biodiversity monitoring report · scope of this report 1.16 this report details the methodology and...

Biodiversity Monitoring Report GALA Festivals at Peckham Rye Park Report for We Are The Fair Ltd.

Project reference: SE1819-2181 Version: V.02 Date: 24th January 2020

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 2 Background to the Project .................................................................................................. 2 Aims of the Assessment ..................................................................................................... 3 Scope of this report ............................................................................................................ 4

2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 7 Biodiversity Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 7 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 7

3 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 9 Desk Study .......................................................................................................................... 9 Phase 1 Habitat Survey ..................................................................................................... 14 Bat Roost Assessment ...................................................................................................... 19 Bat Activity Monitoring .................................................................................................... 27 Breeding Bird Appraisal .................................................................................................... 32

4 DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 39 The Impact of the Festivals on Biodiversity ...................................................................... 39

5 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 43 Further Surveys ................................................................................................................ 43 Mitigation ......................................................................................................................... 43 Survey Validity .................................................................................................................. 45

Appendix 1: Festival Plans ....................................................................................................... 47

Appendix 2: Survey Methods .................................................................................................. 49

Appendix 3: Relevant Legislation ............................................................................................. 57

Appendix 4: Site Habitats and Species List .............................................................................. 59

CONTROL SHEET

Author Daniel Simmons BSc (Hons), MCIEEM on 10th July 2019

Job No. SE1819-2181

V.01 Daniel Simmons on 27th August 2019

V.02 Amended: Louisa Mamalis MSc QCIEEM on 22nd January 2020

Authorised: Daniel Simmons BSc MCIEEM on 24th January 2020

Disclosure

The information prepared and provided within this report is true at the time of production. It has been prepared and given in accordance with the guidance of my professional institution’s Code of Professional Conduct, and I confirm that the assessments within it reflect my true professional opinion on the conditions within the Site at the time of the survey.

Daniel Simmons BSc, MCIEEM

S I M L A W E C O L O G Y | SE1819-2181 Biodiversity Monitoring Report | GALA and Jam on Rye at Peckham Rye Park | Report for We Are the Fair Ltd. 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Clients We Are the Fair Ltd.

Site Peckham Rye Park

Proposal GALA Festival and Jam on Rye at Peckham Rye Park

Survey Type(s)

a) Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

b) Bat Roost and Activity Assessment

c) Breeding Bird Appraisal

Survey Date(s)

a) 20th May 2019

b) 20th May to 6th June 2019

c) 22nd May and 5th June 2019

Primary Findings

• The site contained no Habitats of Principal Importance and the impact of the

Festivals on the habitats recorded within the site was assessed to be negligible.

• No bat roosts were recorded in any tree within the Festival Footprint either

before or after the Festivals. The impact of the Festivals on roosting bats was

therefore assessed to be negligible.

• Passive bat monitoring confirmed that bat activity within the Site was

significantly impacted by the noise, light and increased human activity produced

by the Festivals; however, the impacts were unlikely to result in a reduced

capacity for these bats to survive or reproduce.

• A total of 10 bird species were recorded within the Festival Footprint and a total

of 28 species were recorded in the Buffer Area. No significant difference in bird

numbers or species count was observed between the two surveys, indicating

that the Festivals had not resulted in significant impacts in the number and

species of birds using the Festival Footprint or Buffer Area.

• It could not, however, be confirmed whether the Festivals resulted in significant

impacts to individual nests of ring-necked parakeet or great-spotted

woodpecker recorded breeding within the Festival Footprint

• Full details of the recommended mitigation measures, together with

recommendations for how the biodiversity value of the Site can be enhanced,

are provided in Section 5 of this report.


1 INTRODUCTION

Background to the Project

Instruction

1.1 Simlaw Ecology was commissioned by We Are the Fair Limited in March 2019, to monitor the

impact of the GALA and Jam on Rye festivals on relevant ecological features of Peckham Rye

Park, London.

Site Location and Context

1.2 The Site comprised of all land within the boundary of the GALA and Jam on Rye festivals

(hereafter referred to as ‘the Festivals’), located within Peckham Rye Park, Peckham, London

Borough of Southwark, London, SE15 3UA (Figure 1).

1.3 The Site covered an area of approximately 3.75 hectares (ha) and was approximately centred on

Ordnance Survey (OS) National Grid Reference TQ 346 748.

1.4 The Site was bound by broadleaved woodland within the wider Peckham Rye Park and Peckham

Rye Common, to the north and east, by Colyton Road to the south; and, by Peckham Rye Road

to the east (Figure 2). Hard standing pedestrian footpaths provided access to the Site from

Peckham Rye Road to the west and from the wider Peckham Rye Park to the north and east.

1.5 The Site comprised an area of amenity greenspace between the residential suburbs of Peckham

to the north and East Dulwich to the south. As such, the wider landscape was dominated by

residential dwellings and their private gardens and commercial and retail development,

dissected by a network of well-lit roads, with areas of amenity greenspace interspersed

between them.

1.6 This Biodiversity Monitoring Report is based on the findings of a Desk Study, an Extended Phase

1 Habitat Survey, a Bat Roost and Activity Assessment; and, a Breeding Bird Appraisal.

1.7 The survey area included all land within the GALA and Jam on Rye Festival Footprint; and, where

required, a Buffer Area extending up to 90 metres (m) from the Festival Footprint. All land

within the festival boundary is hereafter referred to as ‘the Site’, any land surveyed outside of

the festival boundary is hereafter referred to as ‘the Buffer Area’.

Description of the Festivals

1.8 The Festivals took place within Peckham Rye Park on Sunday 26th June and Monday 27th June

2019, respectively. In accordance with the GALA and Jam on Rye Event Safety Management


Plan (GALA and We Are The Fair Ltd., 2019), site setup, use and breakdown took place over

eleven days and comprised the following activities:

• Monday 20th to Saturday 25th May: Setup of site and event, comprising mowing of the

grassland, vehicle movements within the park, increased human activity, operation of

plant, and use of handheld power tools to construct of steel shield barrier, marquees

and stages;

• Saturday 25th May: Light test, comprising intermittent use of artificial external lighting,

including spotlights (21:30);

• Sunday 26th May: Sound test of audio-rig and public address systems (11:00);

• Sunday 26th May: GALA Festival. Increase in noise and human activity throughout the

day; and, live music with associated artificial lighting between 21:45 and 22:30. Site

emptied by 23:00;

• Monday 27th May: Jam on Rye Festival. Increase in noise and human activity

throughout the day; and, live music with associated artificial lighting between 21:45 and

22:00. Site emptied by 22:30; and,

• Tuesday 28th to Friday 31st May: clean up and breakdown of site and event, comprising

vehicle movements within the park, increased human activity, operation of plant, and

use of handheld power tools to dismantle steel shield barrier and several marquees and

stages.

1.9 A site plan of the Festivals, showing the extent of the boundaries and the location of key

installations, stages and marquees, is provided in Appendix 1: Festival Plans.

1.10 The Festivals required the majority of grassland within the Festival Footprint to be mown.

1.11 It is understood that the Festivals did not require removal of any mature trees or shrubs and

that no other habitats within or adjacent to the Site were removed (We Are The Fair, 2019).

Aims of the Assessment 1.12 The purpose of this assessment was to investigate the potential impact of the Festivals on the

biodiversity of key ecological features of Peckham Rye Park. This was achieved by identifying

key ecological features within the Site, carrying out standardised monitoring of those features

before and after the Festivals; and, identifying any significant changes.


1.13 The Biodiversity Monitoring was further required to satisfy the requirements of the National

Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2019), by identifying potential impacts of a proposed

development or activity on protected species and habitats within or adjacent to the Site.

1.14 The findings were additionally required to identify the potential for the Festivals to result in

unlawful impacts to protected species; and, to guide the proprietors of the Festivals to adapt to

any such impacts by way of appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures during future

events.

1.15 Details of relevant legislation are provided in Appendix 3: Relevant Legislation.

Scope of this report 1.16 This report details the methodology and findings of the Biodiversity Monitoring carried out

within the Site and Buffer Area, including details of any ecological constraints that would apply

to future festivals at the Site.

1.17 Where required, recommendations for ecological mitigation and compensation measures are

provided to account for impacts to protected species or habitats within the Site.


Figure 1. the Festival Footprint and Buffer Area (Contains Google Earth Pro data © Google Inc. 2019)


Figure 2. Site Location and Context (Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2019)


2 METHODOLOGY

Biodiversity Monitoring

2.1 This Biodiversity Monitoring Report was informed by the findings of the following surveys:

• An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey carried out before the Festivals, on 20th May 2019;

• A Ground-Based Bat Tree Assessment carried out before the Festivals, on 20th May

2019;

• Climbed Bat Tree Inspections carried out before the Festivals, on 22nd May; and, after

the Festivals, on 6th June 2019;

• Passive Bat Monitoring carried out between sunset and sunrise, each night for at least a

four-night duration before and after the Festivals, between 22nd May and 6th June 2019;

and,

• Breeding Bird Appraisals carried out before the Festivals, on 22nd May, and after the

Festivals, on 5th June 2019.

2.2 The findings of the surveys were supported by a data search from the London Bat Group, who

were commissioned to provide bat records within a two-kilometre (km) radius of the Site; and,

by a data search from local bird recorder David Clark, who provided bird monitoring data from

Peckham Rye Park between 2008 and 2019.

2.3 All surveys were carried out by suitably qualified ecologists and in accordance with the relevant

Good Practice Guidelines.

2.4 Full details of each survey methodology are provided in Appendix 2: Survey Methods.

Limitations

Bat Tree Assessment

2.5 It was not possible to carry out a climbed bat tree inspection of T005, owing to the potential

disturbance of nesting great-spotted woodpecker present within the tree at the time of the

surveys. Further surveys have therefore been recommended in order to complete the bat

presence or likely absence assessment of this tree prior to subsequent events being carried out

within Peckham Rye Park.

2.6 It was not possible to carry out a climbed bat tree inspection of T006, owing to its close

proximity to Peckham Rye Road and the adjacent public footpath. Further surveys have


therefore been recommended in order to complete the bat presence or likely absence

assessment of this tree prior to subsequent events being carried out within Peckham Rye Park.

2.7 It was not possible to safely carry out a climbed bat tree inspection of T001 or T002, owing to

the presence of significant deadwood within the trees; and, the presence of multiple, active

ring-necked parakeet nests. However, the presence of multiple ring-necked parakeet nests

within these trees is considered to act as a severe deterrent to bat roosts during the nesting

season, meaning that the absence of close inspection data from T001 and T002 is unlikely to

have adversely affected the Bat Tree Assessment.

2.8 The bat tree assessment was sufficient only to determine the presence or likely absence of bat

roosts during the course of the surveys; and, all surveyed trees had potential to support bat

roosts at other times of the year. Further surveys to determine the presence or likely absence

of bat roosts within any of the trees on site would therefore be required prior to any planned

removal or remedial works.

Passive Bat Monitoring

2.9 The passive bat monitoring was initiated after site setup activities had begun, meaning that no

baseline information on nocturnal bat activity within the Site was collected prior to the Festival

setup beginning. Monitoring of bat activity within the site was, however, prolonged for five

additional nights following completion of the breakdown of the Festivals, giving an indicative

baseline of bat activity within the Site during normal conditions.


2.10 This biodiversity monitoring report is produced on the basis of one set of monitoring surveys

carried out over the duration of only one fortnight. The baseline conditions of the Site may,

therefore, not be representative of the ecological value of the site in previous or subsequent

years. Furthermore, the biodiversity monitoring carried out is sufficient only to identify

immediately demonstrable impacts to site biodiversity and cannot, therefore, identify

cumulative impacts that could arise following consecutive years of events. Recommendations

are therefore made for repeat monitoring in subsequent years.


3 RESULTS

Desk Study

Previous Surveys (ASW Ecology, 2018)

Bat Box Inspection (T003)

3.1 An inspection of three bat boxes installed on a European lime tree (T003) was carried out by

ASW Ecology on 21st April 2018.

3.2 Four, adult common pipistrelle bats were recorded in the bat box on the northeast aspect of

the tree (T003c), and bat droppings were recorded in the base of the box.

3.3 No bats, or evidence of roosting bats, was recorded during the inspection of the boxes installed

on the south (T003a) or east (T003b) of the tree; and, cobwebs and dead invertebrates were

recorded within these boxes, indicating that they were unlikely to have been used by bats to

roost (ASW Ecology, 2018).

Dusk Emergence Survey (T003)

3.4 A dusk bat emergence survey targeting the bat box on the northeast aspect of T003 (T003c) was

carried out by ASW Ecology on 8th June 2018.

3.5 One common pipistrelle was recorded emerging from the bat box on the northeast aspect of

the tree (T003c) during the survey.

3.6 Bat activity from common pipistrelles and Leisler’s bats were recorded within the Site during

the survey.

Breeding Bird Monitoring (T001)

3.7 A bird assessment was carried out by ASW Ecology on 18th May 2018. The assessment

confirmed the presence of ‘an active green woodpecker nest…within a mature tree at the

southeast corner of Lime Avenue’.

3.8 Woodlands located to the north and east of the Site were assessed as having potential to

support nesting birds and concerns about the impact of the Festivals on birds nesting on the

edge of the woodlands were identified.


Bat Records

3.9 London Bat Group provided the following records of bats from within the nearest 2km grid of

the Site, within the last 20 years.

Table 1. Bat records, in order of their abundance, within at least a 2 km radius of the Site

Species No. Date range Location and Date of nearest record

Roosting habitat of species

Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus

102 2002 – 2018 Within the Site in 2018

Crevices in buildings, trees, bridges and other structures

Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus

61 2001 – 2018 Within the Site in 2018


Noctule bat Nyctalus noctula

40 2001 – 2016 1.15km northeast in 2015

Voids and crevices, mostly in trees but also in bridges and other structures

Pipistrelle species Pipistrellus sp.

22 2009 – 2016 611m southeast in 2014


Leisler’s bat N.leislerii 14 2009 – 2018 Within the Site in 2018


Vesper family bat Vespertilionidae sp.

12 2003 – 2018 611m southeast in 2014

Crevices in buildings, trees, bridges, caves and other structures

Nyctalus sp. bat 9 2009 – 2014 611m southeast in 2014

Crevices and voids in buildings, trees, bridges and other structures

Nyctalus or Eptesicus sp. bat

8 2009 – 2015 2km southwest in 2015

Crevices and voids in buildings, trees, bridges and other structures

Serotine Eptesicus serotinus

4 2009 – 2010 1.61km south in 2010


Daubenton bat Myotis daubentonii

3 2002 - 2010 1.73km southwest in 2010

Crevices, mostly in trees and bridges but occasionally in


Table 1. Bat records, in order of their abundance, within at least a 2 km radius of the Site

Species No. Date range Location and Date of nearest record

Roosting habitat of species

buildings and other structures

Nathusius’ pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii

2 2012 – 2014 611m southeast in 2014


Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus

1 2016 2.8km southwest in 2016

Voids in buildings, trees, caves and other structures

3.10 The data search returned 278 records of bats within the search area, from between 2001 and

2018, comprised of eight bat species (brown long-eared, common pipistrelle, Daubenton’s bat,

Natterer’s bat, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, noctule, serotine and soprano pipistrelle). Genus level

records were returned for Nyctalus and Pipistrellus species bats. Order level records were

returned for Vespertilionidae bats.

Bird Records

3.11 Local bird recorder David Clark provided records of birds within the Site, recorded between

2008 and 2019. Those species considered relevant to the Breeding Bird Appraisal, based on the

occurrence of potentially suitable nesting habitats within the Site of Buffer Area are listed in

Table 2, below.

Table 2. Bird Species Recorded within the Site (Clark, D., 2019)

Species Most recent record

Reason for consideration Status

Blackbird Turdus merula

2019 Presence of adjacent woodland with shrubs

BoCC Green1

Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla


BoCC Green

Blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus

2019 Presence of adjacent woodland with shrubs and mature trees within the Site

BoCC Green

1 Bird species of Low Conservation Concern





Carrion crow Corvus corone


BoCC Green

Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs


BoCC Green

Coal tit Periparus ater 2010 Presence of nearby coniferous woodland, rockeries and banks

BoCC Green

Dunnock Prunella modularis


BoCC Amber2

NERC S413

Feral pigeon Columba livia


BoCC Green

Goldcrest Regulus regulus

2019 Presence of nearby coniferous woodland

BoCC Green

Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis


BoCC Green

Great spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos major

2019 Presence of mature trees in adjacent woodland and within the Site

BoCC Green

Great tit Parus major 2019 Presence of mature trees in adjacent woodland and within the Site

BoCC Green

Green woodpecker Picris viridis


BoCC Amber

Greenfinch Carduelis chloris


BoCC Green

2 Bird species of Moderate Conservation Concern 3 Priority Species listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006





Grey heron Ardea cinerea

2010 Presence of nearby water bodies and mature trees in adjacent woodland and within the Site

BoCC Green

Jackdaw Corvus monedula


BoCC Green

Jay Garrulus glandarius 2019 Presence of adjacent woodland with shrubs

BoCC Green

Long-tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus


BoCC Green

Magpie Pica pica 2019 Presence of adjacent woodland with shrubs

BoCC Green

Mistle thrush Turdus viscivorus


BoCC Red4

Nuthatch Sitta europaea


BoCC Green

Pied wagtail Motacilla alba


BoCC Green

Ring-necked parakeet Psittacula krameri


Invasive, non-native

Robin Erithacus rubecula


BoCC Green

Song thrush Turdus philomelos


BoCC Red

NERC S41

4 Bird species of High Conservation Concern





Starling Sturnus vulgaris


BoCC Red

NERC S41

Stock dove Columba oenas


BoCC Amber

Whitethroat Sylvia curruca


BoCC Green

Willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus


BoCC Amber

Wood pigeon Columba p. palumbus


BoCC Green

Wren Troglodytes troglodytes


BoCC Green

3.12 The data search returned records of 31 bird species for which potential nesting habitats could

be present within or adjacent to the Site, from between 2008 and 2019. Records included three

bird species of high conservation concern (mistle thrush, song thrush and starling); and, five

bird species of moderate conservation concern (dunnock, green woodpecker, stock dove,

willow warbler and wren).

Phase 1 Habitat Survey

Habitats Recorded Within the Site

3.13 Descriptions of the broad habitat types present within the Site, and their species compositions,

are provided in Table 3, below. Ecological features of the Site are mapped in Figure 3 (Phase 1

Habitat Survey Map).

S I M L A W E C O L O G Y | SE1819-2181 Biodiversity Monitoring Report | GALA and Jam on Rye at Peckham Rye Park | Report for We Are the Fair Ltd.

15

Table 3. Habitats found within the Site and their species composition

Hard Standing A set-shingle, hard standing footpath provided a pedestrian walkway to the east of the Site,

marking the boundary between the footprint of the Festivals and the adjacent deciduous

woodland to the east. A further set-shingle, hard standing walkway (Lime Avenue) was

located in the centre of the Site, between Peckham Rye Road to the west and the adjacent

deciduous woodland to the east.

Improved grassland / planted wildflowers A limited area of rank grassland, allowed to grow to a ‘wild area’, was present in the

northwest of the Site. Species included abundant creeping bent and rough meadow-grass,

with frequent borage, cleavers, common mouse-ear, fat hen and shepherd’s purse,

occasional corn chamomile, cornflower, meadow barley and wild cabbage; and, rare

occurrences of lesser burdock, red dead nettle, ribwort plantain and white campion.

Semi-improved / Neutral Grassland The Site was dominated by semi-improved grassland succeeding from neutral grassland. The

grass sward was predominantly well-managed, with areas of taller grasses outside of central,

mown areas. Where identifiable, the grass sward included locally dominant perennial

ryegrass, with abundant cock’s-foot and false oat-grass, frequent annual meadow-grass,

creeping bent and rough meadow-grass; and, occasional common couch grass.

Herbaceous species included frequent common daisy, dandelions and yarrow, occasional

common mouse-ear, creeping and meadow buttercups, red clover and shepherd’s purse. A

diversity of herbaceous species more rarely recorded within the sward included borage,

common vetch, goat’s beard, hairy lady’s mantle, meadow cranesbill and sheep’s sorrel.

An area of less-unmanaged grassland with a greater proportion of neutral grassland indicator

species was present to the south of the Site, outside of the Festivals boundary.


16

Table 3. Habitats found within the Site and their species composition

Scattered Mature Trees Mature trees were planted on the western site boundary and to the north and south of Lime

Avenue, in the centre of the Site. Scattered mature trees were also infrequently growing

within the grassland. Species included ash, bird cherry, common lime, willow sp., field maple,

hornbeam, horse chestnut, London plane, pedunculate oak, pink hawthorn, red horse

chestnut, red oak, sycamore and yew.


17

Figure 3. Phase 1 Habitat Plan (Contains Google Earth Pro data © Google Inc. 2019)


Target Notes

3.14 The Target Note numbers within the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Map correspond to the following

points of ecological interest within the Site:

• TN1: Mature trees within the Site with potential to support roosting bats;

• TN2: Parakeet colony nesting within ash and lime trees;

• TN3: great-spotted woodpecker nesting, with young calling, within oak tree;

• TN4: Mature trees in adjacent woodland with potential to support nesting birds;

• TN5: Rough, semi-improved/neutral grassland adjacent to the Site with potential to

support widespread reptile species; and,

• TN6: Yellow meadow ants present within rough, semi-improved/neutral grassland

adjacent to the Site


Bat Roost Assessment

Ground-Based and Climbed Tree Inspection

3.15 A description of each tree identified as containing Potential bat Roosting Features (PRF) during

the ground-based tree inspections, together with details of any bats, evidence of bats or

features with potential to support roosting bats recorded during the climbed-bat tree

inspections, are provided in Table 4, overleaf.

3.16 The location of each tree, and the results of the ground-based and climbed tree inspections are

provided in Figure 4, below Table 4.

3.17 The raw survey data from the ground-based and climbed bat tree assessments is provided in

the Tree Assessment Schedule (submitted as a separate document).


Table 4. Climbed Tree Inspection Results

T001 Species: Ash Fraxinus excelsior

Location: TQ 34726 74803

Potential Roosting Features:

• T001a: Woodpecker hole – 8.5m – facing west

• T001b: Woodpecker hole – 8.9m – facing west

• T001c: Woodpecker hole – 9m – facing west

• T001d: Woodpecker hole – 9.5m – facing west

• T001e: Woodpecker hole – 8.5m – facing north

• T001f: Woodpecker hole – 10.5m – facing northeast

• T001g: Woodpecker hole – 10.6m – facing north

• T001h: Woodpecker hole – 10.3m – facing northeast

• T001i: Woodpecker hole – 9m – facing southeast

Bat Roost Assessment: High potential to support roosting bats

Rationale: T001 contained nine PRF. The presence of ring-necked parakeets nesting in the tree precluded a closer, climbed inspection of any of the PRF; and, reduced the likelihood that they would be used by bats during the bird nesting season (March-August, inclusive). There remains high potential, however, for the PRF within T001 to support mating bats during the autumn flux period (September-October) or winter hibernation period (November-March).



T002 Species: London Plane



• T002a: Woodpecker hole – 5m – facing northeast

• T002b: Shearing-crack – 5.5m – facing northeast

• T002c: Woodpecker hole – 6.5m – facing southeast

Bat Roost Assessment: Moderate potential to support roosting bats

Rationale: T002 contained three PRF. The presence of ring-necked parakeets nesting in the tree precluded a closer, climbed inspection of any of the PRF; and, reduced the likelihood that they would be used by bats during the bird nesting season (March-August, inclusive). There remains low potential, however, for the PRF within T002 to support mating bats during the autumn flux period (September-October) or winter hibernation period (November-March).



T003 Species: Common lime Tilia x europaea



• T003a: Bat box – 6m – facing south

• T003b: Bat box – 6.25m – facing east

• T003c: Bat box – 6m – facing northeast

• T003d: Knot-hole – 6m – facing northeast

• T003e: Pruning-cut – 7m – facing southwest

• T003f: Pruning-cut – 6m – facing southwest

• T003g: Knot-hole – 10m – facing south

• T003h: Knot-hole – 11.5m – facing south

• T003i: Tear-out – 14m – facing southeast

Bat Roost Assessment: Present-High potential to support roosting bats

Rationale: In 2018, four common pipistrelles were recorded in bat box T003c before the Festivals; and, one common pipistrelle was recorded after the Festivals. T003 contained nine PRF. No bats were recorded in any PRF, either before or after the Festivals, during the 2019 inspections; however, a low number of moderately fresh pipistrelle sp. bat droppings were recorded in the base of bat box T003c. Although no bats were recorded within T003 during the 2019 inspections, bats are highly mobile species, and there remains high potential for the PRF within the tree to be occupied by roosting bats at other times of the year.






• T004a: Butt-rot – 0m – facing west

Bat Roost Assessment: Negligible potential to support roosting bats

Rationale: T004 contained one PRF. The PRF was inspected before and after the Festivals and no bats or evidence of bats was recorded during either inspection. On both occasions the PRF was found to be full of detritus, indicating it had not previously been used by roosting bats.

T005 Species: Sycamore



• T005a: Knot-hole – 7m – facing northeast

• T005b: Tear-out – 7.5m – facing northeast


Rationale: T005 contained two PRF. The presence of breeding great-spotted woodpecker in PRF T005a precluded a closer, climbed inspection of any of the PRF within T005. The presence of breeding birds within T005a reduced the likelihood of this PRF supporting roosting bats during the bird nesting season (March-August, inclusive). There remains low potential, however, for PRF T005a to support mating bats between September and October or hibernating bats between November and March. T005b was assessed as having moderate potential to support roosting bats at any time of the year.






• T006a: Knot-hole – 7.5m– facing southeast

• T006b: Tear-out – 13m – facing west


Rationale: T006 contained two PRF. The location of the tree close to Peckham Rye Road precluded a closer, climbed inspection of any of the PRF within the tree. T006 was, however, assessed from ground-level as having moderate potential to support roosting bats at any time of the year.




• T007a: Knot-hole – 2.5m – facing north

• T007b: Knot-hole – 3.5m facing west

Bat Roost Assessment: Low potential to support roosting bats

Rationale: T007 contained two PRF. No bats were recorded in either PRF, either before or after the Festivals. Although no bats were recorded within T007 during inspections, bats are highly mobile species, and there remains moderate potential for the PRF within the tree to be occupied by roosting bats at other times of the year.



T008 Species: Common ash



• T008a: Wound – 1.7m – facing south

• T008b: Wound – 1.8m – facing south

• T008c: Wound – 2.5m – facing south

Bat Roost Assessment: Low potential to support roosting bats

Rationale: T008 contained three PRF. No bats were recorded in any PRF, either before or after the Festivals. Although no bats were recorded within T007 during inspections, bats are highly mobile species, and there remains low potential for T008c to be occupied by roosting bats at other times of the year.


Figure 4. Bat Tree Assessment Map (Contains Google Earth Pro data © Google Inc. 2019)


Bat Activity Monitoring

22nd May to 6th June 2019

Summary of Activity

3.18 A total of 1,160 bat call sequences were recorded within the Site between 22nd May and 6th

June 2019. A mean average of 52 bat calls per night were recorded during the four nights

preceding the Festivals, a mean average of 11 bat calls per night were recorded during the

Festivals; and, a mean average of 103 bat calls per night were recorded during the six nights

after the Festivals.

3.19 A total of five bat species were recorded during the sampling period: common pipistrelle,

Leisler’s bat, noctule, serotine and soprano pipistrelle.

3.20 The following figures have been used to describe the bat activity recorded during the sampling

period:

• Figure 5: The total number of bat call sequences recorded during each night of the

monitoring period, overlaid with activities within the Site during that time;

• Figure 6: The relative abundance of bat species recorded during each night of the

monitoring period, overlaid with activities within the Site during that time; and,

• Figure 7: The temporal distribution of bat activity during each night of the monitoring

period.


Figure 5. Total Number of Bats Passes per Night / Activities Within Site

3.21 The number of bat passes recorded each night reduced progressively until reaching a minimum of 11 and 12 during the Festivals on 26th May 2019 and 27th May

2019, respectively. The number of bat passes recorded each night then rose again after the Festivals, with a maximum of 163 bat passes per night recorded on 4th

June 2019, four days after the breakdown of the Festivals was completed.


Figure 6. Relative Abundance of Bat Species per Night / Activities Within Site

3.22 A maximum of five species were recorded on 30th May and 2nd June and a minimum of three species was recorded on 22nd May, 24th May, 26th May and 27th May.

Soprano pipistrelle were the most abundant species recorded (34%), followed by common pipistrelle (30%), Leisler’s bat (28%), noctule (7%) and serotine (<1%).

* PIPPYG = Soprano pipistrelle, PIPPIP = Common pipistrelle, NYCNOC = Noctule, NYCLEI = Leisler’s bat, EPTSER = Serotine


Figure 7. Temporal Distribution of Bat Activity per Night

22nd May 2019: Common and soprano pipistrelle recorded within their anticipated emergence times (Russ, 2012).

23rd May 2019: Common pipistrelle, Leisler’s bat and soprano pipistrelle recorded within their anticipated emergence times.

24th May 2019: Common and soprano pipistrelle recorded within their anticipated emergence times.

25th May 2019: Common pipistrelle and noctule recorded within their anticipated emergence times.

26th May 2019: Soprano pipistrelles recorded within their anticipated emergence times.

27th May 2019: Common pipistrelles recorded within their anticipated emergence times.

28th May 2019: Common pipistrelle, noctule and soprano pipistrelle recorded within their anticipated emergence times.

29th May 2019: Common pipistrelle, Leisler’s bat and soprano pipistrelle recorded within their anticipated emergence times.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

21:00-21:59 22:00-22:59 23:00-23:59 00:00-00:59 01:00-01:59 02:00-02:59 03:00-03:59 04:00-04:59

Tota

l Bat

Pas

ses

Per H

our

Time

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

21:00-21:59 22:00-22:59 23:00-23:59 00:00-00:59 01:00-01:59 02:00-02:59 03:00-03:59 04:00-04:59

Tota

l Bat

Pas

ses

Per H

our

Time

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

21:00-21:59 22:00-22:59 23:00-23:59 00:00-00:59 01:00-01:59 02:00-02:59 03:00-03:59 04:00-04:59

Tota

l Bat

Pas

ses

Per H

our

Time

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

21:00-21:59 22:00-22:59 23:00-23:59 00:00-00:59 01:00-01:59 02:00-02:59 03:00-03:59 04:00-04:59

Tota

l Bat

Pas

ses

Per H

our

Time

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

21:00-21:59 22:00-22:59 23:00-23:59 00:00-00:59 01:00-01:59 02:00-02:59 03:00-03:59 04:00-04:59

Tota

l Bat

Pas

ses

Per H

our

Time

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

21:00-21:59 22:00-22:59 23:00-23:59 00:00-00:59 01:00-01:59 02:00-02:59 03:00-03:59 04:00-04:59

Tota

l Bat

Pas

ses

Per H

our

Time


Figure 7. Temporal Distribution of Bat Activity per Night

30th May 2019: Common pipistrelle, noctule and soprano pipistrelle recorded within their anticipated emergence times.

31st May 2019: Common pipistrelle and Leisler’s bat recorded within their anticipated emergence times.

1st June 2019: Common pipistrelle, Leisler’s bat, noctule and soprano pipistrelle recorded within their anticipated emergence times.

2nd June 2019: Common pipistrelle, Leisler’s bat, noctule, serotine and soprano pipistrelle recorded within their anticipated emergence times.

3rd June 2019: Common pipistrelle, Leisler’s bat, noctule and soprano pipistrelle recorded within their anticipated emergence times.

4th June 2019: Common pipistrelles recorded within their anticipated emergence times.

5th June 2019: Common pipistrelle, noctule and Leisler’s bat recorded within their anticipated emergence time.


Breeding Bird Appraisal

Summary of Bird Species Recorded

3.23 A total of 30 bird species were recorded across the two surveys, with 27 species (109

individuals) recorded during Visit 1, pre-Festivals, and 23 species (144 individuals) recorded

during Visit 2, post-Festivals.

3.24 Ring-necked Parakeet was the most common species recorded across both surveys. Other

species where more than 10 individuals were seen during either survey were: common

blackbird, blue tit, common starling and wood pigeon.

3.25 Four species that are red listed under Birds of Conservation (BoCC 45) were recorded: house

sparrow, mistle thrush, song thrush and common Starling.

3.26 Four species that are amber listed under BoCC 4 were recorded: dunnock, mallard, stock dove

and common swift.

3.27 Four bird species of Principal Importance (NERC S41) were recorded: dunnock, house sparrow,

song thrush and common starling.

3.28 The number of each species recorded during each of the two visits is provided in Table 5,

below.

Table 5. Bird Species Recorded During Each Visit

BTO Code

Scientific Name Common Name Pre-Festivals

Post-Festivals

Total

B. Turdus merula Blackbird 12 17 29

BC Sylvia atricapilla Blackcap 5 5 10

BT Cyanistes caeruleus Blue tit 3 22 25

C. Corvus corone corone Carrion crow 3 3

CC Phylloscopus collybita Common chiffchaff 1 1

CH Fringilla coelebs Common chaffinch 1 1

5 Birds of Conservation Concern 4 (Eaton et al., December 2015) British Birds 108. Pp.708–746.



BTO Code


Post-Festivals

Total

CT Periparus ater Coal tit 2 2 4

D. Prunella modularis Dunnock 3 2 5

FP Columba livia Feral pigeon 5 5

GC Regulus regulus Goldcrest 3 2 5

GO Carduelis carduelis Goldfinch 3 2 5

GR Carduelis chloris Greenfinch 1 2 3

GS Dendrocopos major Great spotted woodpecker 1 2 3

GT Parus major Great tit 3 5 8

HS Passer domesticus House sparrow 1 6 7

J. Garrulus glandarius Eurasian jay 2 2

LT Aegithalos caudatus Long-tailed tit 2 2

M. Turdus viscivorus Mistle thrush 1 1 2

MA Anas platyrhynchos Mallard 2 2

MG Pica pica Magpie 2 2 4

MH Gallinula chloropus Moorhen 3 3

NH Sitta europaea Eurasian nuthatch 4 4

R. Erithacus rubecula Robin 4 9 13

RI Psittacula krameri Ring-necked parakeet 18 14 31

SD Columba oenas Stock dove 4 4

SG Sturnus vulgaris Common starling 8 12 20

SI Apus apus Common swift 3 5 8

ST Turdus philomelos Song thrush 1 3 4

WP Columba palumbus Wood pigeon 15 12 27

WR Troglodytes troglodytes Wren 6 6 12

Total Birds Recorded 109 144 252



BTO Code


Post-Festivals

Total

Total Number of species 27 23 30

Distribution of birds between the Festival Footprint and Buffer Area

3.29 A total of 10 bird species, comprised of 65 individuals, were recorded within the Festival

Footprint; compared with a total of 28 species, comprised of 187 individuals, recorded within

the Buffer Area.

3.30 Ring-necked Parakeet was the most common species recorded within the Festival Footprint,

with common starling the next most common.

3.31 Three notable species were recorded within the Festival Footprint: stock dove, common

starling and common swift (the latter seen feeding over the field).

3.32 The number of each bird species recorded in the Festival Footprint and Buffer Zone are

provided in Table 6, below.

Table 6. Location of Birds Recorded

BTO Code

Scientific Name Common Name Festival Footprint

Buffer Area

Total

B. Turdus merula Blackbird 4 25 29

BC Sylvia atricapilla Blackcap 10 10

BT Cyanistes caeruleus Blue tit 25 25

C. Corvus corone corone Carrion crow 3 3

CC Phylloscopus collybita Common chiffchaff 1 1

CH Fringilla coelebs Common chaffinch 1 1

CT Periparus ater Coal tit 4 4

D. Prunella modularis Dunnock 5 5

FP Columba livia Feral pigeon 2 3 5

GC Regulus regulus Goldcrest 5 5



BTO Code

Scientific Name Common Name Festival Footprint

Buffer Area

Total

GO Carduelis carduelis Goldfinch 2 3 5

GR Carduelis chloris Greenfinch 3 3

GS Dendrocopos major Great spot. woodpecker 2 1 3

GT Parus major Great tit 8 8

HS Passer domesticus House sparrow 7 7

J. Garrulus glandarius Eurasian jay 2 2

LT Aegithalos caudatus Long-tailed tit 2 2

M. Turdus viscivorus Mistle thrush 2 2

MA Anas platyrhynchos Mallard 2 2

MG Pica pica Magpie 4 4

MH Gallinula chloropus Moorhen 3 3

NH Sitta europaea Eurasian nuthatch 4 4

R. Erithacus rubecula Robin 13 13

RI Psittacula krameri Ring-necked parakeet 18 13 31

SD Columba oenas Stock dove 4 4

SG Sturnus vulgaris Common starling 19 1 20

SI Apus apus Common swift 4 4 8

ST Turdus philomelos Song thrush 4 4

WP Columba palumbus Wood pigeon 7 20 27

WR Troglodytes troglodytes Wren 12 12

Total Birds Recorded 65 187 65


3.33 The majority of birds were recorded within the Buffer Area, particularly the woodlands located

to the north, east and south of the Site.


3.34 The most common species recorded in the Buffer area were blackbird and blue tit (combined

total of 25 individuals each, though some individuals may have been counted on both surveys)

with wood pigeon, robin, ring-necked parakeet, wren and blackcap all registering ten or more

individuals over the two visits.

Breeding Birds

3.35 Two bird species were confirmed to be breeding within the Festival Footprint: ring-necked

Parakeet (nest holes seen and young birds nearby) and great spotted woodpecker (young

heard calling from a nest-hole in T005).

3.36 Seven bird species were confirmed to be breeding within the Buffer Area: blackbird, blackcap,

blue tit, great tit, mistle thrush, nuthatch, and robin.

3.37 The bird species recorded during the two surveys, together with their breeding status are

provided in Table 7, below.


BTO Code

Scientific Name Common Name Confirmed Breeding

Probable Breeding

Possible Breeding

B. Turdus merula Blackbird X

BC Sylvia atricapilla Blackcap X

BT Cyanistes caeruleus Blue tit X

C. Corvus corone corone Carrion crow X

CC Phylloscopus collybita Common chiffchaff X

CH Fringilla coelebs Common chaffinch X

CT Periparus ater Coal tit X

D. Prunella modularis Dunnock* X

FP Columba livia Feral pigeon X

GC Regulus regulus Goldcrest X

GO Carduelis carduelis Goldfinch X

GR Carduelis chloris Greenfinch X

GS Dendrocopos major Great spotted woodpecker X



BTO Code

Scientific Name Common Name Confirmed Breeding

Probable Breeding

Possible Breeding

GT Parus major Great tit X

J. Garrulus glandarius Eurasian jay X

LT Aegithalos caudatus Long-tailed tit X

M. Turdus viscivorus Mistle thrush X

MA Anas platyrhynchos Mallard X

MG Pica pica Magpie X

MH Gallinula chloropus Moorhen X

NH Sitta europaea Eurasian nuthatch X

R. Erithacus rubecula Robin X

RI Psittacula krameri Ring-necked parakeet X

SD Columba oenas Stock dove X

ST Turdus philomelos Song thrush* X

WP Columba palumbus Wood pigeon X

WR Troglodytes troglodytes Wren X


Key X = Breeding Within Buffer Area X = Breeding within Festival Footprint * = NERC S41 Species

3.38 The distribution of breeding birds within the Festival Footprint and Buffer Area is shown in

Figure 8, overleaf.


38

Figure 8. Location of Breeding Birds


39

4 DISCUSSION

The Impact of the Festivals on Biodiversity

Habitats

4.1 Impacts to habitats were considered to be relevant within the Festival Footprint only, as no

works to any of the adjacent habitats were proposed.

4.2 No Habitats of Principal Importance were recorded within the Festival Footprint.

4.3 The Festivals did not require the removal of any trees; and, existing trees within the Festival

Footprint were protected from significant impacts, such as root compaction from vehicle

movements, by the installation of fencing around their root protection zones, where necessary.

4.4 The Festivals did not result in the permanent modification of any of the other habitats found

within the Site and the post-Festivals survey visits confirmed that the grassland had not been

significantly eroded by the increase in footfall. The poor, semi-improved grassland may take

some time to recover from the increase in footfall during unusually hot or dry years, however,

as the value of this habitat to protected and notable species was assessed as being negligible,

this temporary and reversible impact is not considered to be significant.

4.5 The impact of the Festivals on the habitats within the Site was therefore assessed to be

negligible.

Bats and Bat Roosts

4.6 No bat roosts were recorded in any tree within or adjacent to the site, even within the bat

boxes on T003, either before or after the Festivals; however, owing to access restrictions

(presence of breeding birds or proximity to public byways) it was not possible to determine the

presence or likely absence of bat roosts within two trees: T005 and T006.

4.7 Moderately fresh bat droppings were recorded in bat box T003c, indicating that it is

intermittently used by bats to roost, but not shortly before, during or after the Festivals in 2019.

In accordance with the previous survey findings, it is therefore assessed that bat box T003c

supports single or low numbers of common pipistrelles on an occasional basis.

4.8 As no bat roosts were recorded within the mature trees within the Festival Footprint either

before or after the Festivals, and only individual features with potential to support roosting bats

were recorded on those trees which could not be fully inspected (T005 and T006), the impact of

the Festivals on roosting bats was therefore likely to be negligible.


40

Bat Activity (Commuting and Foraging)

Site Quality and Landscape Context

4.9 The data search returned 278 records of bats within the search area, from between 2001 and

2018, comprised of eight bat species (brown long-eared, common pipistrelle, Daubenton’s bat,

Natterer’s bat, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, noctule, serotine and soprano pipistrelle). Genus level

records were returned for Nyctalus and Pipistrellus species bats. Order level records were

returned for Vespertilionidae bats.

4.10 The desk study confirmed that the Site is moderately well-connected to suitable foraging and

roosting habitats in the locality; however, the wider landscape was dissected by well-lit roads

and contained areas of significant urbanisation that would act as barriers to the dispersal of

more light-averse species into the Site.

Bat Species Assemblage

4.11 The passive bat detector recorded five bat species within the Site: common pipistrelle, Leisler’s

bat, noctule, serotine and soprano pipistrelle.

4.12 Soprano pipistrelle were the most abundant species recorded, comprising 34% of activity,

followed by common pipistrelle at 30% and Leisler’s bat at 28%. Noctule and serotine bats were

recorded far less frequently, comprising 7% and <1% of the recorded bat calls, respectively.

Temporal Distribution of Bat Activity

4.13 All bat species recorded within the Site were recorded during their anticipated emergence

times, indicating that they were roosting close to the Festival Footprint or, potentially, within

T005 and/or T006.

4.14 Prior to the Festivals, bat activity within the Site reached an early peak, with bats emerging from

their nearby roosts and arriving at the Site to forage shortly after sunset (21:00 +/- 5min), then

remained predominantly level throughout each nightly period, from 22nd to 24th May.

4.15 From 25th May to 5th June, however, the temporal distribution of bat activity within the Site

comprised a peak count of bat passes shortly after sunset, followed by a significant decrease in

activity for the duration of each nightly period, indicating that bats were commuting through

the Festival Footprint rather than staying within it to forage.

4.16 Leisler’s bat activity appeared to be significantly impacted by the light, noise and increased

human activity associated with the Festivals, as the number of bat passes of this species was

lowest during the course of the setup, duration and breakdown of the Festivals; however, bat


41

activity from this species returned to peak counts once the Site had been cleared and

conditions returned to normal.

4.17 Activity from common and soprano pipistrelles was also significantly affected by the noise, light

and increased human activity generated by the Festivals, with steadily decreasing numbers of

bat passes recorded each night, reaching a minimum during the Festivals. Levels of common

and soprano pipistrelle foraging activity within the Site did not recover, however, even once the

site had been cleared.

4.18 It is possible that the light, noise and increased human activity generated by the Festivals

encouraged these bat species to move into other nearby habitats to forage; however, the

sustained reduction of foraging within the Site was more likely attributable to the mowing and

subsequent compression of the grassland within the Festival Footprint, as this is likely to have

resulted in a more long-term reduction of invertebrate prey available to common and soprano

pipistrelles within the Site.

4.19 As common and soprano pipistrelles are common and widespread species, and suitable

alternative foraging habitats can be found within the adjacent woodlands, Peckham Rye

Common, the nearby cemeteries and other urban greenspaces in the wider landscape, the

temporary reduction in foraging habitat is not considered to result in a reduced capacity for

these bats to survive or reproduce.

Birds

Breeding birds

4.20 Two bird species were confirmed to be breeding within the Festival footprint at the time of the

Festivals: ring-necked parakeet (nest holes seen and young birds nearby) and great spotted

woodpecker (young heard calling from a nest-hole).

4.21 Ring-necked parakeet young are highly gregarious, meaning that particular young could not be

attributed to particular nest sites; and, no great spotted woodpecker young were heard calling

from the nest site in T005 during the post-Festivals survey.

4.22 It therefore could not be confirmed whether the Festivals resulted in significant impacts to

either of the two breeding birds recorded within the Festival Footprint.

4.23 For full details please see the Full Breeding Bird Appraisal by West London Birding, provided as a

separate document.


42

Foraging birds

4.24 A total of 10 species (65 individuals) were recorded within the Festival Footprint and a total of

28 species (187 individuals), were recorded in the Buffer Area (both surveys combined). No

significant difference in bird numbers or species count was observed between the two surveys,

indicating that the Festivals had not resulted in significant impacts in the number and species of

birds using the Festival Footprint and Buffer Area.

4.25 The Site provided foraging for several species including common starling and stock dove (both

notable species). However, as there are other areas nearby where the birds can forage (e.g.

other parts of the Park or Peckham Rye) it is not considered that the Festivals will have more

than a temporary, detrimental effect on the foraging habits of the birds in the area. Even during

the set-up and take-down activities for the Festivals, it is not thought that this would affect the

birds as only certain parts of the area would be being worked on at one time and the

disturbance levels will be markedly less than during the actual Festivals themselves, owing to

the relative number of people on the Site.

4.26 Overall, the Site and Buffer area support a diversity of breeding birds that can be classed as

being of Local importance if evaluated in accordance with Fuller (1980)6.

6 Fuller, R.J., (1980), A method for assessing the ornithological interest of sites for conservation. Biological

Conservation 17: 229-239


5 RECOMMENDATIONS

Further Surveys

Bats

Presence or Likely Absence Survey of T005 and T006 (In the absence of mitigation)

5.1 T005 and T006 were assessed as having moderate potential to support roosting bats, however,

it was not possible to determine the presence or likely absence of bat roosts within these trees

at the time of the surveys (please see Limitation section for details).

5.2 In the absence of mitigation (please see below), Two dusk bat emergence surveys of T005 and

T006 should therefore be carried out prior to the next GALA and Jam on Rye Festivals. The

surveys would be required to confirm the presence or likely absence of bat roosts within T005

and T006.

5.3 The surveys should be carried out in suitable weather conditions and during the optimal bat

survey season (May-September, inclusive).

5.4 The findings of the surveys should then be used to determine the requirement for appropriate

mitigation to be put in place in order to safeguard any roosts present from unlawful disturbance

during subsequent events.

Mitigation

Bats

Establishment of buffer zones around T005 and T006

5.5 During the course of the build-up, running and break-down of all subsequent festivals at the

Site, buffer zones should be established around T005 and T006 to avoid unlawful disturbance

impacts to bats in the event that roosts are present within the trees.

5.6 The buffer zones should measure 20m in diameter and no mechanised plant, sound or lighting

equipment or pedestrian access should be permitted within these buffer zones.

5.7 Furthermore, any sound or lighting equipment installed for the festival that has capacity to

impact T005 and T006, should be positioned facing away from the trees in order to reduce the

potential for disturbance impacts to bats as far as possible.


Provision of alternative foraging habitats

5.8 Although suitable, alternative bat foraging habitats can be found in the wider landscape, it is

possible that these are already at carrying capacity and cannot support additional bats displaced

by the Festivals. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework there should be no

net loss of biodiversity resulting from any development proposals and it would be reasonable to

extend this provision to the delivery of the Festivals.

5.9 Additional areas of wildflower planting would therefore need to be established within the wider

Peckham Rye Park in order to avoid a net loss of bat foraging habitat within the Site. This/these

additional area(s) of planting would be seeded with native, wildflower species which would

generate invertebrate prey during the course of the Festivals.

5.10 The proposed wildflower areas should be seeded with a low-growing wildflower seed mix in

order to provide suitable nectar sources for a variety of invertebrates. A suitable wildflower

seed mixture can be obtained from Emorsgate Seeds (i.e. EL1 – FLOWERING LAWN MIXTURE7).

Birds

Maintenance of Barrier

5.11 The impermeable, steel shield barrier on the boundary of the Festival Footprint should continue

to be installed in subsequent years in order to continue to act as a barrier to the dispersal of

noise, light and increased human activity into the adjacent woodlands.

Provision of alternative Nest Sites

5.12 Additional nesting sites for birds could be installed on mature trees in the adjacent woodland

and on scattered trees within the adjacent Peckham Rye Common, in order to encourage

nesting away from the Festival Footprint.

5.13 Nest boxes should be suitable to support the species recorded within the Site, particularly the

red-listed mistle thrush, song thrush and common starling, and the amber-listed dunnock. Some

boxes suitable to support great spotted woodpecker should also be installed in order to provide

a suitable alternative nest site for this species, which was recorded breeding within the Festival

Footprint.

7 http://wildseed.co.uk/mixtures/view/56


5.14 A suitably qualified ecologist should be consulted to design a suitable bird box placement plan.

Deadwood Management

5.15 The occurrence of deadwood in mature trees within the Festival Footprint should be pro-

actively managed in order to reduce the nesting habitat available for the naturalised, non-native

ring-necked parakeet within the Site.

Survey Validity

5.16 This report provides only a single year ‘snapshot’ of the impact of the Festivals on the

biodiversity of Peckham Rye Park. Biodiversity monitoring should therefore be implemented

every two years in order to ensure that any cumulative effects of year-on-year events are

captured and adapted to.


REFERENCES

CIEEM (2018) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal – 3rd Edition. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management,

Winchester

Clark, D. (2019) Records of Birds Present within Peckham Rye Park Between 2008 and 2019. Pers.

Comm., 08.03.2019 and 23.04.2019.

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

Bat Conservation Trust, London. ISBN-13 978-1-872745-96-1.

Department of Communities & Local Government (2018) National Planning Policy Framework,

London: DCLG. February 2019.

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (1981) The Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) (as amended).

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (2006) The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC).

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (2017) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as

amended).

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2016) Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. 2nd Edition. Winchester: IEEM.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey - a technique for environmental audit, ISBN 0 86139 636 8.

London Bat Group (13.04.2019) Bat records from 1980 onwards: Request for Bat Records in an Area Around Peckham Rye Park. Ref: 2019-043-DC.

Middleton, N., Froud, A. and French, K. (2014) Social Calls of the Bats of Britain and Ireland. Exeter:

Pelagic Publishing.

Russ, J. (2012) British Bat Calls: A Guide to Species Identification. Pelagic Publishing. London.

Stace, C. (2010) New Flora of the British Isles – 3rd Edition. Cambridge University Press.


Appendix 1: Festival Plans


Figure A1.1: Festival Site Plan (We Are the Fair, 2018)


Appendix 2: Survey Methods



Desk Study

A2.1 A desk study was undertaken in order to collate baseline ecological data for bats and birds in

the vicinity of the Site that may be affected by the Festivals.

Data Search

A2.2 The London Bat Group (LBG) was commissioned to provide records of bats from within a 2km

radius of the Site. The data was received on 3rd June 2019.

A2.3 Records of bird species within Peckham Rye Park between 2008 and 2019 were provided by

David Clark, a local bird recorder and member of the Friends of Peckham Rye Park. The data

were received on 8th March and 23rd April 2019.

Online Resources

A2.4 In order to fulfil the protected species assessment, Multi-Agency Geographic Information for

the Countryside (MAGIC)8, Google Earth9 and Ordnance Survey Maps10 were used to evaluate

the context of the Site and its connectivity to habitats in the wider landscape.

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

A2.5 An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was carried out on 20th May 2019. All habitats within the

Site, and on the site boundary, were defined according to the recorded abundance of individual

plant species within them11. The methodology for the Phase 1 Habitat Survey followed Joint

Nature Conservancy Committee’s Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC, 2010).

A2.6 Botanical nomenclature follows New Flora of the British Isles (Stace, 2010), however, only

common plant names are used within the body of the report. A Habitats and Species List, which

gives Latin binomials for each species recorded, is provided in Appendix 5.

8 http://magic.defra.gov.uk/ 9 All aerial imagery within this report is used courtesy of Google Inc. 10 https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk 11 Using the DAFOR scale, based on percentage (%) cover; Dominant (D) = >75%, Abundant (A) = 75 - 51%,

Frequent (F) = 50 - 26%, Occasional (O) = 25 - 11%, Rare (R) 10 - 1 %.


Protected Species Assessment

A2.7 The potential for the site to support protected and/or notable species was assessed by

investigation for field signs and the presence of suitable habitats within or adjacent to it.

A2.8 The protected species considered relevant to the assessment, based on geographical region and

the presence of suitable habitats within the site, were as follows:

• Bats: assessment of buildings and mature trees for their potential to support roosting

bats; and,

• Breeding Birds: assessment of the buildings, mature trees and planted introduced

shrubs for their potential to support breeding birds.

A2.9 Consideration was given to the potential for the site to support other notable species of

conservation interest, including:

• Species of Principal Importance for the conservation of biodiversity under Section 41 of

the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006); and,

• London Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species.


Bat Habitat Valuation

A2.10 The potential suitability of the Site for bats was evaluated based on the habitats within it, and

within its immediate surrounds. The value of the site was then categorised as per the

classifications in Table A2.10.1, below.

Table A2.10.1: Bat Habitat Valuation (Collins, J. (Ed)., 2016)

Site Suitability Roost Description

Negligible Negligible habitat features on site likely to be used by commuting or foraging bats

Low

Habitats that could be used by small numbers of commuting bats, but that are

isolated from other suitable habitats in the wider landscape.

Suitable, but isolated, habitat that could be used by small numbers of foraging

bats, such as a lone tree or patch of scrub.

Moderate

Continuous habitat connected to the wider landscape that could be used by bats

for commuting, such as lines of mature trees and scrub, or adjacent back gardens.

Habitat that is connected to the wider landscape that could be found and used

by bats for foraging, such as groups of trees, scrub or water.


Table A2.10.1: Bat Habitat Valuation (Collins, J. (Ed)., 2016)

Site Suitability Roost Description

High

Continuous, high-quality habitat that is well connected to the wider landscape

and that is likely to be used regularly by commuting bats, such as river valleys,

streams, hedgerows, lines of trees and woodland edges.

High quality habitat that is well connected to the wider landscape that is likely to

be used regularly by foraging bats, such as broadleaved woodland, tree-lined

watercourses and grazed parkland.

Site is close to, and well connected to, known roosts.

Ground-based Tree Inspection

A2.11 Each tree within the survey boundary was inspected from ground level to identify signs of

damage, disease or decay that could indicate the presence of a potential bat roosting feature

(PRF).

A2.12 The identification of PRF from ground level was aided by the use of a powerful, hand-held

spotlight (Cluson Clulite Smartlite SM126-L2 - 12V, 17.6AMP) and field binoculars (Viking Optical

ED FF 10x42).

A2.13 The type, height and orientation of each PRF on each tree were recorded in order to inform the

climbed inspection.

Climbed Tree Inspection

A2.14 Any tree that contained PRF beyond the reach of the ground-based inspection was climbed by a

licensed bat ecologist, or accredited agent, using a single line and friction hitch, and harness.

Each tree climbed was subject to a second inspection from a high vantage point in order to

identify any PRFs that were not visible during ground-based inspection.

A2.15 All identified PRF were then inspected closely, using a LED Lenser P7 hand torch and RIDGID

SeeSnake Micro CA-300 video endoscope, with a 3m probe extension cable and 6mm/13mm

imager head, where required.

A2.16 Detailed notes on any bats found, along with direct evidence of bat habitation (such as bat

droppings) or indirect evidence of bat habitation (such as cavity smoothing, waxing and the

absence of competitors), were also recorded, together with the dimensions and conditions

found within each PRF inspected.


A2.17 Consideration was given to the species of bat and type of roost (summer, transitory, maternity

or hibernation) that might be associated with any PRF identified.

Passive Bat Monitoring

A2.18 The passive bat monitoring was carried out using one Wildlife Acoustics Song Meter 4 Full-

Spectrum bat detector, with an SMM-U1 microphone. The detector was hung approximately

6m from ground level in an early-mature lime tree in the centre of Lime Avenue, in the centre

of the Site. The detector microphone was positioned horizontally, facing as far as possible into

open space, with no direct barriers to detection, such as leaves or branches, in front of it.

A2.19 The detector was scheduled to record bat activity between sunset and sunrise on each night

between 22nd May and 6th June 2019.

Defining a Bat Call Sequence

A2.20 Levels of bat activity recorded during passive bat monitoring are described in reference to the

number of ‘bat call sequences’ recorded during each survey. SM4 bat detectors trigger each

time bat echolocation is detected by the microphone. Once triggered, the detector will record

bat echolocation for a minimum of three seconds to a maximum of 15 seconds, before creating

a new file. Each file is then regarded as one call sequence within this report.

A2.21 As each file may contain one or several bats, the number of call sequences does not equate to

the number of bats within audible range of the detector. It does, however, provide data on the

duration of bat activity within audible range of the detector, during the sampling period.

Bat Tree Assessment

Bat Roost Classifications

A2.22 The type of any bat roosts present within the Site was determined based on the findings of the

surveys and was categorised as per the classifications in Table A2.22.1, below.

Table A2.22.1. Bat Roost Classifications (Natural England, 2016)

Roost Classification Roost Description

Day Roost A place where individual bats, or small groups of males, rest or shelter in the

day, but are rarely found by night in the summer.

Night Roost A place where bats rest or shelter during the night but are rarely found in the

day. May be used by a single individual on occasion or it could be used regularly

by the whole colony.


Table A2.22.1. Bat Roost Classifications (Natural England, 2016)

Roost Classification Roost Description

Feeding Roost

A place where individual bats or a few individuals feed during the night but are

rarely present by day.

Transitional / Occasional Roost

Used by a few individuals or occasionally small groups for generally short

periods of time on waking from hibernation or in the period prior to

hibernation.

Swarming Site Where large numbers of males and females gather during late summer to

autumn.

Mating Site Where mating takes place from late summer and can continue throughout

winter.

Maternity Roost Where female bats give birth and raise their young to independence.

Hibernation Roost Where bats may be found individually or together during winter. They have a

constant, cool temperature and high humidity.

Satellite Roost An alternative roost found in close proximity to the main nursery colony used by

a few individual breeding females to small groups of breeding females

throughout the breeding season.


Breeding Bird Surveys

A2.23 The methodology for the breeding bird surveys followed that of the Common Bird Census (CBC)

(Marchant, 1983)12. The entire Site was walked to within 100m of each boundary point. A Buffer

Area including woodlands adjacent to the north and east of the Site, and rough grassland and

woodland to the south of the Site, was also surveyed.

A2.24 All bird species seen were mapped, with particular emphasis on any breeding activity (e.g. nests

found, adults carrying food, young birds seen, etc.). Birds that were seen overflying the Site only

(i.e. not seen to land or take off from the Site or buffer area) were not included in any analyses

as they were considered not be interacting with the Site. The exception to this was birds that

feed on the wing (e.g. swifts).

A2.25 Weather details were taken at the start and end both surveys.

12 Marchant (1983). BTO Common Bird Census Instructions


Biodiversity Impact Assessment

Determining the Type and Extent of Impacts

A2.26 Within this Biodiversity Monitoring Report, the method for determining the potential impacts of

the proposed development broadly follows standard guidance set out in the Guidelines for

Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland (CIEEM, 2016).

A2.27 When describing ecological impacts, reference has been made to the following characteristics,

where relevant:

• Positive/Negative: Whether the anticipated impact will have a Positive or Negative

effect on the ecological receptor;

• Extent: at a spatial or geographical range;

• Magnitude: the size, amount, intensity and volume of any impact, in absolute terms;

• Duration: the duration of the resulting effect caused by the activity, assessed in relation

to the impact on the ecological receptor;

• Frequency and Timing: The number of times an activity occurs and for what duration;

and,

• Reversibility: whether the impacts can be undone at a later date or whether they are

permanent.

A2.28 The Site contained one main building, with three sections: B1a, B1b and B1c. The building was

inspected for bats or evidence indicating the presence of a bat roost, such as: droppings,

feeding remains or fur oil staining around access/egress points to a potential bat roosting

feature.

A2.29 Features that would be suitable to support roosting bats (e.g. gaps beneath bargeboards, gaps

into soffit boxes and slipped or broken roof tiles, etc.) were searched for on the exterior of the

building. Where required field binoculars (Viking Optical ED FF 10x42), were used to identify

and access potential roosting features on the exterior of the building.

Surveyor Information

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

A2.30 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was led by Principle Ecologist Daniel Simmons BSc,

MCIEEM, with assistance from Assistant Ecologists Hannah Rodgers MSc and Louisa Mamalis

MSc. Daniel is a licensed bat ecologist (Natural England Bat Licence Number: 2015-15026-CLS-


CLS); has over eight years ecological consultancy experience; and, is a full member of the

Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM).


A2.31 The Bat Tree Assessment was carried out by Principle Ecologist Daniel Simmons, with assistance

from Assistant Ecologist Hannah Rodgers.


A2.32 The breeding bird appraisal was carried out by Bill Haines of West London Birding, with

assistance from Principal Ecologist Daniel Simmons of Simlaw Ecology.


Appendix 3: Relevant Legislation


Bats

A3.1) All species of bat found in Britain, and their roosts, receive protection under Schedule 2 of the

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) and Schedule 5 of the

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). These legislative tools make it an offence for

any person to:

• Deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat;

• Intentionally or recklessly destroy a breeding or resting place (roost) of a bat; and,

• Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access for bats to a roost or to otherwise

significantly alter the structure of a roost so as to render it unsuitable to support

roosting bats.

Breeding Birds

A3.2) All birds, and their active nests, are protected under Sections 1-8 of the Wildlife and Countryside

Act 1981 (as amended). Under this legislative instrument it is an offence to:

• Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird;

• Intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is being used or

built; and/or,

• Intentionally take or destroy a wild birds’ egg.

Species of Principal Importance for the Conservation of Biodiversity

A3.3) Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 requires the

Secretary of State to publish a list of Habitats and Species that are of Principal Importance for

the conservation of Biodiversity in England. The Countryside Rights of Way Act (2000) makes it

legally incumbent upon the Local Planning Authority to have regard to the conservation of these

habitats and species.

A3.4) The site has low potential to support low numbers of Species of Principal Importance.

A3.5) Therefore, the recommendations for further surveys and mitigation measures provided in

Section 5 (Recommendations) and Section 6 (Mitigation Strategies) of this report must be

implemented in order to avoid adverse impacts to these species.


Appendix 4: Site Habitats and Species List


Table A4.1: Site Habitat and the composition of species within them

Species Common Name Species Latin Binomial DAFOR13

Poor, Semi-improved Grassland

Annual meadow grass Poa annua F Barren brome Bromus sterilis O Borage Borago officinalis R Cats ear Hypochaeris radicata R

Chickweed Stellaria Media O Cocks-foot grass Dactylus glomerta A Common couch grass Elymus repens O Common daisy Bellis perennis F Common mouse ear Cerastium fontanum O Common nettle Urtica dioica R Common sorrel Rumex acetosa R Common vetch Vicia sativa R Cow parsley Anthriscus R Creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera F Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens O Dandelion Taraxacum sp. F False oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius A Goats beard Tragopodon pratensis R Greater plantain Plantago lanceolata R Hairy ladies mantle Alchemilla filicaulis R Meadow barley Hordeum secalinum R Meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris O Meadow cranes-bill Geranium pratense R Meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis O Perennial rye grass Lolium perenne L/D Red clover Trifolium pratense O Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata O Rough meadowgrass Poa trivialis F Sheep-s sorrel Rumex acetosella R Shepherds purse Capsella bursa-pastoris O Sweet vernal grass Anthoxanthum odoratum O Wood avens Geum urbanum O Yarrow Achillea millefolium F Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus O

Semi-improved / Neutral Mesotrophic Grassland (Wild Area)

Annual meadow grass Poa annua F Barren brome Bromus sterilis F Borage Borago officinalis F Cleavers Galium aperine F Common mouse ear Cerastium fontanum F Corn chamomile Anthemis arvensis O Cornflower Centaurea cyanis O Creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera A Creeping thistle Cirsium arvense F Curled dock Rumex crispus O

13 The DAFOR scale works on % cover. Dominant = >75%, Abundant = 75 - 51%, Frequent = 50 - 26%,

Occasional = 25 - 11%, Rare 10 - 1 %. There are additional categories of LD, LA and LF, where L = locally


Table A4.1: Site Habitat and the composition of species within them

Species Common Name Species Latin Binomial DAFOR13

Dandelion sp. Taraxacum sp. O Doves-foot cranes-bill Geranium molle O Fat hen Chenopodium album F Lesser burdock Arctium minus R Meadow barley Hordeum secalinum O Red dead nettle Lamium purpureum R Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata R Rough meadow-grass Poa trivialis A Shepherds purse Capsella bursa-pastoris F Soft brome Bromus hordeaceus O White campion Silene latifolia R Wild cabbage Brassica oleracea O

Scattered Mature Trees

Ash Fraxinus excelsior O Bird cherry Prunus avium R Cherry laurel Prunus laurocerasus R Cherry plum Prunus cerasifera R Common lime Tilia x Europaea A Willow sp. Salix sp. R Field maple Acer campestre R Hornbeam Carpinus betulus R Horse chestnut Aesculus hippocastenum R London plane Platanus x hispanica A Pedunculate oak Quercus robur R Pink hawthorn Crataegus laevigata R Red horse chestnut Aesculus x carnea R Red oak Quercus rubra R Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus R Yew Taxus baccata R

Neutral Grassland (Adjacent to South)

Barren brome Bromus sterilis F Common bent Agrostis stolonifera L/D Common Mallow Malva sylvestris O Common vetch Vicia sativa F Creeping cinquefoil Potentilla reptans F Dandelions Taraxacum spp. A False oat grass Arrhenatherum elatius L/D Goats beard Tragopodon pratensis R Meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris A Meadow cranes-bill Geranium pratense O Meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis O Meadowsweet Filipendula ulmaria O Red clover Trifolium pratense A Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata O White clover Trifolium repens F Wood avens Geum urbanum O

biodiversity monitoring report · scope of this report 1.16 this report details the methodology and...

Documents