, at the east side of the proposed new 3G sports pitch and north of the playing field, were absent of the ‘light averse’ bat species, such as Plecotus and Myotis genera.

• No scarce bat species were recorded by the study.

• The mitigated lighting is to below a level that has been found to adversely affect bats away from roosts. The design of the lighting has been amended such that no greater than 2 lux will be encountered on the boundary tree canopy of the pitch, below the level of 3.6 lx which Stone identified as detrimental to foraging and commuting bats.

• The design of the lighting has been prepared in accordance with steps 1 to 4 of the best practice guidance (ILP, 2018).

It is therefore concluded that the proposed new 3G Sports Pitch floodlighting design, in the form as specified within Bugg (project code SIS013, dated 21.07.2021), is likely to have a negligible impact upon bat activity on the boundaries adjacent to the new 3G pitch installation.

6.2 Other ecological considerations

Habitats

The preliminary ecological appraisal identified the following habitats and conclusions:

• The habitats affected by the development proposal comprise of amenity grassland of low conservation value. No further mitigation is recommended.

• The eastern boundary contains habitats of value to commuting and foraging bats and birds, along with nesting habitat for birds. The eastern boundary habitats of the sports ground should be protected from construction activities.

• There is no potential impact from protected amphibians or other wildlife species, with no evidence of protected fauna or flora being present on the sportsground.

Habitats of value to biodiversity

Construction fencing and, if necessary, root protection methods should be incorporated to ensure there is no impact upon the mature deciduous trees which line the eastern boundary of the new 3G sports pitch. Materials and machinery should not be stored underneath the tree canopy.

Fauna

The preliminary ecological appraisal identified three species or groups which could be adversely affected by the construction of the new 3G Sports Pitch.

Badger and Hedgehog (Mitigation and Best Practice)

The site may potentially be used by hedgehog, and occasionally by commuting badger. The following measures are recommended to ensure best practice and to adopt a precautionary approach:


27


• During development, in order to protect any foraging or commuting animals, any trenches dug during works activities that are left open overnight should be left with a sloping end or ramp to allow any mammals that may fall in a route to escape.

The above mitigation will equally protect and provide for both hedgehog and badger.

Nesting Birds (Mitigation)

If there is any requirement to remove any habitat feature with potential to support nesting birds then this should be timed to avoid the bird breeding season, which runs from March to September (inclusive). This is to avoid adverse impacts to any active nests present.

If any potential bird nesting habitat is on an area of proposed works and during the nesting season then a precautionary prestart survey should be carried out by a suitably qualified ornithologist to identify and map bird nests, in advance of any work.

7 REFERENCES

• Andrews H &s Pearson L (2016) A review of empirical data in respect of emergence and return times reported for the UK’s 17 native bat species. A report produced by AEcol & Andrews Ecology Ltd.

• Bugg W (2021) Leverington Sports Artificial Turf Pitch, mitigated lighting design, SIS013, dated 21.07.2021

• Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Environmental Records Centre (2021) a desktop study for designated and non-designated wildlife sites and protected species for 2 km from the centre of the Leverington sports and social club facility

• Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, 2018. Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Second edition. CIEEM.

• Collins, J. (ed) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines, 3rd Edition, Bat Conservation Trust, London.

• IPL 2018 – The Institute of Lighting Professionals. (2018). Bats and artificial lighting in the UK. Guidance note.

• JNCC, 2010. Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: a technique for environmental audit. JNCC, Peterborough.

• MAGIC Site Check Report. Available: www.magic.gov.uk

• Rydell et al 1993 - Rydell J & Racey, P A (1993) Street lamps and the feeding ecology of insectivorous bats. Recent Advances in Bat Biology. Zoological Society of London Symposium abstracts.

• Stone et al 2015 - Stone, E.L., Wakefield, A., Harris, S., Jones, G. (2015). The impacts of new streetlight technologies: experimentally testing the effects on bats of changing from low-pressure sodium to white metal halide. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 370, 20140127.

• Stone EL, Harris S, Jones G (2015) Impacts of artificial lighting on bats: a review of challenges and solutions. Mammal. Biol. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2015.02.004

• Zeale, MRK, Stone, E. L., Zeale, E., Browne, W. J., Harris, S., & Jones, G. (2018). Experimentally manipulating light spectra reveals the importance of dark corridors for commuting bats. Global Change Biology, 24(12), 5909- 5918. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14462

http://www.magic.gov.uk/

https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14462


28


Appendix 1 - Relevant wildlife legislation

Birds

The bird breeding season generally lasts from early March to September for most species. All birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended) and the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000. This legislation makes it illegal, both intentionally and recklessly to kill, injure or take any wild bird; take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is being built or in use; take or destroy the eggs of any wild bird; and possess or control any wild bird or egg unless obtained legally.

Birds listed under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended) (e.g. barn owl) are afforded additional protection, which additionally makes it an offence to disturb a bird while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird.

Common Amphibians

Common amphibian species (i.e. common frog, common toad, smooth newt and palmate newt) are afforded partial legal protection under UK legislation, i.e. Schedule 5, Section 9 (5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This legislation prohibits sale, transportation and advertising for sale.

European Hedgehog

Hedgehogs are protected under Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) which prohibits killing or taking of individuals.

The hedgehog is also listed as a Priority Species for conservation action under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Under the NERC Act 2006, the hedgehog is categorised as a ‘Species of Principal Importance’ for biodiversity. Listing as a Biodiversity Action Plan priority and ‘Principal Importance’ species reflects concerns that hedgehog numbers are in decline and that some protection should be afforded to hedgehog habitat through the planning system.

Reptiles

Slow-worm, viviparous/common lizard, adder and grass snake are protected under Schedule 5, Section 9 (1 and 5) of the WCA 1981 (as amended) and the CRoW Act 2000 against deliberate or reckless killing and injuring and sale.

Bats

All species of British bat and their roosts are protected under British law by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and bats are classified as European Protected Species under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (‘the 2017 Regulations’). This has recently been amended by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations (2019) which continue the same provision for European protected species, licensing requirements, and protected areas after Brexit. The legislation makes it an offence to kill, injure or disturb a bat and/or to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place for a bat. It is also an offence to disturb the animals such that it impairs their ability to survive, to reproduce, to nurture their young, or such that it impairs their ability to hibernate or migrate. Under this legislation development work that could affect a bat or bat roost can only be permitted under a licence from Natural England.

Badger

Badger is a widespread and generally common species. However, they are legally protected under The Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which is based primarily on the need to protect badgers from baiting and deliberate harm or injury. Under this legislation it is illegal to:

• Wilfully kill, injure, take, or cruelly ill-treat a badger, or attempt to do so

• Possess any dead badger or any part of, or anything derived from, a dead badger

• Intentionally or recklessly interfere with a sett by disturbing badgers whilst they are occupying a sett, damaging or destroying a sett, causing a dog to enter a sett, or obstructing access to it

A badger sett is defined in the legislation as “any structure or place, which displays signs indicating current use by a badger”.

L U A B P N 3G S P S C R - planning.org.uk

Documents

Transcript of L U A B P N 3G S P S C R - planning.org.uk