HAWKESWOOD ECOLOGY - WYG · 2019-09-24 · HAWKESWOOD ECOLOGY Specialists in Ecological Survey and...

HAWKESWOOD ECOLOGYSpecialists in Ecological Survey and Assessment

17 Heol Henrhyd, Coelbren, Nr. Ystradgynlais, POWYS. SA10 9PG. Tel/Fax: 01639 701304Mobile: 07957 154794 E-mail: [email protected]

VAT Reg No 926 9271 93(Proprietors: Niki and Eric Hawkeswood)

FURTHER HABITAT AND PROTECTE

SURVEYS, LAND AT CWM FARM, A

On behalf of

THE CWM FARM TRUSTEE

July 2019

Ref: HE/22/2018Version 2 11/07/2019

D SPECIES

BERDARE.

S

2

Copyright and Non-Disclosure NoticeThe contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Hawkeswood Ecology(© Hawkeswood Ecology 2019) save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by usto another. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or usedwithout our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in thisreport.

The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must notbe disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of HawkeswoodEcology. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence ormay otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to thisreport by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.

Third Party DisclaimerAny disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report wasprepared by Hawkeswood Ecology at the instruction of, and for use by, our client(s) named onthe front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able toaccess it by any means. Hawkeswood Ecology excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permittedall liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contentsof this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or deathresulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannotlegally exclude liability.

We confirm that in preparing this Report we have exercised reasonable skill and care, takinginto account the project objectives, the agreed scope of the work, prevailing siteconditions and the degree of manpower and resources allocated to the project.

All habitat and protected species surveys present a ‘snapshot’ of conditions existing and speciespresent, or considered having potential to be present, at the time of survey. Many species aremobile and distributions can vary across time. Results and findings presented in this reportshould be considered with these factors in mind.

Protected species surveys are recognised as having a ‘shelf life’ of two years maximum. Surveysolder than this are unlikely to be accepted by a Local Planning Authority or Natural ResourcesWales as viable documentation.

Further Protected Species Surveys, Land at Cwm Farm, Aberdare.Hawkeswood Ecology – July 2019

3

CONTENTS

Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Survey Team Experience

4. Field Survey

5. Discussion and Impact Assessment

6. Relevant Legislation

7. Recommendations

8. Conclusions

9. Bibliography

Figures:

Figure 1: Bat Activity Transect Routes and Locations of Passive Detectors

Figure 2: Breeding Bird Map

Figure 3: Location of Habitat survey areas

Figure 4: Key areas of bat activity

Figure 5: Typical integral bat and bird boxes

Appendices:

Appendix 1: DAFOR Scale

Appendix 2: Target Notes

Appendix 3: Photographs


4

SUMMARY

Hawkeswood Ecology carried a review and an update of an earlier PreliminaryEcological Appraisal at Cwm Farm Aberdare in 2017. The original survey carried out byEcology Solutions Ltd was carried out in April 2010 following the harsh winter of2009/10. Carried out at a more appropriate time of year, the review found somedifference in the habitats present to those described in 2010 but recommended furthersurveys for both habitat and protected species to fully understand the importance of theSite for wildlife.

Surveys were undertaken to identify the importance of Site for bats, breeding birds andbadgers. In addition further surveys were undertaken to assess the value of habitats onSite.

The protected species surveys showed that the main parts of the Site, the agriculturalfields were not well used by either bats or birds and that even after dark there was littlebat foraging across the Site. The surroundings of the Site which were largely woodedappeared to be of more significance. There was no evidence of badgers or badger activityon or near the Site.

A number of recommendations are made in relation to the proposed development of theSite. It is considered that if these are properly implemented, the development canproceed with only minimal local short term ecological impacts.

The conclusions of this report are considered valid for two years from the surveydates noted in Section 1 of the report.


5

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Following earlier Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and walk over surveys at Cwm Farm,a series of further habitat and protected species surveys were necessary to properlycategorise the importance of the Site for biodiversity value. As such HawkeswoodEcology was instructed by the Cwm Farm Trustee Board to carry out the surveys whichrelated to further habitat survey of pars of the Site, and protected species survey for bats,breeding birds and badger. The Site lies at approximate central Grid Reference SN 9938402502. It is proposed to develop the Site for residential purposes.

1.2 An earlier Ecological Assessment of the Site was carried out in 2010 by 'EcologySolutions Ltd' which found the Site to be dominated by semi-improved grassland withmarshy grassland, hedgerows and wooded/scrub areas. Hawkeswood Ecology wasinstructed in 2017 to update that report for planning purposes and carried out a walk overof the Site looking for any significant changes of the Site and to compare findings. Thosereports, 'Cwm Farm, Aberdare, Rhondda Cynon Taff, Ecological Assessment, EcologySolutions Ltd April 2010' and ‘Preliminary Ecological Assessment Review, Land at CwmFarm, Aberdare. Hawkeswood Ecology – September 2017’ should be read in conjunctionwith this report.

1.3 The later Hawkeswood Ecology walk over concluded that the fields were agriculturallyimproved although one of the fields did show some potential diversity and a survey atthe appropriate time of year was recommended to establish the biodiversity value of thisarea. Consultation with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) Ecologist also led to therequirement for access points to the Site to also be surveyed. As well as habitat survey,the LPA ecologist also required the protected species surveys noted above.

1.4 The objectives of the surveys were therefore: To carry out a habitat survey of one field and proposed access points to the Site; To undertake bat activity surveys of the Site; To undertake breeding bird survey of the Site and its immediate surrounds; To undertake a survey for badger setts and activity in and around the Site; To provide mitigation proposals to safeguard any protected species found.

1.5 The surveys were undertaken over the period of 25th June 2018 to 21 June 2019. Thedates for each specific survey are detailed in the body of the report.

2. METHODOLOGYDesk Top Study

2.1 A desk top study was undertaken as part of the earlier 2010 Preliminary EcologicalAppraisal (PEA) and the LPA Ecologist was consulted by Hawkeswood Ecology in2017. The findings of these are discussed in the 2017 report.


6

Field SurveyHabitat Survey

2.2 The Phase 1 Habitat Survey consisted of a walk-over survey of areas of the Site takinginto account features within and adjacent to them. Habitats were categorised according tothe Phase 1 Habitat Survey guidelines (JNCC, 2010). Plant assemblages were describedusing the DAFOR scale of cover abundance (Appendix 1) and each habitat was recordedusing Target notes (Appendix 2).

Bats2.3 A series of four activity surveys were undertaken using both transect surveys and passive

detectors placed at various locations on the farm. The routes taken and locations ofpassive machines are shown in Figure 1.

2.4 Activity surveys were based upon recommendations made in the Bat Conservation TrustDocument ‘Bat Surveys, Good Practice Guidelines for Professional Ecologist, 2016’.Four visits to Site were involved with three surveys carried out in 2018 and one in 2019.Surveys were undertaken on 25th June 2018, 23rd July 2018 and 4th September 2018 and22nd May 2019.

2.5 Surveyors used EM3+ machines; these machines continually record, the recordingsavailable for later analysis.

2.6 Passive detecting machines were Anabat Express machine which were set to record forthe duration of the visit and in May 2019 were left in situ for two nights prior to thetransect survey. The machines were placed at various positions to assist in quantifyingthe use of the Site by bats. These machines also record continuously saving files for lateranalysis.

2.7 The recordings were analysed using AnalookW and Batsound software, by use of whichit is possible to separate most species present from the sonograms produced.

Breeding Birds2.8 The survey methodology was based upon the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO)

Common Bird Census and the Breeding Bird Survey designed by the BTO, RoyalSociety for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee(JNCC). Transect surveys were undertaken on 7th May, 29th May and 21st June 2019.

2.9 The basic survey method consisted of identifying and recording the species and locationsof individual birds exhibiting breeding behaviour, either by sight or sound. Breedingbehaviour or other evidence of breeding may include bird song, bird calls, nest building,presence of nests and sitting birds, feeding of young and presence of young andterritorial display. Survey was not undertaken in the first hour following sunrise whenthere can be considerable confusion caused by the activity of displaying birds.

2.10 The surveyor used a pair of Leica Trinovid 10 x 50 binoculars and walked at a slow andsteady pace, recording all observed bird activity, following a predetermined route toencompass all potential bird nesting habitats within the survey area. At points on the


7

transect the surveyor stopped for a period of ten minutes to try and pinpoint displayingbirds.

2.11 Species heard or observed during the survey were mapped together with a description ofthe activities of the individual birds recorded. One field map was produced for each ofthe survey visits. The final map (Figure 2) gives the approximate centre of territories ofbirds recorded over the two visits. Birds were considered proven to have bred if theyexhibited characteristic breeding behaviour in the approximate same location on at leasttwo visits. Birds were considered possibly to have bred if seen exhibiting thosecharacteristics on one visit.

Badgers2.12 The Site and areas surrounding it were walked over looking for signs of badger activity.

These include paths, paw-prints, latrines and setts. The survey can be undertaken at anytime of year and this survey was carried out on 25th June 2018.

Constraints2.13 No significant constraints were noted.

3. SURVEYOR EXPERIENCE

3.1 The lead surveyor and report author is Eric Hawkeswood. Eric has many yearsexperience of broad habitat and detailed botanical and species surveying. Eric has beenan active member of the Brecknock Bat Group since 1999 and been involved in anumber of long running surveys within the county. He is a Natural Resources Wales(NRW) licensed bat worker (no. S085546-1, 2018) and has extensive experience of roostinspections and emergence work. He has been a professional in the nature conservationfield for thirty years formerly working as Reserves Manager and Conservation Officer atGwent Wildlife Trust and Woodland Manager for the Ruperra Conservation Trust. Erichas worked as an Ecological Consultant as joint proprietor of Hawkeswood Ecologysince 2001.

3.2 Assistant surveyors on the bat activity surveys were Liam Kelly and Will Walsh. Liamhas worked with Hawkeswood Ecology since 2012, Will since 2016. Both haveextensive experience of emergence/re-entry and activity surveys.

4 FIELD SURVEYHabitats

4.1 Following pre-application advice, as well as a further habitat survey of Field 3 (seeFigure 3); information regarding the habitats in the areas of the proposed access pointswas required by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) Ecologist. Rather than a colouredhabitat Map, due to the small size of the affected areas, they are discussed below andtheir locations shown in Figure 3. The fields were all assessed again for species presentto allow a comparison between them to be made and species lists for the three fields arefound in the Target Notes, Appendix 2.


8

Field 3.4.2 The 2017 habitat re-assessment of Cwm Farm was undertaken in September which is

late in the survey season and many species may no longer be visible, particularly as thefield is cut for hay/silage in the summer period and was subject to Lammas grazing. As aresult of this, the survey report recommended further survey of Field 3, as identified inFigure 1 of that report and shown in Figure 3 of this report. It was decided to assess allfields again to see if there was a substantive difference in diversity between them and thefull results are given in Target Note 1.

4.3 The 2017 report commented that ‘Field 3 was by far the dampest and was where sedgeand tufted hair-grass were found. Soft rush was present across most of the field but itstill appears to be best described as improved grassland with rush. Of all the fields onSite at this one may be worth a visit at a more appropriate time of year to assess iffloristic diversity is apparent.’

4.4 The 2019 visit was carried out on the 2nd of June before any cutting took place and didfind that the field held a wider range of species than the other two fields on Site.However all fields were dominated by grasses with perennial rye-grass, Yorkshire fogand Poa species abundant. Other grass species present were cocks’-foot, sweet vernalgrass and false oat-grass, all of which occurred occasionally or were locally frequent.Field 3 also supported crested dog’s tail and false oat-grass which occurred occasionally;although not seen in the other fields it is probable they were present in those also.

4.5 All fields had low levels of broad leaved herbs with Fields 1 and 2 (See Figure 3) havinga particularly poor representation of them. White clover was frequent in these fieldsalong with occasional red clover, which appeared to be an agricultural variety, commonsorrel was locally frequent and creeping buttercup appeared in both on an occasional orrare frequency.

4.6 The major differences between Field 3 and the other fields was the presence of hay rattlethroughout, all be it at a very low density, and oval sedge which was frequent in one partof the field along with soft rush. It was considered however, that despite its slightlygreater diversity, the field is still best described as agriculturally improved grasslandrather than semi-improved. We could not support the argument that marshy grassland ispresent in any of the fields.

4.7 During the course of the visit, it was noted that Japanese knotweed was still present inField 3.

Proposed Access Point 14.8 Current drive and access to Cwm Farm (Target Note 2), a tarmac drive bounded by

mown grass and a small horse grazed paddock. The Site boundary is demarked by a largecypress hedge through which the drive passes.


9

Proposed Access Point 24.9 This is a pedestrian access point to the proposed estate that links the Site to the footpath

along the Dare Valley (Target Note 3). It essentially follows a disused track, the line ofwhich can be followed from the farm field through the woodland to the present dayfootpath.

4.10 The proposed path passes through mature broad-leaved woodland forming part of theDare Valley Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). The canopy isdominated by common oak and ash with a poorly developed understorey of hazel,sycamore and holly. The ground flora is heavily disturbed with much bare ground.Bramble is occasional to locally frequent, ivy and wood sorrel locally abundant withpignut and wood speedwell both locally frequent. Typical woodland grasses are presentwith wood millet and creeping soft-grass both locally frequent. Curled dock, commonnettle and cock’s-foot indicate a level of disturbance.

Proposed Access Point 34.11 This access will enter the Site from the west and off a footpath running on the route of an

old mineral line (Target Note 4). The area is becoming wooded but there is no hedgerowinto the Site at this point. There are two mature common oak adjacent to the approximateentry point and the area outside the farm fields is dominated by young common oak andsilver birch. The footpath running along the old mineral line is on hardcore but is notmetalled. The ground flora is largely typical of disturbed and unmanaged ground withabundant bracken, frequent cock’s-foot and false-oat grass and occasionally occurringcommon nettle, hogweed and common cleavers. Of interest were two spikes of broad-leaved helleborine found in this area.

Hedgerows4.12 The hedgerow flora was also appraised but was found to be largely absent or

detrimentally affected by grazing practice with no associated flora. The hedgerow florawas dominated by the agricultural grasses found in the adjacent fields. The woodyspecies were dominated by hawthorn with oak standards in the hedgerow between field 1and 2. They were gappy and in places completely replaced by sheep net fencing. They donot qualify as ecologically important under the Hedgerow Regulations (1997).

Bats4.13 Bat activity surveys were undertaken over the period of a full activity season with

surveys undertaken in June, July and September 2018 and May 2019. The conditions atthe time of the surveys are indicated in Table 1 below:


10

Table 1: Weather conditions for dusk observations:Date Survey type Times Weather conditions25th June 2018 Evening Activity 21.10 – 23.20 (sunset

21.36)21-18oC, ~50% high cloud.Dry, good visibility, verywarm and humid, still - F1 Sbreeze.

23rd July 2018 Evening Activity 21.17 – 22.35 (sunset21.37)

20-18oC, 50% cloud cover,variable. Dry, goodvisibility, mild and humid,F1 W breeze.

4th September2018

Evening Activity 19.45 – 21.40 (sunset19.55)

14-14oC, 50% cloud cover,variable, dry, goodvisibility, still - F1 Wbreeze.

22nd May 2019 Evening Activity 20.45 – 23.00 (sunset21.10)

15-15oC, 20% high cloud.Dry, good visibility, F1 Wbreeze.

25th June 20184.14 The initial transect included a brief observation of the farm buildings as a known

pipistrelle roost is recorded from them. One observer watched the farm building untilaround 21.30; there was no confirmed emergence but access was restricted – the buildingdid not form part of the official building however, and was surveyed by the ‘CountrymanConsultancy’ in 2010 when no roosting bats were noted. There was a large amount ofcommon pipistrelle activity around the building with bats initially foraging around thefarm buildings before leaving the farm area and flying to the woodland to the east andalong the hedgerow to the north east of the farm.

4.15 Activity decreased through the transect survey with key areas identified in Figure 4.Species recorded included mainly common pipistrelle with soprano pipistrelle and aprobable Nathusius pipistrelle recorded flying into the Site at 22.15. Other speciesrecorded were occasionally Myotis species bats, most similar to whiskered on analysisand a brown long-eared pass recorded by both surveyors at 22.54 in the east and 22.59 inthe west, considered to be passing across the Site.

4.16 Five static detectors were placed for the duration of the survey; unfortunately onemachine, sited by the main farm entrance, failed and did not record. The locations of thepassive machines in the surveys are shown in Figure 1.

4.17 Analysis of the machines showed the following species passing (Table 2 below):


11

Table 2: Analysis of Passive Detector MachinesLocation 2, in ahedgerow

Location 3, westernboundary

Location 4, at theboundary of thefarm garden

Location 5, on thenorthern woodedboundary.

Common pipistrelle Common pipistrelle Common pipistrelle Common pipistrelleWhiskered Soprano pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Whiskered

Whiskered*Location 1, machine failed.

4.18 Common pipistrelle social calls were picked up particularly at Location 2. Commonpipistrelle was by far the most common species recorded with soprano pipistrelleinfrequent and whiskered bat passes limited to a maximum of three at location 5.

23rd July 20184.19 There was no particular activity around the farm buildings on this survey visit. Transect

activity was again limited to three species of bat with common pipistrelle the mostfrequently recorded bat, soprano pipistrelle occasionally recorded and whiskered batagain a rare passing animal.

4.20 Key areas of activity appeared to be particularly the north eastern corner where awayleave crosses the Site, the northern wooded boundary and the two hedgerowsrunning from the northern boundary to the farm.

4.21 Five passive detectors were again placed around the Site, in slightly different locations asidentified in Figure 1. Analysed results are shown in Table 3 below:

Table 3: Analysis of Passive Detector MachinesLocation 1, onthe easternboundary

Location 2, atthe boundaryof the farmgarden

Location 3,Northernboundary atjunction ofwood andhedge

Location 4, atproposed accessfrom River Darepath (accesspoint 2)

Location 5, onwesternboundary.

Commonpipistrelle

Commonpipistrelle

Commonpipistrelle

Commonpipistrelle

Sopranopipistrelle

Nathusiuspipistrelle(possible)

Sopranopipistrelle

Sopranopipistrelle

Whiskered Whiskered WhiskeredBrown long-eared

4.22 No recordings were made at Location 3 although the machine was not faulty. It isunclear what happened here as constant activity was recorded in this area during thetransect survey; some technical fault has to be assumed.


12

4.23 Common pipistrelle was again the most commonly recorded species with onlyoccasional soprano pipistrelle and rare whiskered bat passes. A single brown long-earedbat pass was recorded at location 4 towards the end of the survey period.

4th September 20184.24 Generally much quieter than previous surveys but with the same species recorded again.

The transect survey recorded common pipistrelle as the most frequent species withoccasional soprano pipistrelle. On this occasion however, the western transect recordedmuch more whiskered bat activity with a number of passes associated with the hedgerowseparating Fields 2 and 3.

4.25 Three passive detectors were deployed across the Site as shown in Figure 1. Results aregiven in Table 4 below:

Table 4: Analysis of Passive Detector MachinesLocation 1, Northwestern boundary

Location 2, at theboundary of thefarm garden

Location 3, westernboundary

Common pipistrelle Common pipistrelle Common pipistrelleWhiskered Brown long-eared Soprano pipistrelle

Whiskered Brown long-eared

22nd May 20194.26 Activity was fairly constant across the Site with common pipistrelle the most frequently

recorded bat. The same species as previously were recorded with the addition of an over-flying noctule bat recorded early in the observation. No particular activity was notedaround the farm buildings.

4.27 Two passive detectors were placed on Site on the 20th May along the northern boundary.They were left to record overnight for the nights of 20/21st and 21/22nd May. The resultsfrom these machines are given in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Analysis of Passive Detector MachinesLocation 1, Northernboundary, near north easterncorner

Location 2, Northern boundarynear north western corner

Common pipistrelle Common pipistrelleSoprano pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelleWhiskered Nathusius pipistrelleBrown long-eared Brown long-eared

WhiskeredNoctule


13

Breeding Birds4.28 Three visits to the Site were made in May and June 2019. Details are given in table 6

below:

Table 6: Bird Survey Details:Date Times Weather conditions7th May 2019 06.00 – 07.15 5oC, dry, overcast. Light W

breeze29th May 2019 06.45 – 07.45 7oC, dry, overcast. F2 W21st June 2019 06.05 – 07.10 10oC, dry, clear. F1 W

4.29 A total of 27 species were recorded in or adjacent to the survey area, or overflying it, ofwhich 12 were considered to be confirmed breeding; a further seven species werethought to have possibly bred. The majority of breeding species were associated with themainly wooded areas adjacent to the Site or the farm building boundaries andhedgerows. No birds were associated with the fields and typical ground nesting speciessuch as skylark and meadow pipit were absent.

4.30 A summary of all breeding birds recorded in the survey area is given below in Table 7.The distribution of each species is shown on Figure 2, which plots the estimated positionof the centre of individual territories based on the positions of the field survey records. Itshould therefore be noted that Figure 2 may not illustrate the accurate central locations ofterritories but give an indication of the likely position, using the field data recorded. Aminimum of twenty six pairs of birds in total were considered to have bred, mainly in theadjacent habitats to the Site. A further fourteen pairs of birds were considered to havepossibly bred.

4.31 Table 7 shows that the commonest proven breeding species in the survey area was wrenwith a probable 7 nesting pairs adjacent to the Site Boundary. Other particularlywidespread birds were robin, blackbird and song thrush. Species such as blue and greattit were not surveyed but noted in the adjacent woodland and considered likely to havebred. Greenfinch, a declining species, was noted around the farm, one pair wasconsidered to have bred and a second possibly. Pied wagtail and house sparrow wereparticularly associated with the farmhouse and buildings. A barn owl was seen to leavethe barn during a bat observation on one occasion and the barn is considered a likelybreeding place for them; access to assess whether the Site was used for breeding was notpossible.

4.32 In relation to the development Site, the concept plan show the most likely impacts forbreeding birds would be in the development of the access area, Point 2, where there ispotential for some disturbance to the existing woodland.

4.33 Table 7 below shows the species considered to have bred or have been likely to havebred in the survey area during the current surveys.

4.34 Non-breeding bird species seen on or overflying the Site, or seen or heard in adjacentareas were:


14

GoldfinchMagpieBullfinchTreecreeperBuzzardRed kiteLesser black backed gullHerring gullBlack headed gull

Further Protected Species Surveys, Land at

Table 7: Breeding bird species (proven and Possible) at Cwm Farm and adjacent areasCode * Common name Scientific name

B Blackbird Turdus merula

BC Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla

BO Barn owl Tyto alba

C Crow** Corvus corone

CC Chiff chaff Phylloscopus collybita

CH Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs

GF Greenfinch Chloris chloris

GO Goldcrest Regulus regulus

GSGreat spottedwoodpecker

Dendrocopus major

HS House sparrow** Passer domesticus

MT Mistle thrush Turdus viscivorus

PW Pied wagtail Motacilla alba

R Robin Erithacus rubecula

ST Song thrush Turdus philomelos

SW Sedge warbler Acrocephalus schoenobaenu

WO Wood warbler Phylloscopus sibilatrix

WP Wood pigeon** Columba palumbus

WR Wren Troglodytes troglodytes

WWwillo

Willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus

Protected Species Surveys, Land at Cwm Farm, Aberdare.Hawkeswood Ecology – July 2019

15

Table 7: Breeding bird species (proven and Possible) at Cwm Farm and adjacent areasNumber of proven BreedingTerritories(possible inbrackets)

Conservation Status

Sch 1(1) LocalBAP

UKBAP(2)

Section7(3

3, (1)

(1)

1

1+

Phylloscopus collybita 2, (1)

(3)

1, (1)

(1)

(1)

1+

(1)

1

2, (2)

4

alus schoenobaenus (1)

hylloscopus sibilatrix (1)

2+

roglodytes 7

Phylloscopus trochilus 1

ection3)

WelshList(4)

UK List(5)

A

A

A R

A R

A R

R R

R A


16

Key to Table:* Code refers to naming system on Figure 2.** Species difficult to quantify in terms of numbers but considered to have probably bred on site.(1) Schedule 1 species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)(2) UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species;(3) S7 –Environment (Wales) Act 2016 List of the living organisms of principal importance for the

purpose of maintaining and enhancing biodiversity in relation to Wales;(4) Birds of Conservation Concern in Wales 3: The Population Status of Birds in Wales, 2016, (A=

Amber List; R=Red List)(5) Birds of Conservation Concern 4; The Population Status of Birds in the UK, Channel Islands and

Isle of Man, 2015, (A= Amber List; R=Red List)

Badger4.35 No evidence of badger setts or of them using the Site for foraging was found. Once

grazing was removed from the fields, some animal paths were evident in the long grassbut no hairs were found on fences, no latrines and no dedicated badger paths noted.

5 DISCUSSION AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5.1 The current surveys were designed to supplement the earlier work from 2017 and toupdate the PEA originally undertaken in 2010 by Ecology Solution Ltd. The currentconcept plan for the Site shows development largely impacting upon agriculturallyimproved grassland with the hedgerows retained and beaten up to improve width andclose the many gaps currently present. Footpath access is proposed from two locationsinto the Site and the main vehicular access will be via the existing entrance of the driveto Dare Valley Country Park.

5.2 Hawkeswood Ecology considered that the findings of the 2010 report overstated thevalue of the grassland and that the conclusions of Ecology Solutions that the fields weresemi-improved and marshy grasslands were incorrect. These findings are probably due tothe survey timing, they were undertaken in March following a particularly severe winter.ON re-assessing the Site in 2019 it was considered the grasslands were all agriculturallyimproved with grasses dominated and broad-leaved herbs rare or typical of suchgrasslands.

5.3 In relation to the proposed footpath access to the Site, if the works are undertaken withcare and with a minimum of disturbance to the surrounding habitats, there will be nomajor impact. The wooded habitat on the proposed northern access (Point 2) is alreadymuch disturbed, the ground flora is also poorly developed particularly along the line ofan old track that appears to have at one time led across the fields to the farm. Theproposed access through the western boundary (point 3) is considered to have limitedimpact upon the flora; it will cut through a fenceline but can potentially be engineered toavoid any woody habitat. None of the habitats that will be adversely affected by thedevelopment proposals support any species of particular interest or habitat ofimportance. Specifically, the main and likely only habitat to be permanently affectedbyte he development will be agriculturally improved grassland which dominates thewhole of the Site.


17

Bats5.4 Bats use the Site for commuting and foraging purposes with the main use being seen

along the Site boundaries, the open fields being largely unused even after dark with batsseeming to move from the Site as the night wears on. The Farmhouse does appear tosupport roosting bats according to a 2010 survey although the Farm Tenant informedHawkeswood Ecology that bats did roost in the building, supporting our findings. Themost frequently species is common pipistrelle of which by far the most passes wererecorded of this species. Passes of soprano pipistrelle, whiskered and brown long-earedbats were far less frequent and largely in the case of the latter two species, limited to theSite boundaries.

5.5 Areas of most activity included the area around the farm buildings on the June 2018visit, but this was quieter on subsequent survey, the north eastern corner near a wayleaveand the hedgerows separating the fields.

5.6 The concept layout shows hedgerows across the Site to be thickened and ‘beaten up’.Assuming the use of native species of local provenance, this would be an improvementon the Site as the hedgerows are currently gappy and incomplete. The use of landscapingacross the Site can potentially offer much improved foraging for bats also; althoughpotential detrimental effects will be the increased use of artificial light and this must becarefully considered in any detailed design.

5.7 Artificial light spill into surrounding habitats or into the retained hedgerows may impactseverely on their use for foraging and commuting bats as many species, includingwhiskered and brown long-eared are averse to light and can have emergence timesaffected or simply no longer cross and area. This can lead to impacts on the ability of theanimals to survive in the worst case.

5.8 Although some disturbance is likely during the construction phase, there are no obviouslong term threats to these areas. Protection of the hedgerows and adjacent areas must beagreed and put into place before works commence.

5.9 Properly managed, the beaten up hedgerows crossing the Site will provide good darkroutes for bats commuting across the Site and from the Farmhouse. Care must be takenwhere hedgerows are broken through for access to ensure that commuting routes are notinterrupted. Recommendations are made in Section 7, Recommendations, with regard tothis.

Birds5.10 The Site appears to be of limited value for breeding birds and it supports no ground

nesting species such as skylark or meadow pipit, species typical of farmland. It isassumed this is due to the present management regime which involves fairly intensivegrazing followed by an early hay/silage cut.

5.11 Virtually all bird interest lies off the development area with any impacts arising fromwhere hedgerows will be broken through for access. The Site itself does not offer anysignificant foraging for birds, the less improved surrounding areas offering far more


18

suitable nesting and foraging habitat. It is again probable that the development may offersome benefits for common breeding birds by offering a more diverse habitat.

5.12 The barn may support breeding barn owls. A bird was seen leaving the barn in June2018, but access to the barn was not possible to confirm or disprove this; it could be thatthe barn is used as a day roost. However, as with bats, measures should be taken toensure that the barn is not compromised as part of the development and that safe routesfor barn owls to leave the roost are protected.

Badgers5.13 No evidence was found of badgers in or around the Site. It is considered that they will

not be affected by the proposed development.

Impact assessment - Habitats5.14 The habitats to be lost are mainly the agriculturally improved grassland. Some sections

of hedgerow will be removed and possibly part of the cypress hedge at the frontage ofthe Site. It is considered that the loss of the grassland will be of only no significance in alocal context or in a wider, regional context.

5.15 The proposed footpath access points will impact upon the adjacent SINC, however theproposed locations of the access will result in relatively minimal damage to the existinghabitats and are unlikely to impact upon the SINC habitat. It is considered that the workswill be of only minor significance in a Site context and of no significance in a localcontext or in a wider, regional context

Protected Species5.16 The proposals will increase the amount of activity on Site and cause short term

construction disturbance with possibly longer term impacts as a result of an increase inpet cats predating on native wildlife. General disturbance from ongoing activities such asdog walking will be inevitable.

5.17 Of most concern would be interruptions to the currently used hedgerows and commutingroutes around and across the Site for bats. It is considered that with appropriatemitigation for bats, in terms for controlling the amount of lighting in particular, theproject is unlikely to have any long term impacts upon local bat populations as themajority of the Site appears to be of little value for them.

5.18 Much the same argument applies to breeding birds, the main areas for them are related tothe farm house and buildings and the hedgerows immediately around them. Sympatheticlandscaping and thickening up the hedgerows is most likely to increase the numbers ofbreeding birds actually using the Site was it can lead to a net increase in the availabilityof potential nest sites.

5.19 Consequently, it is considered that the long term impact of the development on protectedspecies is most likely to be of no significance in a local or regional context as long as therecommendations set out in Section 7 are implemented.


19

Invasive Species5.20 Japanese knotweed is present along the northern boundary of Field 3 (see Figure 1 of the

2017 survey). This must be treated accordingly and not allowed to spread as a result ofany works undertaken on Site.

Surrounding Area5.21 The Site is largely surrounded by SINC habitats. The development is contained to the

Cwm Farm fields and the proposed beating up of the Site boundaries will provide asuitable barrier between the development and the SINC. It considered if properlymanaged, the proposals will have no or a very limited impacts on the SINCimmediately adjacent to the Site.

Summary5.22 The proposed works are to develop the agriculturally improved fields for residential

purposes. As part for the development plan the existing hedgerows are to be planted upand thickened. The farmhouse and buildings are to be retained and there are onlyminimal impacts on areas outside the development Site in the adjacent SINC.

6 RELEVANT LEGISLATIONBirds

6.1 Part I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) makes it an offence (withcertain limited exceptions and in the absence of a licence) intentionally to kill, injure ortake any wild bird, or intentionally to damage, take or destroy its nest whilst being builtor in use, or to take or destroy its eggs. Consequently, even common birds such asblackbirds or robins, and their nests and eggs are protected in this way. Any worksinvolving removal or other management of trees or shrubs must be undertaken outsidethe breeding bird season (March- August).

6.2 Further, section 1(5) of Part 1 of the W&C Act states any person intentionally disturbingany wild bird included in Schedule 1 whilst it is building a nest or is in or near a nestcontaining eggs or young or disturbs the young of such a bird is committing an offenceand liable to a special penalty.

6.3 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 has strengthened theprotection of wild birds and their habitats. The amendment is “To help preserve,maintain and re-establish habitats for wild birds.”

6.4 Under the amended Regulations, Local Planning Authorities (as well as nationalstatutory conservation bodies such as Natural Resources Wales) are required to protectand create bird habitat.

Bats6.5 British bats are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

Schedule 5 of this act made it illegal to intentionally kill, injure or take any British bat.It is also an offence to intentionally damage or destroy their place of rest (the roost).


20

6.6 Further all bat species are protected under Annex IV of the European CommunitiesCouncil Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora(The Habitats Directive) as amended which requires the United Kingdom government toprovide bats with strict protection.

6.7 The Habitats Directive is transcribed into England and Wales Law by The Conservationof Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, this legislation consolidates amendmentsmade to the earlier 2010 act. This legislation states in Part 3, Protection of Species,paragraph 43(1) that a person who:(a) deliberately captures, injures or kills any wild animal of a European protectedspecies,(b) deliberately disturbs wild animals of any such species,(c) deliberately takes or destroys the eggs of such an animal, or(d) damages or destroys a breeding site or resting place of such an animal,is committing an offence.

6.8 Further, with regard to disturbance of EPS, Paragraph 43(2) that disturbance is an actwhich is likely to:(a) to impair their ability—(i) to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young, or(ii) in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate;

or(b) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they

belong.

6.9 In the case of a development involving the loss or modification of a building which mayaffect bats the above legislation must be considered and it may be necessary to apply toNatural Resources Wales for a European Protected Species Licence (EPSL).

6.10 The introduction of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 hasremoved the defence of killing or injuring a protected species during a lawful operation,thus even in an instance where planning permission is granted, the presence of bats mustbe considered and mitigated for prior to commencement of works. Under the aboveregulations, a WAG licence can only be given if three tests are satisfied: The action proposed is in the interest of preserving public health or public safety or

other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social oreconomic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance to theenvironment;

That there is not a satisfactory alternative; That the action proposed will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population

of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

6.11 Failure to satisfy the regulations and obtain an EPSL where required is likely to result inprosecution and can lead to severe fines of up to £5000 per bat and possibleimprisonment.

6.12 Eight species of bat are listed under section 7 of the Environment Wales Act (2106).Section 7 of the Act provides a list of living organisms of principal importance for the


21

purpose of maintaining and enhancing biodiversity in relation to Wales. This is a list ofspecies considered at threat within Wales and in need of conservation management tomaintain and enhance population numbers.

6.13 A duty is placed on the Local Authority by the Welsh Assembly Government to maintainand enhance populations of species listed in Section 7.

Badgers6.14 The Protection of Badgers Act (1992) makes it an offence to kill, injure, disturb or take a

badger, or to damage or interfere with a sett without previously obtaining a licence fromNatural Resources Wales (NRW).

6.15 The legislation states in Section 3:A person is guilty of an offence if, except as permitted by or under this Act, he interfereswith a badger sett by doing any of the following things—(a) damaging a badger sett or any part of it;(b) destroying a badger sett;(c) obstructing access to, or any entrance of, a badger sett;(d) causing a dog to enter a badger sett; or(e) disturbing a badger when it is occupying a badger sett,intending to do any of those things or being reckless as to whether his actions wouldhave any of those consequences.

6.16 Within this legislation, if a sett is present on or near a development Site, a licence isneeded to hand dig within 10 metres of the sett, to use light machinery within 20 metresof the sett or to use heavy plant machine digging within 30 metres of the sett.

Invasive Species6.17 Japanese knotweed is listed in Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as

amended); as such it is an offence to allow it to spread in the wild. It is a controlledspecies and the spread of the plant material or soil it is growing in can only be removedfrom Site by licensed operators to waste sites licensed to deal with such species.

TAN 56.18 Planning Policy Wales Technical Advice Note (TAN) 5, Nature Conservation and

Planning, provides advice on how the planning system should contribute to biodiversityprotection and enhancement. TAN 5 recognises the importance of biodiversity and theenjoyment of it. TAN 5 requires Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s) to protect andenhance biodiversity during the planning process and to encourage sustainabledevelopments. It also requires LPA’s to ensure that protected Sites are properlyaccounted for within the planning system.


22

7 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 An Ecological Clerk of Works (ECW) will be appointed for the duration of the project.

Bats7.2 If any mature trees are identified for removal they will need to be assessed for the

presence of bats. Should any animals be found at this stage the works will be haltedwhilst advice is sought from NRW on how best to continue. In this instance, it is likelythat a development derogation licence will be needed.

7.3 The Site boundaries and on-Site hedgerows will be protected during construction works.These measures will help retain areas of the Site important for commuting and foragingbats. Dark corridors are proposed to allow bats to continue to move safely across the Sitefor roosts in the adjacent housing. These will be the existing hedgerows and they will notbe lit by artificial light spill (see 7.4 – 7.6 below). In addition, artificial light will notimpact on the farm buildings where a roost has been identified.

7.4 Artificial lighting can cause detrimental impacts upon bats. Bats can be affected byartificial lighting in a number of ways. It can delay times of leaving a roost and prohibitor delay a bat from commuting through or foraging on a site. All instances can reducethe time available for foraging and impact upon the ability of bats to survive.

7.5 Even though dark routes are planned across the Site, any street lighting should becarefully designed so as not to intrude onto the hedgerow boundaries and scrub or anyneighbouring habitats. This may be achieved by using baffles to contain light spill andthe use of directional lights with a low UV content such as LED lamps.

7.6 The use of personal security lighting on any housing should be discouraged, possibly bythe provision of low level lighting being provided on the new properties should theyback onto the retained hedgerows and adjacent woodlands. A close boarded fence barriershould also be considered near the retained habitats to assist in prevention of rubbishdumping and disturbance to those habitats.

Breeding Birds7.7 Any works to the hedgerows should be carried out outside the accepted bird breeding

season of March to August. If this cannot be the case, a search for active nests by asuitably experienced ecologist will be required prior to any works being carried out. Itshould be noted that the destruction of nests cannot be licensed.

7.8 No materials will be stored adjacent to the farm buildings and access will remain open toallow barn owl use of the building to continue.

General7.9 The use of close board fencing can isolate areas of garden, particularly impacting on

hedgehogs. Any fencing used should have boards cut out to give a minimum 15x15cmgap at the bottom, or more preferably be fitted to leave a minimum 15cm gap at groundlevel for the length of the fence.


23

7.10 Integral bat and bird boxes will be used in the new construction. Bat tubes will belocated on building near the northern and western boundaries and bird boxes, inparticular swift and house sparrow boxes on a number of houses throughout thedevelopment. Typical examples are shown in Figure 5.

7.11 Any landscaping strategy should employ the use of native species, in particular thosewith some value to native wildlife. Species used should in general increase theavailability of prey items for bats and birds. Landscaping should include areas of fruitbearing scrub, trees and open areas to form a mosaic of habitats that will provide suitableforaging habitat for the protected species on Site.

7.12 Prior to commencement of any ground works, a further survey to check for badgeractivity should be undertaken.

7.13 The hedgerows across the Site will be under planted with native species reflecting thosealready present on the Site and in adjacent areas. Any brought in species will be of localprovenance preferably form local nurseries.

7.14 An area will be identified where chemicals and building materials can be safely storedand bonded to prevent escape into nearby watercourses. There will be control measuresundertaken no pollution or dust contamination impacts the adjacent SINC. Thesemeasures will be clearly outlined a Construction Environmental Management Plan(CEMP).

7.15 Hedgerow and Tree roost protection zones (RPZ) will be outlined in the CEMP; novehicles or mechanical works will be allowed in the RPZ areas.

Invasive Species7.16 A scheme for the safe removal of Japanese knotweed will be drawn up and agreed before

any works affecting growth on Site takes place.

8 CONCLUSIONS

8.1 The current surveys have shown that the main value of the Site for bats and breedingbirds are on the woodland boundaries, the farm boundaries and to a lesser extent thehedgerows separating the three fields, where some bat activity was noted. The habitatson Site were not considered to be of a high biodiversity value and their loss is notconsidered to be of significance.

8.2 Recommendations are made to ensure that the populations of protected species in andaround the Site are not negatively impacted upon by the scheme.

8.3 There appear to be no significant ecological constraints to prevent a proposeddevelopment of the Site going ahead if the recommendations are implementedaccordingly.


24

9 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mitchell Jones, A J & Robertson C J (Eds) Bat workers Manual, 3rd Edition, Joint NatureConservation Committee, 2004

Bat Conservation Trust (2016), Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists – Good PracticeGuidelines. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

RSPB, (2016), Birds of Conservation Concern in Wales 2016. RSPB, Cardiff

Eaton, M., Aebisher, N., Brown, A., Hearn, R., Leigh, L., Musgrove, A., Noble, D.,Stroud, D. and Gregory, R. (2015), ‘Birds of Conservation Concern 4, The PopulationStatus of birds in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man’. British Birds 108, pp 708-746

Johnstone, I. and Bladwell, S. (2016), ‘Birds of Conservation Concern in Wales 3, thePopulation Status of Birds in Wales’. Birds in Wales, Spetember 2016 pp 3-31

Marchant, J. H. R., Hudson, R., Carter, S. P., Whittington, P. A., (1990) Populationtrends in British breeding birds, Tring (BTO).

Badgers and the Law, Internet Document

Neale, E., (1986), The Natural History of Badgers, Croom-Helm, Kent

Kruck, H. (1989), The Social Badger, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Protection of Badgers Act, 1992.


25

FIGURE 1BAT ACTIVITY TRANSECT ROUTES AND LOCATIONS OF PASSIVE DETECTORS


26


27

FIGURE 2:BREEDING BIRD MAP


28

Key to Bird Code

Code SpeciesB Blackbird

BC BlackcapBO Barn owlC Crow

CC Chiff chaffCH ChaffinchGF GreenfinchGO GoldcrestGS Great spotted woodpeckerHS House sparrowM Mistle thrush

PW Pied wagtailR RobinST Song thrushSW Sedge warblerWO Wood warblerWP Wood pigeonWR WrenWW Willow warbler


29

PW


30

FIGURE 3LOCATION OF HABITAT SURVEY AREAS


31


32

FIGURE 4KEY AREAS OF BAT ACTIVITY


33


34

FIGURE 5TYPICAL INTEGRAL BAT AND BIRD BOXES


35


36


37

APPENDIX 1DAFOR SCALE OF COVER ABUNDANCE

The DAFOR scale is used as a simple measure of cover abundance for individual plant specieswithin a habitat. The scale is as follows:

D DominantA AbundantF FrequentO OccasionalR Rare(L Locally – sometimes used as a prefix to the above)


38

APPENDIX 2PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY TARGET NOTES

1. Three fields shown in Figure 1 as 1, 2 and 3. Field 3 was though possibly to show a morediverse sward, all three fields were considered best described as agriculturally improvedgrassland with grasses overwhelmingly dominant and few broad leaved hers even inField 3. Species found in all three fields were:

Field 1Species Frequency

Cock’s-foot OBroad-leaved dock OCommon sorrel O/LFCreeping buttercup OPerennial rye-grass APoa Sp ARed clover ORough hawkbit RSweet vernal-grass FWhite clover LFYorkshire fog A

Field 2Species Frequency

Cock’s-foot OBroad-leaved dock OCommon sorrel O/LFCreeping buttercup OCreeping thistle LFMeadow foxtail OPerennial rye-grass APoa Sp ARed clover OSweet vernal-grass FWhite clover LFYorkshire fog A

Field 3

Species FrequencyCock’s-foot OBroad-leaved dock OCommon ragwort RCommon sorrel O/LFCreeping buttercup OCreeping thistle LF


39

False oat-grass OHay rattle OJapanese knotweed LFMeadow foxtail OOval sedge OPerennial rye-grass APoa Sp ARed clover ORibwort plantain LFSoft rush OSweet vernal-grass FWhite clover LFYorkshire fog A

2. Access point 1, current tarmac access to farm. Break through cypress hedge with grazedpaddock and mown lawns to farmhouse.

3. Access point 2; leading from the footpath along the river Dare to the northern boundaryof the Site. The area is wooded with a mature pedunculate oak and ash canopy. It isdisturbed with a poorly developed understorey and ground flora. A former trackway runsthrough to the Farm boundary where it can be seen as an earthwork leading to the CwmFarm across field 2. Species recorded were:

Species FrequencyAsh FBare ABramble O/LFCock’s-foot FCommon nettle LACreeping soft-grass LFCurled dock LFEnchanter’s nightshade O/LFFoxglove OHazel OHolly OIvy LAMale fern ROpposite leaved goldensaxifrage

LF

Pedunculate oak FPignut ORemote sedge RRough meadow grass FSycamore OWood avens O


40

Wood millet LFWood sorrel LAWood speedwell LF

4. Access point 3, off a former mineral line used as an informal footpath. It breaks through afence line with no hedge present. Species in the general vicinity of the access point are:

Species FrequencyBracken ABroad leaved helleborine RBroad leaved willowherb OCock’s-foot FCommon bent ACommon cleavers OCommon nettle OEnchanter’s nightshade O/LFFalse oat-grass OHogweed OPedunculate oak OPerennial rye-grass OPignut RRough meadow-grass OSilver birch OWood avens O


41

APPENDIX 3LIST OF PLANT SPECIES RECORDED IN THE SURVEY

Species Scientific NameAsh Fraxinus excelsiorBracken Pteridium aqualinumBramble Rubus fruticosus aggBroad leaved helleborine Epipactis helleborineBroad leaved willowherb Epilobium monatanumBroad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifoliusCock’s-foot Dactylis glomerataCommon bent Agrostis capillarisCommon cleavers Galium aparineCommon nettle Urtica dioicaCommon ragwort Scenecio jacobaeaCommon sorrel Rumex acetosaCreeping buttercup Ranunculus repensCreeping soft-grass Holcus mollisCreeping thistle Cirsium arvenseCurled dock Rumex crispusCypress Cupressus spEnchanter’s nightshade Circaea lutetianaFalse oat-grass Arhenatherum elatiusFoxglove Digitalis purpureaHay rattle Rhinanthus minorHazel Corylus avellanaHogweed Heracleum sphondyliumHolly Ilex aquifoliumIvy Hedera helixJapanese knotweed Fallopia japonicaMale fern Dryopteris filix-masMeadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensisOpposite leaved goldensaxifrage

Chrysospleniumoppositifolium

Oval sedge Carex ovalisPedunculate oak Quercus roburPerennial rye-grass Lolium perennePignut Conopodium majusGrass Poa spRed clover Trifolium pratenseRemote sedge Carex remotaRibwort plantain Plantago lanceolataRough hawkbit Leontodon hispidusRough meadow grass Poa trivialisSilver birch Betula pendula


42

Soft rush Juncus effususSweet vernal-grass Anthoxanthum odoratumSycamore Acer psuedoplatanusWhite clover Trifolium repensWood avens Geum urbanumWood melick Melica unifloraWood sorrel Oxalis acetosellaWood speedwell Veronica montanaYorkshire fog Holcus lanatus


43

APPENDIX 4PHOTOGRAPHS

Views across Field 3

Access Point 1

Access Point 2

Access Point 2

Access Point 3

Passive detector in place

HAWKESWOOD ECOLOGYSpecialists in Ecological Survey and Assessment

17 Heol Henrhyd, Coelbren, Nr. Ystradgynlais, POWYS. SA10 9PG. Tel/Fax: 01639 701304Mobile: 07957 154794 E-mail: [email protected]

(Proprietors: Niki and Eric Hawkeswood)

A partnership of professionals deliveringanswers since 2001

Hawkeswood Ecology is an Ecological Consultancy offering a widerange of expertise in ecological survey and assessment across Wales

HAWKESWOOD ECOLOGY - WYG · 2019-09-24 · HAWKESWOOD ECOLOGY Specialists in Ecological Survey and...

Documents

Transcript of HAWKESWOOD ECOLOGY - WYG · 2019-09-24 · HAWKESWOOD ECOLOGY Specialists in Ecological Survey and...