PW Integrated Template - GOV.UK · 2019. 7. 1. · Table 7.1.17: Building and structure assessments...

M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange TR010030

6.5 Environmental Statement: Appendix 7.9 Bats

Regulation 5(2)a

Planning Act 2008 Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009

Volume 6 June 2019

M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange TR010030 6.5 Environmental Statement: Appendix 7.9 Bats

Planning Inspectorate scheme reference: TR010030 Application document reference: TR010030/APP/6.5 (Vol 6) Rev 0 Page 2 of 106

Infrastructure Planning

Planning Act 2008

The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended)

M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange

The M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange Development Consent Order 202[x ]

6.5 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT:

APPENDIX 7.9 BATS

Regulation Number: Regulation 5(2)(a)

Planning Inspectorate Scheme Reference

TR010030

Application Document Reference TR010030/APP/6.5

Author: M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange project team, Highways England

Version Date Status of Version

Rev 0 June 2019 Development Consent Order application



Table of contents

Appendix Pages

7.1 Bat survey report (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019) 5

Tables Table 7.1.1: Tree roost potential categories and criteria 12 Table 7.1.2: North-west transect summary of species and passes per minute 15 Table 7.1.3: North-west transect – temporal distribution of bat activity6 16 Table 7.1.4: South-west transect summary of species and passes per minute6 17 Table 7.1.5: South-west transect - temporal distribution of bat activity6 18 Table 7.1.6: South-east transect summary of species and passes per minute6 19 Table 7.1.7: South-east transect - temporal distribution of bat activity6 20 Table 7.1.8: North-east transect summary of species and passes per minute6 21 Table 7.1.9: North-east transect - temporal distribution of bat activity6 22 Table 7.1.10: Wisley transect summary of species and passes per minute6 22 Table 7.1.11: Wisley transect - temporal distribution of bat activity6 23 Table 7.1.12: Nutberry transect summary of species and passes per minute6 24 Table 7.1.13: Nutberry transect - temporal distribution of bat activity6 25 Table 7.1.14: Activity comparison summary of all transects6 26 Table 7.1.15: Clearmount overbridge crossing point survey6 27 Table 7.1.16: Painshill River Mole crossing point survey6 29 Table 7.1.17: Building and structure assessments 31 Table 7.1.18: Building and structure emergence re-entry surveys6 32 Table 7.1.19: Number of trees with bat potential 33 Table 7.1.20: Tree climbing survey results summary 34 Table 7.1.21: Hibernation survey results of trees 37 Table 7.1.22: Emergence and re-entry survey results6 37 Table 7.1.23: April SM4 Data – Average Passes per Night 39 Table 7.1.24: May SM4 Data – Average Passes per Night 41 Table 7.1.25: June SM4 Data – Average Passes per Night 42 Table 7.1.26: July SM4 Data – Average Passes per Night 43 Table 7.1.27: August SM4 Data – Average Passes Per Night 44 Table 7.1.28: September SM4 Data – Average Passes Per Night 45 Table 7.1.29: October SM4 Data – Average Passes per Night 47 Table 7.1.30: Weather data for crossing point and transect surveys 54 Table 7.1.31: Data for the north-west transect6 58 Table 7.1.32: Data for the south-west transect6 68 Table 7.1.33: Data for the north-east transect6 78 Table 7.1.34: Data for the Wisley transect6 88 Table 7.1.35: Data for the Nutberry Farm transect6 96 Table 7.1.36: Scoping survey timings 103 Table 7.1.37: Scoping survey weather conditions 103 Table 7.1.38: Scoping survey results6 103

Plates Plate 7.1.1: Location of late season (October 2017) concentration of activity for soprano pipistrelle 49 Plate 7.1.2: Scoping transect survey route and record locations 105

Appendix 7.9 Bats



7.1 Bat survey report (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019)

7.1.1 Introduction

7.1.1.1 Bats are European Protected Species subject to full protection under the

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). A summary of the relevant legislation can

be found in Appendix 7.1. Bat surveys were carried out in 2016, 2017 and 2018

to obtain data in relation to the M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange

Improvement Scheme (hereafter referred to as the Scheme). The bat surveys

involved activity transects, static monitoring, crossing point surveys, building and

tree assessments, climbed tree inspections and evening emergence and dawn

re-entry tree surveys. The surveys were located on land surrounding junction 10

of the M25/A3 (hereafter referred to as the Survey Area, see Figures 7.10, 7.11,

7.12, 7.13 and 7.14).

7.1.1.2 This report provides the results obtained from the bat activity transect surveys,

static monitoring, crossing point surveys, building and tree assessments, climbed

tree inspections, and evening emergence/dawn re-entry tree surveys. A

summary of the data collected from these surveys is provided in the results

section of this Appendix. Full data tables for each transect are provided at the

end of this Appendix. The meta data for all surveys is also provided at the end of

this Appendix.

7.1.1.3 The data collected from these surveys will be used in conjunction with data

collected from bat trapping and radiotracking surveys (see Appendix 7.10 of the

Environmental Statement) to inform the assessment of the likely direct or indirect

impacts on bat populations and provide measures to avoid or mitigate damage

and disturbance to individual bats and bat populations relevant to the Scheme.

7.1.2 Objectives

7.1.2.1 The aim of the transect surveys was to ascertain the level of bat activity, specific

locations of activity and the bat species present within the Survey Area. Transect

surveys using both fixed point listening locations and walked routes were carried

out from July to October 2016 and from April to July 2017 in four separate

sections of Ockham and Wisley Common SSSI and an area of ancient woodland

to the south of Elm Lane, east of Wisley RHS gardens.

7.1.2.2 The crossing point surveys were carried out to assess the use of features (e.g.

watercourses and bridges used for public and/or maintenance access) that bats

may be using to cross potential barriers to dispersal within the Survey Area (i.e.

the M25/A3). Crossing point surveys were carried out between June and October

2017 at four locations comprised of one open area over the River Mole, near

Painshill Landscaped Garden, and three overbridges across the M25 and A3.

7.1.2.3 The building and tree assessments were carried out to gain information on the

potential of these to support roosting bats within the Survey Area.



7.1.2.4 Following on from the Ground Level Tree Assessment (GLTA), trees that have

been noted as having either a moderate or high potential to support roosting bats

were climbed so the features can be directly inspected using an endoscope.

Trees that are not safe to climb and have moderate of high potential for bats

were surveyed using emergence/re-entry surveys at dusk and dawn respectively.

7.1.3 Methodology

7.1.3.1 All bat surveys detailed below have been undertaken in accordance with good

practice guidance1 and CIEEM competencies for undertaking bat surveys2. The

surveys were led by experienced surveyors with either a Class 1 or Class 2

Natural England bat licence.

7.1.3.2 Hand held bat detectors (Echo Meter Touch (EMT) and Bat Logger) were utilised

during the activity transects, crossing point surveys and tree emergence/dawn

re-entry surveys to enable effective analysis of bat calls. The auto identification

software of the EMT is still in development and was therefore not used as the

main diagnostic feature for identifying bat calls. During the surveys, bat calls

were identified to genus or species-level using the indicative sound via

heterodyne/time-expansion and the peak frequency, the visual representation of

the call given on the screen and where possible, observations of the bat

behaviour and flight characteristics recorded by the surveyor. The recordings

were then verified following the surveys using Kaleidoscope software to process

the files and Analook to undertake call analysis.

Walkover survey

7.1.3.3 An initial walkover survey was carried out in June 2016 with the purpose of

assessing safe routes and access for the transect surveys and to enable

familiarisation of the Survey Area.

7.1.3.4 Due to the nature of the junction and intersecting M25 and A3, the Survey Area

comprises four quadrants: south-west, south-east, north-east and north-west.

There are also two additional quadrants to the south of the junction along the A3:

one located south of the A3 and RHS Wisley garden at Elm Corner and one to

the immediate south of RHS Wisley garden at Nutberry Fruit Farm.

7.1.3.5 Based on the extent and arrangement of habitats recorded during the walkover

survey, the transects were designed to gain a representative sample of bat

activity and the species present in all habitats within the Survey Area.

7.1.3.6 Scoping surveys were carried out in June 2016 to give an indication of the

suitable locations of fixed points for a suite of transect surveys that were required

over the course of the bat survey season. As assessment was also made of the

ground conditions and ease of repetition for surveyors to provide consistency

across the survey season. Further information is provided in Annex A.

1

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

London. 2 CIEEM (April, 2013) Competencies for Species Survey: Bats.



Transect surveys

7.1.3.7 All transects, with the exception of the southern Wisley and Nutberry Farm

transects, comprised two surveys per month from July 2016 to October 2016 and

April 2017 to July 2017, with two of these being dusk and dawn surveys in May

and June 2017. The Wisley transect comprised one survey per month for a

period of two years to total two surveys each month (surveys carried out

between June and October 2017 with a dusk/dawn survey carried out in August

2017, and from May to September 2018 with a dusk/dawn survey on 31 July/

1 August 2018). The Nutberry Farm Transect consisted of two surveys per

month in 2018 between May to September (inclusive), two of which being a

dusk/dawn transect in July and August respectively. Transect routes are shown

in Figure 7.12.

7.1.3.8 All of the transects were divided into nine fixed points (FP 1-9), where data was

collected from spot counts along the walked route. The total time on the transect

was approximately two hours and the time spent at each FP was seven minutes,

with the time spent walking between FP being approximately six minutes. This

created a level of consistency throughout the surveys and for each transect. The

transect surveys were timed so FP 1 would begin approximately at sunset for

each survey. This meant that each transect survey would end at approximately

the same time after sunset. The walked route between each FP was given a

Roman numeral from i to x; i being the first and x being the last walked section.

Transect FPs and walked routes between each FP are displayed on Figure 7.12.

7.1.3.9 The summary tables in the results section provide data from each transect as the

average number of bat passes per minute for each species over the course of

the entire survey period. Each FP had a total of 112 minutes survey time and

each walked section had a total of 96 minutes over the course of 16 separate

surveys, with the exception of the Wisley and Nutberry Farm transects. The

Wisley transect had 91 and 78 minutes survey time, for the fixed point and

walked sections respectively, over the course of 13 separate surveys and the

Nutberry farm transects fixed point each had a total of 72 and 84 minutes survey

time, respectively, over the course of 12 separate surveys.

7.1.3.10 Two summary data tables are provided for each transect; the first provides the

locations and concentrations of bat activity per species across the transect route,

and the second shows the variation in total bat activity per species across the

entire survey period.



7.1.3.11 In the first summary data table for each transect (Table 7.0.2, Table 7.1.4,

Table 7.1.6, Table 7.1.8, Table 7.1.10 and Table 7.1.12), a value of 1.0 would

represent approximately one pass per minute for that species over the entire

survey period. In the second summary data table for each transect (Table 7.1.3,

Table 7.1.5, Table 7.1.7, Table 7.1.9, Table 7.1.11 and Table 7.1.13) the

average numbers of bat passes per minute are provided on a temporal scale,

which shows when peaks in bat activity have occurred for each transect and

when certain species are present or potentially absent from the Survey Area.

7.1.3.12 Some figures values are very low and are below the expressed two decimal

figures, which in these tables are presented as 0.01. A dash represents no call of

that species detected at that location during the entire survey period.

North-west transect

7.1.3.13 This transect followed paths and bridleways whenever possible and was walked

in a clockwise direction. The north-west transect was dominated by a mix of

Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and silver birch (Betula pendula). The ground layer

was generally dominated by bracken with some areas clear for heathland where

bell heather (Calluna vulgaris) was dominant.

South-west transect

7.1.3.14 Walking in an anti-clockwise direction, the south-west transect started within the

wooded areas (dominated by Scots pine and silver birch), and continued

adjacent to the westbound carriageway of the M25, up to the Clearmount

overbridge. The habitat became more open heathland from this point, leading to

a lake at FP 6. The habitat reverted back into woodland at FP 7, but with a

higher proportion of oak tree species (pedunculate oak (Quercus robur) and

Turkey oak (Q. laevis)), mixed with Scots pine. A shrub layer of hawthorn

(Crataegus monogyna) and bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) was dominant within

this woodland block. The final FP 9 was approached from the open heathland.

South-east transect

7.1.3.15 Walking in a anti-clockwise direction, the south-east transect started at the

Semaphore tower to the east of the Survey Area and followed the pathways

around the woodland edge and open heathland. The route then passed through

the woodland, which was a mix of Scots pine, sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa),

pedunculate oak and Turkey oak. The route followed the bridleways along the

edge of the unsafe area (see limitations section below for reasons this area was

excluded from the transect) until the habitat became more open at FP 4. The

final FP 9 was centred within the open area of heathland. Bracken was dominant

within the woodland with bell heather dominant in the open areas of heathland.



North-east transect

7.1.3.16 The north-east transect was walked in a clockwise direction. The north-east

transect was dominated by woodland. There were two areas of open habitat

around FP 3 and FP 6, but these were approximately no more than 0.25

hectares in size. Following paths where ever possible, this transect was

enclosed within a woodland consisting of a mix of beech (Fagus sylvatica), sweet

chestnut, Scots pine, pedunculate oak and Turkey oak. Silver birch and

hawthorn formed part of the scrub layer. The canopy was approximately 20 m –

25 m from ground level with sporadic ground flora, which consisted almost

entirely of bracken..

Wisley transect

7.1.3.17 This transect started at the end of Elm Lane, next to the hardstanding at the

disused Wisley airfield and followed Elm Lane then crossed over the Wisley

footbridge. The route was then partially retraced, back over the footbridge and

continued into the woodland. Existing tracks were utilised when possible to

facilitate ease of walking. The transect then left the woodland and continued into

a more open area of grassland/scrub, turning back around at the stream by

Ripley roundabout and then headed back north-east, through the woodland and

finished at Elm Lane. The woodland consisted of pedunculate oak, Scots pine

with a shrub layer of hazel (Corylus avellana) and hawthorn. This woodland was

considerably more dense than the areas of woodland in the other transects, with

very little clearance work having been carried out.

Nutberry farm transect

7.1.3.18 This transect was over more open habitat which consisted of managed semi-

improved natural grassland within the centre of the transect area, with the edges

dominated by scattered trees and woodland edge habitat. A stream ran across

the northern edge of the transect site with associated ruderal and wetland tree

species. This route was the only site that was not within the management of

Surrey Wildlife Trust. Here the land was privately owned and used regularly for

commercial operation, notably weekly car boot sales.

Static detector surveys

7.1.3.19 Four static detectors were installed at each transect section over the course of

the survey season. The detectors used were Song Meter (SM) 4. Each detector

was set to record half an hour prior to sunset, finishing at sunrise. They were

installed to cover five nights at each section for each month between April to

October (inclusive). The SM4 were installed at the south east, south west, north

east and north west sections during 2017, with the Wisley and Nutberry Farm

sections being installed during 2018.



7.1.3.20 Calls were analysed by processing and analysing the data using Kaleidoscope

Pro 4.5.4. Data was passed through the noise scrubber and auto identification

software to label files. After this process was completed all files (including noise

files) were sorted, viewed and then labelled using the first three letters of the first

and second part of the scientific name (e.g. Pipistrellus pipistrellus becomes

PIPPIP).

7.1.3.21 Bats were labelled using the following categories according to species as

confirmed being present; PIPPIP = common pipistrelle, PIPPYG = soprano

pipistrelle, PIPNAT = Nathusius’ pipistrelle, PLEAUR = brown long-eared bat,

NYCNOC = noctule bat, LARGE BAT = referring to Leislers’ bats or serotine bats

and sometimes Noctule bats that could not be easily distinguished and MYO SP

= All Myotis bat species were grouped together in this instance unless

unmistakable characteristics made them easily identifiable. Where more than

one bat occurred within the same file, both species were labelled and were

separated by a comma, e.g. PIPPIP, PIPPYG.

Crossing point surveys

7.1.3.22 The crossing point surveys comprised of six survey visits at each of the four

potential crossing features: Clearmount overbridge (CP1), Painshill River Mole

(CP2)3, Cockcrow Crossing (CP3) and Wisley Crossing (CP4). Crossing point

locations are shown on Figure 7.12. CP1 was at a light vehicle bridge over the

M25. CP2, which is now outside the scheme footprint, was located at two

opposing banks of the River Mole at a clearing between bankside tree cover.

CP3 and CP4 were at bridges over the A3. Each survey required two individuals:

one to observe each side of the potential crossing feature. The dusk surveys

commenced at sunset and continued for 60 minutes after sunset. The dawn

surveys started 60 minutes before sunrise and continued until sunrise.

7.1.3.23 Visual observation formed the most important component of these surveys.

Notes were taken on estimated height of bat flight over the potential crossing

feature, direction of travel, time of observation and species.

7.1.3.24 The weather conditions were required to be within specific parameters, which

included a start temperature greater than 7⁰C and a wind speed of less than

20km/h, with no precipitation during the survey.

3 The Painshill River Mole crossing point location was identified for survey as during the optioneering stage, as one possible design involved the inclusion of a overbridge crossing the River Mole at this location. This design has since been removed from the Scheme.



Building and structure assessments

7.1.3.25 An external and internal inspection (where possible) was undertaken for

buildings and structures (e.g. bridges) within the Survey Area that are to be

affected by the Scheme, shown on Figure 7.10. These inspections were carried

out on the 17, 18 and 19 January 2018. The inspections included a search for

evidence or potential presence of roosting bats, such as droppings, particularly

on sheltered areas such as window ledges, pipes or cobwebs where droppings

can lie undisturbed, potential access points such as broken ventilation bricks or

loose slates, and staining from urine, faeces or fur rubbing.

7.1.3.26 Each building/structure was assigned a level of potential to support roosting bats,

as follows: negligible, low, moderate and high potential.

7.1.3.27 A high-powered torch (Cluson Clulite 1 million candle power) was used to

illuminate dark corners and roof voids. An endoscope was utilised to inspect any

suitable gaps in brickwork or around windows, with access permitting.

7.1.3.28 Further emergence/re-entry survey at the properties of Hut Hill, the Scout Hut

buildings and the Wisley Footbridge were carried out during the summer of 2018.

These structures were within 100m of the construction footprint, with the Wisley

Footbridge requiring demolition, therefore further assessment of the potential bat

populations at these locations was required. The Hut Hill emergence survey was

carried out on the 28 June 2018, the Wisley footbridge re-entry survey was

carried out on the 29 June 2018 and the evening emergence survey at the Scout

hut buildings was carried out on the 14 August 2018.

Tree assessments

7.1.3.29 GLTAs and climbed inspections were carried out within the Survey Area to

identify the presence or potential presence of roosting bats. The GLTA

inspections were carried out in July 2017, February and March 2018. Initially,

trees in the transect areas and up to 20 m from the Development Consent Order

(DCO) boundary were assessed and assigned a level of potential to support

roosting bats, as follows: negligible, low, moderate and high potential. During the

climbed inspections, additional criteria (outlined in Table 7.1.1 below) were

employed to assess the potential of each tree to support roosting bats. Due to

the large number of trees present within the Survey Area, trees of negligible

potential have not been included within this report.

7.1.3.30 Climbed tree inspections in January and February 2019 were also carried out

during the winter for known tree roosts with hibernation potential to assess

hibernation use.

7.1.3.31 A high-powered torch (Cluson Clulite 1 million candle power) and endoscope

were used when appropriate to inspect potential tree features for the presence of

individual bats or signs of roosting bats (e.g. droppings).



Table 7.1.1: Tree roost potential categories and criteria

Negligible potential Low potential Moderate potential High potential

No cracking or flaking bark

Ivy cover Presence of one or two holes within tree

Cracks, crevices and splits

No crevices, splits or holes

Shallow holes, potentially exposed

Occasional splitting Loose and flaking bark

Smooth bark Small amounts of deadwood

Deadwood present in canopy or stem

Hollow stems present

No standing deadwood - - Deadwood in canopy or in stem

- - - Twisted/snagged branches

7.1.3.32 The results of the GLTA and climbed inspections have been used to inform the

requirement for further surveys. These further surveys consisted of additional

climbing surveys except where the trees are not safe to climb. Trees with high

potential were subject to three separate climbing surveys, while trees with

moderate potential were subject to two separate climbing surveys. This approach

of multiple climbed surveys was taken, where safe, instead of emergence/re-

entry surveys because in woodland areas it is particularly challenging to identify

bat emergences with confidence. This method adaptation was considered to

improve confidence in results and was agreed in advance with Natural England

for this Scheme. The climbing surveys were carried out during the activity

season of 2018, within the months of June, July, August and September.

7.1.3.33 Evening emergence/dawn re-entry surveys were carried out on trees that were

not safe or possible to climb (trees with high potential were subject to three

surveys, while trees with moderate potential were subject to two surveys). To

facilitate the identification of bats during the surveys a combination of Echo

Metre Touch Pro (iPad Air processor) and Anabat Walkabout detectors were

used. To aid in the observation of any features, night vision equipment was used

(Yukon Tracker 1x24 night vision goggles and Sony Camcorder with Exmore RTM

Nightshot IR detection using a Laserluchs 5000 IR spot light).

7.1.3.34 Evening emergence surveys started 30 minutes prior to sunset and continued for

up to 2hrs after sunset and the dawn re-entry surveys started 1.5 hours prior to

sunrise and continued until 10 minutes after sunrise. The emergence and re-

entry surveys were carried out during the activity season of 2018, within the

months of June, July, August and September.



7.1.4 Limitations

7.1.4.1 Bat surveys are limited by factors which affect their presence such as the time of

year, migration patterns and behaviour. These factors are also dependent on

weather conditions and availability of prey. Therefore, the absence of evidence

of any particular species should not be taken as conclusive proof that the

species is not present or that it will not be present in the future.

7.1.4.2 Three buildings/structures could not be surveyed for bats due to no permitted

access for two buildings (Coach House and Gothic Tower) and health and safety

restrictions associated with the location of one bridge (junction 10 A3

Roundabout Central Flyover) in the centre of the junction. Access to the San

Dominico building (NGR TQ 08884 60296, see Figure 7.11) to carry out and

update bat surveys was refused. However, previous surveys have been carried

out by Aspect Ecology during the 2017 bat survey season.

7.1.4.3 In the south-east transect, the western area close to the A3 was identified as an

unsafe area and was excluded from the survey. This was due to antisocial

behaviour and concerns regarding surveyor safety. Two attempts were made in

July and early August 2016 to survey this area but both surveys were abandoned

due to such concerns. The south-east section was approached from the east

instead, starting at the Semaphore tower, and thereby avoiding the areas of

specific safety concern.

7.1.4.4 It is not usually possible to separate calls from Myotis bat species during sound

analysis alone4,5. However, to reduce the significance of this limitation, visual

observation was used during the surveys in combination with analysis of acoustic

recordings to distinguish species-specific behaviour, where possible. Where it is

not possible to identify a bat call to species level, the genus is provided. If

recorded calls are of insufficient quality to identify to any genus/species level,

then they may be categorised as unknown bat calls.

7.1.4.5 There were some bat calls that were difficult to distinguish from being common

pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and Nathusius’ pipistrelle (P. nathusii). Due to

overlapping call characteristics between these two bat species, all calls that fell

at or below 40 kHz were classified as common/Nathusius (referred to below as

“45/Nathusius’ pipistrelle” for brevity).

4 Parsons, S. and Jones, G. (2000) Acoustic identification of 12 species of echolocating bat by discriminant function analysis and artificial neural networks. Journal of Experimental Biology 203: 2641–2656 and Walters, C. L. et al. (2012) A continental-scale tool for acoustic identification of European bats. Journal of Applied Ecology 49: 1064–1074. 5 The Myotis bats: Daubenton's, Whiskered, Alcathoe and Brandt's Bats (and often Natterer's Bat) are difficult to differentiate from call analysis alone. Considering the rarity of greater mouse-eared bat in the UK, this species is highly unlikely to be present. Bechstein’s bat is also a rare species of bat and most commonly associated with old broadleaved woodland. Considering the habitats present, this species was considered unlikely to roost within the Survey Area.



7.1.4.6 Calls from brown long-eared bats are highly directional and usually very quiet,

which makes them difficult to detect and record. In order to reduce the

significance of this limitation, visual observation was used to complement

recordings, which increased the likelihood of recording this species during the

surveys, where present, but it is recognised that brown long-eared bats may be

under-recorded.

7.1.4.7 It is assumed that the long-eared species recorded belong to brown long-eared

as opposed to grey long-eared (P. austriacus). Grey long-eared bat are

considered as extremely rare and occupy a limited area of distribution, which is

limited to the extreme south of England no further north than the Surrey/West

Sussex border. Furthermore, the presence of brown long-eared bats was

confirmed during the bat trapping surveys as detailed in Appendix 7.10.

7.1.4.8 To promote timing consistency between surveys, it was aimed to survey each FP

at a specific time after sunset. However, this was not always possible due to

inclement weather conditions and difficulty navigating the transect route. In

particular, the survey timing for the north-west transect on 6th July 2016 is

distinctly different from the other surveys for the same transect. Minor variations

in the timings resulted in slightly different start times relative to sunset. However,

this is not considered to be a significant limitation to the survey results as an

account of bat activity, species and locations recorded were still provided.

7.1.4.9 The 2018 transect surveys at Wisley and Nutberry Farm were carried out

between May and September (inclusive), which is a slightly reduced time period

comparted to the 2017 survey period of April to October (inclusive). The local

weather conditions in April and October 2017 were considered as sub-optimal for

bat transect surveys.

7.1.4.10 A number of trees identified during the GLTA were not possible to climb due to

the condition of the tree or other considerations including the presence of oak

processionary moth (Thaumetopoea procesionea). However, this constraint was

dealt with by undertaking emergence/re-entry surveys. The number of

emergence/re-entry surveys carried out was as the same level survey

commitment as the number of separate climbing surveys, depending on the

potential category of the tree.

7.1.4.11 Static remote detectors are not able to take direct visual observations of bats;

therefore, it was only possible to record levels of activity and species. No direct

observations were possible, which would give an indication of the number of

bats. Therefore, it is impossible to ascertain whether a high level of activity is

indicative of a high number of individual bats or a lower number of individual bats

making high numbers of passes at any specific location.



7.1.4.12 There were some incidences of static detector equipment failure which have

resulted in no activity recorded. Where this has occurred, this has been indicated

within the results table by a missing data column. On most occasions, this was

mitigated against by having a degree of redundancy in the numbers of static

detectors deployed, which was four detectors instead of the normally required

three.

7.1.5 Results

Transect surveys

7.1.5.1 The results of the transect surveys for each of the five transect sites are provided

in summary tables below. Each table is followed by a description of the key

features of the data. The full results and weather data are available in the Annex

at the end of this document, and the locations of transects and stopping locations

referred to in the tables below are shown on Figure 7.12.

North-west transect

Table 7.0.2: North-west transect summary of species and passes per minute6

Location P. pip P. pyg E. ser N. noc N. lei P. aur P. nat Myotis sp.

i - 1.05 - - - - - -

1 - 1.05 - - - - - -

ii 0.26 0.85 0.02 0.02 - - - -

2 0.38 0.71 0.02 - - - 0.02 -

ii 0.65 0.41 0.18 0.01




9 0.08 0.15 0.01 - - 0.01 - -

x 0.03 0.19 0.01 - - - - -

% 41.97%

44.41% 9.10% 0.56% 0.21% 0.56% 1.25% 1.94%

7.1.5.2 Soprano pipistrelle was the most commonly encountered bat in the north-west

transect, with 44.41% of all passes assigned to this species. The second most

common bat encountered was the common pipistrelle, with 41.97% of all passes.

Serotine bats were noted in large numbers, with 9.10% of all passes being

attributed to this species. Leislers’ bat, brown long-eared bat and noctule bat

were noted in relatively low numbers (0.21%, 0.56% and 0.56% respectively) as

were common pipistrelle (45)/Nathusius’ pipistrelle (1.25%) and Myotis bat sp.

(1.94%). A fairly even distribution of bats was present across the entire transect

route, with a couple of small peaks in activity along walked section iv and

between walk section vi to vii within the woodland (including FP 6).

Table 7.1.3: North-west transect – temporal distribution of bat activity6

Date P. pip P. pyg E. ser N. noc N. lei P. aur P. nat Myotis sp.

21/07/2016 0.46 0.13 0.29 0.03 - 0.01 - 0.01

04/08/2016 0.47 0.60 0.43 0.01 - 0.01 - 0.02

23/08/2016 0.31 0.17 0.56 0.01 - 0.03 - 0.02

01/09/2016 0.22 0.17 0.18 0.03 - - - 0.04

20/09/2016 0.03 0.29 0.01 0.03 - - - 0.01

11/10/2016 0.02 0.29 - 0.01 - - - 0.05

26/10/2016 0.02 0.83 - - - - - -

13/04/2017 0.04 0.21 - - 0.02 - - -

24/04/2017 1.11 1.04 - - 0.01 - - 0.03

03/05/2017 0.69 0.53 - - - - - 0.01

25/05/2017 0.69 0.42 - - - 0.04 0.03 0.07

26/05/2017 0.85 0.58 - - - - 0.04 0.09

07/06/2017 1.03 1.15 0.01 - - 0.01 0.04 0.01

08/06/2017 1.08 0.87 0.02 - - 0.01 0.07 0.02

21/06/2017 0.63 0.73 - - - - 0.07 0.01

24/07/2017 0.73 0.34 0.31 - 0.01 - - -



7.1.5.3 At the end of the 2016 survey period in October, there was a large increase in

soprano pipistrelle passes, which occurred at the same time as a large drop in

common pipistrelle passes in the same period, most notably around the final

October 2016 survey. The following 2017 season saw both common and

soprano pipistrelle activity increase, with high levels of activity throughout the

2017 survey period. Myotis bat sp. were present throughout the survey period,

with only three absences (late October 2016, early April 2017 and the end of

July 2017). Serotine bats and noctule bats were absent across the transect route

at the beginning of the survey season (April to May 2017), with a notable

increase in passes from July 2017 for both of these species. Common pipistrelle

(45)/Nathusius’ pipistrelle were present between May and June 2017, with brown

long-eared bat being noted sporadically from the end of May until September

2017.

South-west transect

Table 7.1.4: South-west transect summary of species and passes per minute6

Location P. pip P. pyg E. ser N. noc P. aur P. nat Myotis sp.

i 0.20 0.16 - - - - -

1 0.01 - - 0.10 - - -

ii 0.08 0.04 - 0.06 0.02 - -

2 0.05 0.02 - - - - -

iii 0.18 0.04 - - - - -

3 0.57 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.03 - -

iv 0.22 0.04 - 0.02 - 0.02 -

4 0.51 0.05 - 0.01 0.06 - 0.01

v 0.79 0.20 - - - 0.11 0.02

5 1.38 0.60 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.07 0.02

vi 1.37 0.90 0.04 0.07 - 0.04 0.03

6 2.76 2.31 - 0.21 0.01 0.01 0.20

vii 2.00 1.80 0.02 0.06 - 0.12 0.13

7 1.17 0.52 0.03 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.06

viii 0.93 0.30 0.07 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.03

8 0.81 0.45 0.06 - 0.02 0.01 0.04

ix 0.71 0.57 0.16 0.04



7.1.5.4 The bat activity on the south-west transect route was heavily concentrated

around the small lake within the open heath (between FP 5 and FP 7). In terms

of species present, common pipistrelle was most frequently recorded, with

56.95% of all passes. Second was the soprano pipistrelle with 32.84% of all

passes. A relatively large number of calls were recorded from other species on

this transect when compared with other transects. Brown long-eared bats were

generally encountered in the latter half of the transect route, as were Myotis bat

sp. and 45/Nathusius’ pipistrelle, with a larger concentration around the lake area

(FP 6 to FP 7).

Table 7.1.5: South-west transect - temporal distribution of bat activity6

Date P. pip P. pyg E. ser N. noc P. aur P. nat Myotis sp.

06/07/2016 1.00 0.37 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.04

03/08/2016 1.69 0.89 0.26 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.05

22/08/2016 1.08 0.26 0.06 0.17 0.07 - 0.07

02/09/2016 1.12 1.37 - 0.13 0.04 - 0.12

29/09/2016 0.37 1.14 - - - - -

13/10/2016 0.06 0.18 - 0.01 - - 0.02

27/10/2016 0.25 0.15 - 0.01 - - 0.01

12/04/2017 1.03 0.48 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.10

20/04/2017 0.72 0.63 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.03

04/05/2017 1.74 0.95 - 0.07 - - 0.03

05/05/2017 0.95 0.21 - - 0.01 0.02 0.01

24/05/2017 1.01 0.53 - 0.03 - 0.31 0.05

06/06/2017 1.01 0.47 - 0.02 - 0.04 0.02

22/06/2017 0.85 0.30 0.05 0.10 0.01 0.04 0.01

23/06/2017 1.12 0.34 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.03 -

17/07/2017 1.00 0.37 0.10 0.02 - - 0.03

7.1.5.5 Common and soprano pipistrelle were consistently present on this transect with

relatively high levels of activity throughout the years. Serotine bats and brown

long-eared bats followed a similar pattern of activity to each other over the

course of the survey season and were generally absent during the beginning and

end with a low number of passes in April 2017. 45/Nathusius’ pipistrelle followed

a similar pattern of activity over the course of the survey season. Noctule bats

and Myotis bat sp. were ubiquitous across the survey season with increases in

activity in June 2017, September 2016 and April 2017 respectively. Leisler’s bat

was entirely absent within this section.



South-east transect

Table 7.1.6: South-east transect summary of species and passes per minute6


i - 0.07 - 0.01 - - - -

1 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.06 - - - 0.02

ii 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 - -

2 0.14 0.07 0.01 0.02 - - - -

ii 0.01 0.09 0.02 - - - - -

3 0.14 0.16 0.01 0.14 - - - -

iv 0.26 0.09 0.01 0.17 - - - -

4 0.74 0.58 0.55 0.56 - - - -

v 0.30 0.21 0.36 0.51 0.01 - - -

5 0.41 0.34 0.48 0.62



Table 7.1.7: South-east transect - temporal distribution of bat activity6


19/08/2016 0.74 0.34 0.76 0.55 - - 0.04 -

31/08/2016 0.50 0.25 0.43 0.42 - 0.01 0.04 -

11/09/2016 0.50 0.54 0.22 0.85 - 0.03 0.01 -

28/09/2016 0.17 0.24 0.19 0.35 - - - -

22/10/2016 0.04 - 0.12 - - - 0.01 -

10/04/2017 - 0.10 - - - 0.01 - -

27/04/2017 0.02 - - - - - - -

15/05/2017 0.25 0.13 - - - - - -

25/05/2017 0.77 0.17 0.03 0.17 - - 0.09 0.03

26/05/2017 0.06 0.11 0.03 0.10 - - - -

08/06/2017 0.44 0.05 0.17 0.02 0.01 - 0.06 0.01

22/06/2017 0.19 0.01 0.17 0.03 0.01 - - 0.01

23/06/2017 0.31 0.42 0.05 0.01 - - - -

06/07/2017 0.18 0.01 0.07 0.02 - - 0.02 -

25/07/2017 0.33 0.06 0.27 0.02 0.16 0.03 - 0.04

30/10/2017 - - - - - - - -

7.1.5.7 At the beginning (April 2017) and end (October 2017) of the survey season,

there was a drop in activity of all bat species across the entire transect route.

Common and soprano pipistrelle were encountered throughout the survey

season, with an increase in common pipistrelle activity in May 2017 and August

2016. While serotine bats and noctule bats were encountered throughout the

survey season (with activity starting in May 2017), there was a reduction in the

number of passes during the 2017 surveys compared to the 2016 surveys.

Brown long-eared bat and 45/Nathusius’ pipistrelle activity appeared to be

sporadically distributed across the survey season. Leisler’s bat was present in

three occasions in June 2017 and with one distinct occasion in July 2017. Myotis

bat sp. were encountered on four occasions, these being in May, June and

July 2017.



North-east transect

Table 7.1.8: North-east transect summary of species and passes per minute6


i 0.03 0.15 - - - - - -

1 0.04 0.02 0.01 - - - - -

ii 0.07 - - - - - - -

2 0.15 0.06 - - - - - -

ii 0.04 0.10 - 0.05 - - - 0.01

3 0.04 0.23 - - - - - -

iv 0.05 0.01 0.01 - - - - -

4 0.54 0.05 - - 0.01 - - -

v 0.01 0.03 - - - - - -

5 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.05 - 0.05 - 0.02

vi 0.14 0.03 - 0.01 - - - 0.01

6 0.48 0.01 - 0.04 - 0.01 0.01 -

vii 0.03 0.01 0.01 - - - - -

7 0.03 0.01 - - - - - -

viii 0.06 0.01 - - - - - 0.02

8 0.04 0.04 0.01 - 0.01 - 0.03 -

ix 0.08 0.08 0.02 - - 0.02 - 0.01

9 0.03 0.08 0.01 - - - - 0.01

x 0.05 0.06 - - - - 0.02 -

% 56.73% 29.22% 2.53% 4.44% 0.52% 2.44% 1.82% 2.31%

7.1.5.8 Common and soprano pipistrelle were encountered throughout the north-east

transect route, with two distinct areas of concentrated activity; the first was

around FP 4 and the second was around FP 6. Common pipistrelle was the most

abundant bat species encountered with 57.64% of all passes, with soprano

pipistrelle accounting for 29.68% of all passes. The other species observed on

this transect route were serotine bat, noctule bat, Leisler’s bat, brown long-eared

bat and Myotis bat sp. Noctule bats (4.51% of passes) were the most commonly

encountered bat after common and soprano pipistrelle, followed by serotine bat

(2.57%), brown long-eared bat (2.44%) and Myotis bat sp. (2.34%). A number of

passes were recorded from 45/Nathusius’ pipistrelle (1.85%), all of which were in

the latter half of this transect, between FP 6 and the last walking section x.

Relatively low numbers of Leisler’s bat were noted (0.52%).



Table 7.1.9: North-east transect - temporal distribution of bat activity6


27/07/2016 0.03 0.07 - - - - 0.01 -

18/08/2016 0.14 0.02 - 0.03 - - - -

30/08/2016 0.20 0.10 - - - - 0.02 -

04/09/2016 0.13 - - 0.01 - - - -

16/09/2016 0.13 - - - - - - -

05/10/2016 - 0.09 - - - - - 0.01

12/04/2017 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.01 - - - -

25/04/2017 0.07 - - - - - - -

09/05/2017 0.01 0.12 - - - 0.05 - -

10/05/2017 0.04 0.06 - - - - - -

22/05/2017 0.10 0.17 0.01 0.04 - - 0.02 0.01

05/06/2017 0.15 0.12 - - 0.01 - - 0.01

20/06/2017 0.09 0.20 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 - 0.04

13/07/2017 0.07 - 0.03 - - 0.01 - -

14/07/2017 0.25 - 0.03 0.02 - - - 0.01

29/10/2017 - - - - - - - -

7.1.5.9 Throughout the survey season, common pipistrelle was present on all but two

survey occasions. While soprano pipistrelle was less common, this species was

still present during the majority of the surveys. Most of the serotine bat passes

were concentrated in late May to July 2017, with noctule bat passes recorded

occasionally across the survey period. Leisler’s bat passes were noted only on

two survey occasions in June 2017 and brown long-eared bat and 45/Nathusius’

pipistrelle passes occurred during three surveys. Myotis bat sp. were

encountered between late May and mid-July in 2017, with only one occasion

during 2016 in October.

Wisley transect

Table 7.1.10: Wisley transect summary of species and passes per minute6


i - 0.03 - - - - -

1 0.08 0.08 0.02 - - - -

ii - 0.03 - - - - -

2 - - - 0.01 - - -

iii 0.09 0.06 - 0.01 - 0.01 -

3 0.36 0.57 0.14 0.01 - - -

ii 0.25 0.16 0.03 0.03 - 0.01 -




4 0.24 0.44 0.23 0.01 - - 0.00

v 0.17 0.03 0.15 0.01 - 0.01 0.06

5 0.10 0.03 - 0.01 - - -

vi 0.09 0.10 - 0.06 0.01 - -

6 0.19 0.05 - - - - -

vii - 0.01 - - - - -

7 - 0.02 - - 0.03 - -

viii - 0.12 - - 0.03 - -

8 - 0.08 - 0.19 0.12 - -

ix - 0.12 - - - - -

9 - 0.22 - - 0.01 - -

x - 0.22 - - 0.03 - -

% 30.15 45.74 11.26 6.61 4.42 0.74 1.08

7.1.5.10 Common and soprano pipistrelle were the most frequently encountered species

in the Wisley transect (soprano pipistrelle being the most abundant bat with

45.74% of all passes with common pipistrelle at 30.15%), with particular

concentrations of activity between FP 3 and FP 4. Serotine bats were the most

commonly recorded large bat (11.26%) with clear concentrations of activity,

again, between FP 3 and FP 4. Serotine bat activity was only noted in one other

location throughout the survey period (FP 1). Noctule bats were present in

relatively low numbers compared to common and soprano pipistrelle and

serotine bats. Myotis bat sp. and brown long-eared bats were present in low

numbers and of particular note was the presence of 45/Nathusius’ pipistrelle

between FP 3 and FP 4.

Table 7.1.11: Wisley transect - temporal distribution of bat activity6


23/05/2017 0.60 0.19 0.02 0.34 0.00 - 0.08

15/06/2017 0.35 0.55 - 0.02 - - -

31/07/2017 0.23 0.17 0.16 0.01 - 0.04 -

29/08/2017 0.03 0.46 0.37 0.03 - - -

01/09/2017 0.21 0.14 - 0.01 - - 0.01

29/09/2017 0.08 0.39 - - - - 0.02

12/10/2017 - 0.25 - 0.06 0.21 - -

30/05/2018 0.18 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.02 - -

27/06/2018 0.49 0.03 - 0.12 - - -

31/07/2018 0.05 0.05 0.03 - - - -




01/08/2018 0.12 - 0.01 0.01 0.01 - 0.01

22/08/2018 0.01 0.01 - 0.05 0.02 - 0.01

24/09/2018 0.01 0.08 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.09

7.1.5.11 There were four peaks of bat activity during the survey period (May to October

2017). The first was in May (with a high number of common pipistrelle passes),

with a higher number of soprano pipistrelle passes in June, August and

September. Common and soprano pipistrelle bats were noted throughout the

survey period, with noctule being noted in relatively low numbers but on all but

one survey (September). The majority of serotine bat activity was concentrated

in the July and August surveys, with a very small level of activity in October.

Myotis bat sp., were recorded during the dawn survey at the beginning of

September and the evening survey at the end of September. 45/Nathusius’

pipistrelle were present only during the late July 2017 survey.

Nutberry transect

Table 7.1.12: Nutberry transect summary of species and passes per minute6


i - - - 0.17 - - -

1 - - - 0.01 - - -

ii - - - 0.03 - - -

2 - - - 0.02 - - -

iii - 0.01 - 0.15 - - -

3 0.18 0.17 - 0.02 - - -

ii 0.21 0.35 - 0.06 - - -

4 0.04 0.24 - 0.06 - - 0.01

v 0.03 0.06 - - - - -

5 0.18 0.08 - 0.01 0.02 - -

vi 0.10 0.04 0.08 - - - 0.01

6 0.13 0.04 0.05 0.05 - - -

vii 0.03 0.04 0.01 - 0.01 0.06 -

7 0.02 0.02 - 0.02 0.02 0.01 -

viii 0.15 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.01 - 0.01

8 - - - 0.01 - - 0.01

ix 0.06 - - - - 0.01 -

9 0.02 - - 0.01 - - 0.05

x 0.03 - - - - - 0.01




% 34.65 32.71 4.71 19.94 2.24 2.41 3.35

7.1.5.12 In the Nutberry transect, common pipistrelle was the most frequently

encountered bat at 34.65% with soprano pipistrelle at 32.71%. Noctule bat was

the most commonly encountered large bat at 19.94% of passes. 45/Nathusius

pipistrelle were encountered at 2.41% of passes here. Serotine bats were at

4.71%, brown long-eared bats at 2.24% and Myotis bats were at 3.35%. Myotis

bats were more commonly encountered later on in the survey from locations viii

to x, with brief passes by FP 4 and location vi. There was a relative concentration

of brown long-eared bats around FP 7, serotine bats and 45/Nathusius’

pipistrelles around FP 6. Noctule bats were generally encountered throughout

the transect route, as were common and soprano pipistrelle.

Table 7.1.13: Nutberry transect - temporal distribution of bat activity6


13/05/2018 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03 - -

27/05/2018 0.30 0.14 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.05

10/06/2018 0.34 0.04 0.03 0.02 - - -

24/06/2018 0.12 0.26 0.03 0.23 - - -

16/07/2018 0.04 0.26 0.04 0.05 0.01 - -

17/07/2018 0.14 0.20 - - - - 0.01

30/07/2018 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.01 - - 0.01

13/08/2018 - 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.01 - -

14/08/2018 - 0.03 - - - - 0.01

30/08/2018 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.01 - 0.01

13/09/2018 0.04 0.03 - - - - 0.01

27/09/2018 0.04 - - 0.11 - - -

7.1.5.13 The most ubiquitous bat encountered across the survey season was soprano

pipistrelle, with increased levels of activity in late June and July. Common

pipistrelle was the second most ubiquitous bat encountered on all but two

surveys, having a peak in activity in late May and early June. 45/Nathusius’

pipistrelle were only encountered in late May. Serotine bats were encountered

during most surveys, although in low numbers, Noctule bats were encountered

during most of the surveys with a distinct increase in activity in late June. There

was a small peak of Myotis bat activity in late May with activity only in July,

August and early September.

Transect by transect comparison

Table 7.1.14 provides a comparison summary of activity at each transect, with

further description below.



Table 7.1.14: Activity comparison summary of all transects6

Transect section

P. pip

P. pyg

E. ser N. noc N. lei P.

aur P. nat

Myotis sp.

Total %

Percentage Concentration of Passes per Minute Comparison Across All Transects

SE 13.88 9.90 43.53 55.00 73.99 9.60 31.03 6.58 17.93

NE 6.02 4.15 1.56 3.27 7.86 10.34 4.42 6.23 4.87

SW 46.42 35.83 9.55 17.55 0.00 28.90 38.82 44.22 37.43

NW 25.20 35.69 31.90 2.34 18.15 13.40 17.21 29.62 27.57

Wisley 4.85 9.85 10.57 7.37 0.00 28.40 2.74 4.42 7.39

Nutberry 3.63 4.58 2.88 14.47 0.00 9.35 5.79 8.93 4.81

Comparison of Mean Passes Per Minute

SE 0.24 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.01



7.1.5.18 The Nutberry Farm (4.56%) and the north-east (4.62%) transects both had

relatively low levels of activity compared to the other transects. The Nutberry

Farm transect is notable in the relativity high level of Noctule bat passes

recorded, when compared to other bat activity at this location.

7.1.5.19 The comparison of mean passes per minute highlights the large variability of

activity across the different transects, particularly for common pipistrelle, soprano

pipistrelle, noctule bat and serotine bat. The standard deviation scores that were

relatively high compared to the mean activity levels for each species within each

transect section, were indicative of this variability.

7.1.5.20 The comparison of mean passes per minute highlights the relatively low levels of

activity across all of the transects of Leisler’s bat, brown long-eared bat, 45/

Nathusius’ pipistrelle and Myotis bat sp., when compared to the other four bat

species recorded.

Crossing point surveys

7.1.5.21 The crossing point survey results for each of the four potential crossing features

are provided in the summary tables below. The total number of bats of each

species recorded crossing each feature during each survey are provided,

including their direction of flight and height over the feature.

Clearmount overbridge crossing point

7.1.5.22 This crossing point was located between the NW and SW transect sections of

Wisley and Ockham Commons. This bridge is approximately 7 m wide and flat,

forming part of the bridleway linking the two sections spanning across the M25.

No lighting was present on the bridge and light spill from the M25 was limited to

the edges, with a dark corridor being maintained across the bridge

Table 7.1.15: Clearmount overbridge crossing point survey6

Survey type

Date Direction of flight

Height category above bridge (m)

P. pip P. pyg Myotis sp.

Dusk 26/06/2017 N – S 0 – 5 2 - -

5 – 10 16 - -

10 – 15 - - -

S – N 0 – 5 - - -

5 – 10 - - -

10 - 15 - - -

Dusk 31/07/2017 N – S 0 – 5 32 1 2

5 – 10 - - -

10 - 15 - - -

S – N 0 – 5 - - -

5 – 10 - - -



Survey type

Date Direction of flight


P. pip P. pyg Myotis sp.

10 - 15 - - -

Dawn 01/08/2017 N – S 0 – 5 - - -

5 – 10 - - -

10 - 15 - - -

S – N 0 – 5 10 - -

5 – 10 - - -

10 - 15 - - -

Dusk 15/08/2017 N – S 0 – 5 24 8 -

5 – 10 2 - -

10 - 15 - - -

S – N 0 – 5 2 - -

5 – 10 - - -

10 - 15 - - -

Dusk 29/09/2017 N – S 0 – 5 5 2 --

5 – 10 3 - --

10 - 15 - - -

S – N 0 – 5 - - -

5 – 10 - - -

10 - 15 - - -

Dusk 26/10/2017 N – S 0 – 5 - - -

5 – 10 - - -

10 - 15 - - -

S – N

0 – 5 - - -

5 – 10 - - -

10 - 15 - - -

7.1.5.23 With the exception of the October 2017 survey at Clearmount Footbridge, bats

were observed crossing here on each survey occasion. The dominant direction

was north to south (from the north-west quadrant to the south-west quadrant)

during the dusk surveys, with bats only being observed travelling in the opposite

direction across the footbridge (south to north) during the dawn surveys.

7.1.5.24 The peak count of bats crossing was the dusk survey on 15 August 2017, with

34 bats heading north to south, and two bats heading south to north. The bat

most commonly observed crossing here was the common pipistrelle, with the

occasional soprano pipistrelle noted. Two Myotis sp. were observed crossing

here during the July 2017 survey.



Painshill River Mole crossing point

7.1.5.25 This crossing point location was located at two opposing banks of the River Mole

approximately 150 m to the south from the A245 bridge at a gap in the tree cover

along the river bank. Light pollution from the street lighting along the A245 was

minimal with the tree cover restricting this. The river was approximately 10 m

wide at this point.

Table 7.1.16: Painshill River Mole crossing point survey6

Type Date Direction of flight


P. pip P. pyg E. ser

Dusk 02/07/2017 NW – SW 0 – 5 - - -

5 – 10 - 4 1

10 – 15 2 - -

SW – NW 0 – 5 - - -

5 – 10 - - -

10 – 15 1 - -

Dusk 19/07/2017 NW – SW 0 – 5 - 1 -

5 – 10 1 - -

10 - 15 - 15 -

SW – NW 0 – 5 - - -

5 – 10 - - -

10 - 15 1 2 -

Dawn 20/07/2017 NW – SW 0 – 5 - - -

5 – 10 - - -

10 - 15 - - -

SW – NW 0 – 5 - - -

5 – 10 - - -

10 - 15 - - -

Dusk 29/08/2017 NW – SW 0 – 5 - - -

5 – 10 - - -

10 - 15 - 1 -

SW – NW 0 – 5 - - -

5 – 10 - - -

10 - 15 - - -

Dusk 25/09/2017 NW – SW 0 – 5 - 1 --

5 – 10 - 4 --

10 - 15 - - -

SW – NW 0 – 5 - - -



Type Date Direction of flight


P. pip P. pyg E. ser

5 – 10 - - -

10 - 15 - 1 -

Dusk 27/10/2017 NW – SW 0 – 5 - - -

5 – 10 - 2 -

10 - 15 - - -

SW – NW 0 – 5 - - -

5 – 10 - - -

10 – 15 - - -

7.1.5.26 During the Painshill River Mole crossing point surveys, relatively low numbers of

bats were observed crossing the river at this location. A peak count of 16

soprano pipistrelles and one common pipistrelle was recorded during the dusk

survey on 19 July 2017 survey. There was not as strong a distinction in the

direction of travel when compared to that observed at Clearmount Footbridge,

with travel being recorded in both a NW to SW and SW to NW direction during

some surveys, although overall numbers were greater travelling from NW to SW.

It is possible that this could be equated to foraging activity over the water rather

than this location being a specific crossing point.

Cockcrow overbridge and Wisley/Elm Lane footbridge crossing points

7.1.5.27 The Cockcrow overbridge provided pedestrian and bridleway access across the

A3 between the SE and SW sections of Wisley and Ockham commons. The

Wisley footbridge connects Elm Lane with the RHS gardens at Wisley. The

Wisley footbridge also crosses the A3, but this structure is located 1.0 km to the

south of Cockcrow overbridge. Both of these locations were within the light spill

of the A3. While no direct lighting was present on either of these bridges, light

from the road was sufficient enough to illuminate fully these two locations to the

visual equivalent of the road.

7.1.5.28 No bats were observed crossing either of these bridges during the crossing point

surveys.

Building and structure assessments

7.1.5.29 The building and structure assessment survey results are provided in the

summary tables below. The building/structure, its location and potential to

support roosting bats, along with a description of the potential survey

requirements are provided. The location of the buildings and structures is shown

on Figure 7.10.



Table 7.1.17: Building and structure assessments

Structure and location

Potential for bats

Rationale for survey requirements

Hut Hill Cottage

TQ 07583 58751

Confirmed Maternity and Hibernation Roost of brown long-eared bats.

Not directly affected, but potential area of impact for replacement of Wisley Lane Footbridge/A3 widening nearby may result in loss of foraging and/or commuting habitat. Potential for increased fragmentation of commuting/foraging habitat during construction and operation (depending on lighting design).

Ockham Bites

TQ 07851 58697

Low Potential for crevice dwelling species under loose tiles on roof

Not directly affected, but if a roost is present, potential for foraging/commuting habitat to be lost/increased lighting of roost/adjacent foraging/commuting habitats, fragmentation of habitats from access roads (depending on size of access roads and lighting design)

San Domenico Buildings (x2)

TQ 08896 60296

Confirmed Maternity Roost of brown long-eared bats and Summer Day Roost of common and soprano pipistrelle and noctule

Likely to require demolition as part of the scheme. Potential for foraging/commuting habitat nearby to be lost/increased lighting of roost/adjacent habitats during construction/operation, fragmentation of habitats from access roads (depending on size of access roads and lighting design)

Pond Farm, Surrey Wildlife Trust Office

TQ 07437 59104

Pipistrelle sp. Hibernation Roost reported by SWT

Not directly affected. Habitats to be affected 300m+ away and data on commuting/foraging bats well recorded from transects/statics in 2016/2017.

Pond Farm, Farm House

TQ 07430 59148

High Potential Not directly affected. Habitats to be affected 300m+ away and data on commuting/foraging bats well recorded from transects/statics in 2016/2017.

Pond Farm, garage

TQ 07449 59114

Low Not directly affected. Habitats to be affected 300m+ away and data on commuting/foraging bats well recorded from transects/statics in 2016/2017.

Building South of Buxton Wood Overbridge

TQ 06703 59530

Low Not directly affected, but potential for foraging/commuting habitat nearby to be lost/increased lighting of roost/adjacent habitats during construction/operation.

Buildings at Wisley Scout Camp

TQ 07341 59326

Common pipistrelle roost

Not directly affected, but if a roost is present, potential for foraging/commuting habitat to be lost/increased lighting of roost/adjacent foraging/commuting habitats.

Gothic Tower

TQ 08504 59784

N/A Not directly affected, but if a roost is present, potential for foraging/commuting habitat to be lost/increased lighting of roost/adjacent foraging/commuting habitats.

Clearmount Overbridge

TQ 07431 59494

Low Bridge to be replaced. If a roost is present – potential for roost loss.

Buxton Wood Overbridge

Low Not affected by the Scheme



Structure and location

Potential for bats

Rationale for survey requirements

TQ 06773 59593

Cockcrow Overbridge

TQ 07882 58823

Neg-Low Potential for crevice dwelling bats in expansion joint in east abutment under deck.

Bridge to be replaced. If a roost is present – potential for roost loss.

Pointers Road/Chatley Heath Overbridge

TQ 09211 58520

Neg-Low Potential for crevice dwelling bats in expansion joint in north abutment under deck.

Not affected by the Scheme

Wisley/Elm Lane Footbridge

TQ 06902 57998

Low potential for bats in pier cavity on south side

Bridge to be replaced. If a roost is present – potential for roost loss.

junction 10 A3 Main Carriageway Overbridges

TQ 08078 59270

Neg-Low potential in expansion joints under bridge deck

Impacts unconfirmed – demolition assumed as a precaution.

junction 10 A3 Roundabout Overbridges (West and East sides of roundabout)

Negligible Impacts unconfirmed – demolition/modification assumed as a precaution.

7.1.5.30 Three buildings/structures were confirmed as bat roosts. Hut Hill cottage was

confirmed as a brown long-eared bat maternity roost, the San Dominico buildings

which contain a brown long-eared maternity roost and a summer roost for

noctule bat, common and soprano pipistrelle and the Scout Camp buildings,

which contained a soprano pipistrelle roost. One building has been reported as

an anecdotal roost (Pond Farm SWT Office) but this is not yet confirmed.

Table 7.1.18: Building and structure emergence re-entry surveys6

Location Date Species recorded

Emergence/ re-entry recorded

Species recorded emerging and re-entering

Roost type

Hut Hill Cottage

28/06/2018

P. aur and P. pip

Yes 49 P. aur observed emerging and 4 observed re-entering

Maternity Roost

Wisley Footbridge

29/06/2018 None No No emergence or re-entry observed

N/A



Location Date Species recorded

Emergence/ re-entry recorded

Species recorded emerging and re-entering

Roost type

Scout Hut Buildings

14/08/2018 P. aur, N. noc, N. lei, E. ser, P. pip and P.pyg

Yes 3 P. aur observed emerging and 2 P. pyg observed emerging

Day/summer roost

7.1.5.31 Of the three structures surveyed, two were found to be roosts. The hut hill

cottage had a large population of brown long-eared bats present within, given the

time of year this survey was carried out (June) this can be considered as a

maternity roost. Brown long-eared bats and soprano pipistrelle bats were

observed emerging from the Scout hut buildings. The relatively low numbers of

bats would indicate that this is likely to be a day/summer roost.

Ground level tree assessments and climbed inspections

7.1.5.32 The GLTAs and climbed inspection survey results are provided in the summary

table below. The number of trees in each section and their level of potential to

support roosting bats are provided and shown on Figure 7.11.

Table 7.1.19: Number of trees with bat potential

Location Low potential Moderate potential High potential

South-West 0 0 3

North-West 7 2 11

North-East 2 11 2

South-East 0 1 4

Wisley 5 9 7

Compensation Areas 0 6 13

A3 East 0 2 0

A3 West 1 1 1

Nutberry Farm 0 0 4

Total 15 32 42



7.1.5.33 A total of 15 low, 32 moderate and 42 high potential trees have been located

across the five sections within the Survey Area. The south-west and south-east

sections contained relatively few trees with bat potential, while the north-west,

north-east and Wisley sections have a higher number of trees with bat potential.

Nutberry Farm contained four trees with bat potential, with the areas under the

Scheme between the Painshill junction of the A3 and the NE and NW sections

contained relatively few trees with bat potential. There were bat potential trees

located within the Compensation areas, which are not likely to be affected by the

Scheme. Although outside the Survey Area, tree 35 located within the north-east

quadrant was noted as a confirmed natterer’s bat day roost.

7.1.5.34 There had been forest management works carried out at the North East sections

which had resulted in five of the trees (5, 6, 10, 19 and 32) previously identified

as having bat potential being felled prior to the surveys being carried out.

7.1.5.35 During the first climb, tree 56 was found to contain a wasp nest (Vespula sp.)

occupying the potential roost feature so further surveys were not required and

tree 70 could not be climbed as a nest of oak processionary moth (OPM) was

present. The weather conditions over winter had in some incidences caused

deterioration/destruction of the feature, which was the case regarding tree 130.

The winter weather had caused the tree to become less safe to access, therefore

resulting in emergence/re-entry surveys being carried out (trees 96, 101, 103,

110 & 111). Some trees had been felled during winter management works,

therefore surveys on these trees were no longer possible.

Table 7.1.20: Tree climbing survey results summary

Tree number

Location Species Potential Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3

137 Orchard Beech High - - -

138 Orchard Beech High - - -

139 Nutberry Pedunculate Oak

Low - N/A N/A


Low - N/A N/A


High - - -


High - - -

A3 a Painshill Horse chestnut Moderte - - N/A

A3b Painshill Horse chestnut Moderate - - Hornets Nest Present

1 NE Silver birch Moderate - - N/A

2 NE Sweat Chestnut

Moderate - - N/A



Tree number


3 NE Pedunculate Oak

Low - N/A N/A

5 NE Goat willow Moderate Tree Felled N/A N/A

6 NE Goat willow Moderate Tree Felled N/A N/A


Low - N/A N/A

10 NE Sycamore Moderate Tree Felled N/A N/A

14 NE Scots pine Moderate - - N/A

19 NE Silver birch Moderate Tree Felled N/A N/A

24 NE Scots pine Moderate - - N/A


Moderate Tree Felled N/A N/A

55 NW Pedunculate Oak

High - - -


High Wasp Nest Present

Wasp Nest Present

Wasp Nest Present

61 NW Scots pine Low - N/A N/A


Moderate - - N/A


Moderate - - N/A


High - - -

68 NW Scots pine High - - -

69 NW Silver birch High - - -


High N/A - OPM Present

N/A N/A


High - - -


High - - -

128 NW Scots pine High - - -

130 NW Scots pine Negligible Feature destroyed

N/A N/A



101 SE Scots pine High N/A - Tree now dangerous to climb

N/A N/A



Tree number


103 SE Scots pine High N/A Tree now dangerous to climb

N/A N/A

104 SE Silver birch High - - -

105 SE Scots pine High - - -

44 SW Scots pine Moderate - - N/A

47 SW Silver birch High - - -

48 SW Silver birch High - - -

90 Wisley Scots pine Moderate - - N/A

92 Wisley Silver birch High - - -

96 Wisley Scots pine High N/A - Tree now dangerous to climb

N/A N/A

98 Wisley Scots pine High N/A - Bats observed re-entering during dawn survey no climbing survey carried out

N/A N/A

100 Wisley Pedunculate Oak

High - - -


High N/A - Tree now dangerous to climb

N/A N/A

111 Wisley Ash High N/A - Tree now dangerous to climb

N/A N/A


High - - 6 Natterer's bats found

7.1.5.36 One bat roost (Natterer’s bat) was found during the climbing surveys, located

within a trunk cavity on Tree 155 in late August, which was a pedunculate oak in

the Wisley section. A soprano pipistrelle roost was located in tree 98 (Scot’s

pine) during one of the emergence surveys near this location, therefore

emergence/ re-entry surveys were carried out instead of climbing.



Hibernation survey of trees

Table 7.1.21: Hibernation survey results of trees

Tree number Location Species Survey 1 (14/01/2019)

Survey 2 (12/02/2019(

98 Wisley Scots pine - -


Two noctules present, active.

Two noctules present hibernating

Weather conditions 11⁰C, no rain, light south westerly breeze (Beaufort scale 3)

Temp 7⁰C, no rain, light southerly breeze (Beaufort scale 3)

7.1.5.37 Two noctule bats were recorded roosting in tree 155 during both hibernation

checks. Tree 155 was confirmed as a hibernation roost and is a likely transitional

roost.

Evening emergence/dawn re-entry tree surveys

Table 7.1.22: Emergence and re-entry survey results6

Tree information Species activity recorded during survey

Tree status

Tree number

Location Species Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3 Tree potential

Roost species/ type

4 NE Scot’s pine P. pyg, P. pip, N. noc, N. lei, Myotis sp.

P.pip, P. pyg, N. noc

P. pip, P. pyg, N. noc

Moderate None

7 NE Scot’s pine P. pip, P. pyg,, N. nic, P. aur, E. ser

P. pip, P. pyg, E. ser, N. noc

P. pip, P. pyg,N. noc

Moderate None

12 NE Scot’s pine P. pip, P. pyg, N. noc, N. lei

P. pip, P. pyg, N. noc, N. lei

P. pip, P. pyg, N. noc N. lei

High None

25 NE Scot’s pine P. pip, P. pyg, N. noc, N. lei

P. pip, P. pyg and E. ser


High None

27 NE Scot’s pine P. pip, P. pyg, N. noc

P. pip, P. pyg, P. aur, N. noc

P. pip, P. pyg, P. aur, N. noc

Confirmed Roost

Noctule/ Transitional

43

SW

Scots pine

P. pip, P. pyg, N. lei, Myotis

N. noc, P. pip, P. pyg, P. aur, E. ser


High

None




Tree status

Tree number


Roost species/ type

58

NW

Scots pine

N. noc, E. ser

P. pyg

P. pyg

s

High

None

69

NW

Scots pine

P. pip, P. pyg, N. noc, Myotis

P. pip, P. pyg, N. noc, Myotis,

No bats recorded

High

None

70

NW

Pedunculate oak


P. pip, P. pyg, N. noc, Myotis

P. pyg, N. lei

High

None

81 Wisley Scot’s pine P. pip, P. pyg, Myotis

P. pip, P. pyg, Myotis

No bats recorded

Moderate None

82 Wisley Scot’s pine P. pip, P. pyg, N. noc

P. pip, P. pyg, Myotis, P. aur

P. pip, P. pyg, Myotis, P. aur

High None

92 Wisley Silver birch P. pyg Endoscope Inspected – No bats present

Endoscope Inspected – No bats present

High None

98 Wisley Scot’s pine P. pip, P. pyg, N. noc, E. ser

P. nat, P. pip, P. pyg,


Confirmed Roost

P. pyg/ Summer day roost

99 Wisley Scot’s pine P. pip, P. pyg, Myotis



High None

101

SE

Scots pine

P. pyg, P. pip, N. noc, N. lei

N. noc and P. aur


High

None

103

SE

Scots pine

P. pip, P. pyg, Myotis sp., P. aur, N. noc, N. lei

P. pip, P. pyg, N. noc, P. aur

P. pip, P. pyg, N. noc, N. lei

Likely roost

P. pyg/ Transitional

106 Wisley Pedunculate oak

P. pip, P. pyg, E, ser, N. lei, N. noc

P. pip, P. pyg, E. ser, N. lei, N. noc

P. pip, P. pyg, Myotis, N. noc

Confirmed Roost

P. pyg/ Transitional

110 Wisley Pedunculate oak


P. pip, P. pyg, N. lei

P. pip, P. pyg

High None

111 Wisley Ash P. pip, P. pyg, E. ser, Myotis

N. noc P.pyg, E.ser, P. aur

High None




Tree status

Tree number


Roost species/ type

139x Nutberry Pedunculate oak


N. noc, P. pip, P. pyg, Myotis

P. pip, P. pyg

High None

7.1.5.38 During the emergence and re-entry surveys bats were observed foraging and

commuting around the tree locations. Four confirmed roosts were identified in

the trees:

• Tree 27 a single noctule bat was seen re-entering in the September dawn survey. This is potentially a day/transitional roost

• Tree 98 three soprano pipistrelle were observed re-entering the tree during the July dawn survey and one soprano pipistrelle observed emerging during the June evening survey. This is likely to be a day/transitional roost

• Tree 106 a single soprano pipistrelle was observed emerging during the August re-entry survey. This is likely to be a day roost

• Tree 103 a single soprano pipistrelle was observed possibly re-entering. This is not a confirmed roost at this stage,

• Tree 155. Six Natterer’s bat were observed within this tree – Likely to be a day transitional/occasional roost.

Static detector results summary

Table 7.1.23: April SM4 Data – Average Passes per Night

Location Static number

Myotis sp.

Large bat

N. noc P. nat P. pip P. pyg P. aur

2017

North-west SM4_1 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 1.20 0.00 16.20

SM4_2 0.40 0.40 2.00 0.00 64.40 0.00 78.00

SM4_3 1.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 119.80 0.00 87.00

SM4_4 0.80 0.20 0.60 0.00 29.20 0.00 31.00

North-east SM4_1 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 10.20 6.00 0.00

SM4_2 0.20 0.00 1.80 0.00 21.60 12.00 0.00

SM4_3 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 2.00 4.60 0.00

SM4_4 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.60 0.00

South-east SM4_1 0.40 0.00 0.60 0.20 1.60 1.40 0.20

SM4_2 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.00 87.60 5.80 0.00

SM4_3 1.00 0.40 1.80 0.00 3.40 5.20 0.20

SM4_4 1.40 0.20 0.00 0.00 26.80 16.60 0.00

M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange TR0

PW Integrated Template - GOV.UK · 2019. 7. 1. · Table 7.1.17: Building and structure assessments...

Documents

Transcript of PW Integrated Template - GOV.UK · 2019. 7. 1. · Table 7.1.17: Building and structure assessments...