New Built House at Jordans Repeater Station by Kunal Manani

Former Jordans Repeater Station Site and Block Plans

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Former Jordans Repeater Station - Site and Block Plans Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 11/01/21

Dwg No : PL-DR-00-0

Rev :

DESIGNLABS LONDON ARCHITECTURE / INTERIOR / MANAGEMENT / PLANNING T: 07870661614 / 07888831314 E: info@designlabslondon.com W: www.designlabslondon.com © THIS DRAWING IS THE COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNLABS LONDON LTD. It shall not be in any way used or reproduced or construct without their prior written consent. All dimensions are to be checked on site by client or contractor prior to commencing any work. Work only to figured dimensions. Any discrepancies are to be reported to the DLL in writing and DLL shall not take responsiblity for site failing to inform discrepancies.

North

North 5

SCALE 1: 500

50 m

SCALE 1: 1250

OXFOR D ROAD

OXFOR D ROA D (A40)

PO TK IL N

Bottom Lodge

Sandy

PO TK IL N

Bottom Lodge

Sandy

(A40)

82.6m

PL.E.00 Existing Site Plan 1 : 1250

82.6m

PL.E.00 Existing Block Plan 1/500) 1 (Scale 1 : 500

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Site & Block Plans Scale : As indicated

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-00-00

Rev :

Stage 2 - Existing Drawing Set

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Existing Drawings Title Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 11/01/21

Dwg No : PL-DR-EX-00-0

Rev :

0.5

1.5

2.5

0.5

SCALE 1: 50

0.5

1.5

2.5 m

SCALE 1: 50

PL-DR-EX-XX-50

PL-DR-EX-XX-50 2

4450

5010

Store

17.2 m²

PL-DR-PR-XX-74

1 PL-DR-EX-XX-50

4 1 PL-DR-EX-XX-50 PL-DR-EX-XX-50

0.1 Existing Ground Floor

1 : 50 PL-DR-EX-XX-50

4 PL-DR-EX-XX-50

0.2 Existing Roof Plan 1 : 50

3 PL-DR-EX-XX-50

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Existing Floor Plans Scale : 1 : 50

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-EX-00-01

Rev :

0.5

1.5

SCALE 1: 50

Roof Ridge

4455

Eaves Level

2535

Mezzanine

1189

Ground Floor

Sub-basement Lower Ground Floor -1200

-1500

Existing Rear Elevation 1 : 50

Roof Ridge

4455

Eaves Level

2535

2.5 m

Existing LHS Elevation 1 : 50

4541

Roof Ridge

2683

Mezzanine

1189

1645

1189

Mezzanine

Ground Floor 250

Ground Floor 0

Sub-basement

Sub-basement Lower Ground Floor -1200

-1200

-1500 Lower Ground Floor -1500

Existing Front Elevation 1 : 50

Existing RHS Elevation 1 : 50

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Existing Elevations Scale : 1 : 50

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-EX-XX-50

Rev :

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Existing 3D

Existing 3D

Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-EX-XX-70

Rev :

Existing Site Images

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Site Images Title Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 04/05/22

Dwg No : PL-DR-EX-XX-100

Rev :

Stage 3 - Proposed Drawings Set

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed Drawings Title Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 11/01/21

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-00-0

Rev :

0.5

1.5

SCALE 1: 50

PL-DR-PR-XX-22

2.5

PL-DR-PR-RL-13

Red line indicates approx. outline of trees roots

Store

1.4 m²

Kitchen & Dining 2

PL-DR-PR-XX-20

6) Woodland Trees

PL-DR-PR-XX-21

20.2 m²

Storage 0.7 m² Bathroom

bins store hidden behind fence panels

3.0 m² Bedroom

1) green roof with sedum grass

4) Porous Paver Blocks as Vehicle Hardstanding

12.0 m² Bedroom

10.7 m² 1

PL-DR-PR-XX-74

4 PL-DR-PR-RL-13

3 PL-DR-PR-RL-13

4 PL-DR-PR-RL-13

3 PL-DR-PR-RL-13

3) Portland Paver stone

Sunken private amenity space

2) Planters on steps and wall

2) Planters on steps and wall 000 ø6

0.1 Proposed Ground Floor 1 : 50

5) Reinforce Plastic Porous Ground Paving Grid for Vehicle turning (Diameter 6 meters)

1 PL-DR-PR-RL-13

Room Schedule

6mt Dia. Turning Radius For Cars

Name

Area

Lower Ground Floor Bedroom 12.03 m² Bedroom 10.68 m² Bathroom 3.03 m² Kitchen & 20.18 m² Dining Store 1.37 m² Storage 0.67 m² Mezzanine Living Room Stairs 8

17.17 m² 5.07 m² 70.19 m²

Lower Ground Floor 1 : 50

1 PL-DR-PR-RL-13

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed Floor Plans Scale : 1 : 50

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-00-10

Rev :

0.5

1.5

2.5 m

SCALE 1: 50

PL-DR-PR-RL-13 2 1 PL-DR-PR-XX-22

2 PL-DR-PR-XX-20

1 PL-DR-PR-XX-21

1 PL-DR-PR-XX-74

4 PL-DR-PR-RL-13

3 PL-DR-PR-RL-13

1 PL-DR-PR-RL-13

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed Roof Plan

0.2 Proposed Roof Floor 1 : 50

Scale : 1 : 50

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-00-12

Rev :

0.5

4455

Eaves Level

2535

2.5

4541

Roof Ridge

SCALE 1: 50

Roof Ridge

1.5

Mezzanine

2683

Mezzanine 1189

1189

Sub-basement Lower Ground Floor -1200

-1500

Proposed Front Elevation

Ground Floor 250

Ground Floor

1 : 50

Roof Ridge

4455

Eaves Level

2535

Mezzanine

1189

Ground Floor

Sub-basement Lower Ground Floor -1200

-1500

Proposed Rear Elevation 1 : 50

Proposed RHS Elevation 1 : 50

Proposed LHS Elevation 1 : 50

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed Elevations Scale : 1 : 50

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-RL-13

Rev :

Roof Ridge 4455

solar panels

green roof Eaves Level 2535

Mezzanine 1189

Ground Floor 0

Sub-basement -1200 Lower Ground Floor -1500

Proposed Section 5 1 : 25

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed Section Scale : 1 : 25

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-20

Rev :

Roof Ridge 4455

solar panels

green roof Eaves Level 2535

Mezzanine 1189

Ground Floor 0

Sub-basement -1200 Lower Ground Floor -1500

Proposed Section 4 1 : 25

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed Section Scale : 1 : 25

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-21

Rev :

Roof Ridge 4455

Eaves Level

1700

2535

Mezzanine 1189

Ground Floor 0

Sub-basement -1200 Lower Ground Floor -1500

Proposed Section 6 1 : 30

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed Section Scale : 1 : 30

Status : Planning

Date : 11/02/21

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-22

Rev :

SCALE 1: 500

6mt Dia. Turning Radius For Cars

25 m

000 ø6

Vision Splays- 151 mtrs

3473

Vision Splays- 151 mtrs

151000

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Traffic Managment Plan

Traffic Managment Plan 1 : 500

Scale : 1 : 500

Status : Planning

Date : 11/02/21

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-60

Rev :

0.5

1.5

2.5 1

SCALE 1: 50

PL-DR-PR-XX-22

Store

1.4 m² 2

PL-DR-PR-XX-20

Area 51.2 m² 1

PL-DR-PR-XX-21

Storage 0.7 m²

Upper Ground Floor 24.1 m²

PL-DR-PR-XX-74

Ground Floor 1 : 50

Lower Ground Floor 1 : 50

Area Schedule (Gross Internal Area) Number 02

Level

Ground Floor 03 Lower Ground Floor Grand total: 2

Area

Client : Mr Sadozai

24.1 m²

Project : Former Jordans Repeater

51.2 m²

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Area Totals

75.4 m²

Scale : 1 : 50

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-61

Rev :

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed 3D Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-71

Rev :

Roof Ridge 4455

Eaves Level 2535

Mezzanine 1189

Ground Floor 0

existing sunken slab Sub-basement

-1200 Lower Ground Floor

Existing Section 1 : 30

-1500

Roof Ridge

3102

4455

Eaves Level

1700

2535

Living Room

Mezzanine

Client : Mr Sadozai

150

1189

Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Existing and Proposed Section -Comparision

Ground Floor 2539

Bedroom

-1200 Lower Ground Floor -1500

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-74

Rev :

DESIGNLABS LONDON

Bedroom

Sub-basement

Scale : 1 : 30

Proposed Section 1 : 30

ARCHITECTURE / INTERIOR / MANAGEMENT / PLANNING T: 07870661614 / 07888831314 E: info@designlabslondon.com W: www.designlabslondon.com © THIS DRAWING IS THE COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNLABS LONDON LTD. It shall not be in any way used or reproduced or construct without their prior written consent. All dimensions are to be checked on site by client or contractor prior to commencing any work. Work only to figured dimensions. Any discrepancies are to be reported to the DLL in writing and DLL shall not take responsiblity for site failing to inform discrepancies.

Exisitng 3D View 1- Front

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Proposed 3D View 1- Front Copy 1

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Existing & Proposed Prespective Views Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-80

Rev :

Existing 3D View 2- Rear1

Client : Mr Sadozai

Proposed 3D View 2- Rear

Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Existing & Proposed Prespective Views Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-82

Rev :

Existing 3D View 31 Front-RHS1

Proposed 3D View 32 Front-RHS1

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Existing & Proposed Prespective Views Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-83

Rev :

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed 3D at Rear LHS Corner

Rear LHS Corner

Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-85

Rev :

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed 3D at Rear RHS Corner

Rear RHS Corner

Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-86

Rev :

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed 3D at Front RHS Corner Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-87

Rev :

DESIGNLABS LONDON

Front RHS Corner

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Proposed Rear RHS Cut Isometrics

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed Rear RHS Cut Isometrics Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-88

Rev :

Client : Mr Sadozai

Proposed Front RHS Cut Isometrics

Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed Front RHS Cut Isometrics Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 09/12/2020

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-89

Rev :

3D Visual 1 of Living

3D View 1

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : 3D- Internal Views Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 11/01/21

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-95

Rev :

DESIGNLABS LONDON

3D Visual 2 of Living

3D Visual 1 of Bedroom

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : 3D- Internal Views Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 11/01/21

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-96

Rev :

DESIGNLABS LONDON

3D Visual 2 of Bedroom

3D Visual 1 of Kitchen + 1 Dining

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : 3D- Internal Views Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 11/01/21

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-97

Rev :

DESIGNLABS LONDON

3D Visual 2 of Kitchen + 2 Dining

3D Visual 1 of Front View

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : 3D- Internal Views Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 11/01/21

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-98

Rev :

DESIGNLABS LONDON

3D Visual 2 of Front View

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : 3D- Internal Views Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 11/01/21

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-99

Rev :

DESIGNLABS LONDON

3D Visual 1 of Front View 1 Copy 1

Proposed CGIs

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed CGIs Title Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 03/24/22

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-100

Rev :

Proposed Top View

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed CGI Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 03/24/22

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-101

Rev :

Proposed Front View

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed CGI Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 03/24/22

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-102

Rev :

Proposed Green Roof

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed CGI Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 03/24/22

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-103

Rev :

Solar Panels

Proposed Rear View showing solar panels

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed CGI Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 03/24/22

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-104

Rev :

Proposed Sunk Garden

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed CGI Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 03/24/22

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-105

Rev :

Proposed View towards the Rear from Staircase Landing

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed CGI Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 03/24/22

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-106

Rev :

Proposed View of Front Garden

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed CGI Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 03/24/22

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-107

Rev :

Proposed Entrance Area

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Proposed CGI Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 03/24/22

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-108

Rev :

Appendix 1- Topographical & Tree Survey

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Attachments & Appendix Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 04/05/22

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-110

Rev :

0E h m 20

85.27

85.00

Concrete

h m 20 h

85.21

85.01

m 20

il So

m 20

84.97

h 4m

CBF Ht=1.8m 85.01

h m 20

84.93

1 .0 0 85 .1 85

84.97

te re nc Co 84.89 84.82

el av Gr

h 6 .3 85

84.84

84.52

3 2 .1 .0 85 85 7 .9 84 T3 2 S .9 84

84.62

3 84.86 .7 IC 84 8 4 CL . 7 9 5 .7 84 . 66 84 84.66 84.59 Concrete

84.57

84.27

87.68 Eave Level 84.99

89.68 Roof Level

87.67 Eave Level 84.75

il So

84.99

84.75 84.82 84.53 84.58

84.31

PWF Ht=1.20m

4 .8 84 2 .0 85 4 .8 84 .86 G 84

9 .7 84 84.65 PWF Ht=1.20m 84.61 84.66 CBF Ht=1.80m

2 ST 7 .1 84

83.93

84.72

8m h 8m h

il So

5 ST 9 .7 84

0 .8 84

86.86Eave Level

88.35Roof Level

84.93

84.89

83.98

85.01

p m il 4 tu So ST .12 S 85 85.01 0 .0 G 85

84.98

PWF Ht=1.20m

84.88

85.19

85.23

GY 6 .4 84 Client : Mr Sadozai

84.52

85.10

84 80

85.24

84.98

Scale : 1 : 50

Status : Planning

Date : 11/01/21

Dwg No : PL-DR-EX-XX-75

Rev :

DESIGNLABS LONDON

84.19

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Existing Ground Plan Tree Survey

Potkiln Lane 84.54

Project : Former Jordans Repeater

0.1 Existing Ground plan Survey 1 Tree 1 : 50

85.46

84.93

Appendix 2 - Tree Survey & Report

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Attachments & Appendix Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 03/24/22

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-120

Rev :

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield BS 5837 2012 Trees Surveyed by in relation to design, 21-1195-TSS Weather demolition and 27.04.21 Tagged constructionDesign Labs London recommendations

Project: Ref: Date: Client:

NAT clear No

Canopy Spread Physiological condition problems/comments

Structural condition

Preliminary management recommendations

Estimated remaining contribution years

BS category

Stems

Height of Age crown class clearance

260

Fair - Die back. Ivy on tree. Off site

Fair

N/A off site

10-20

350

Fair - Die back. Off site

Good

N/A off site

10-20

Fraxinus excelsior (Ash)

440

Fair - Die back. Off site

Fair - Stem divides above 1.5m

N/A off site

10-20

Fraxinus excelsior (Ash)

450

Fair - Die back. Off site

Fair - Stem divides above 1.5m

N/A off site

10-20

Fraxinus excelsior (Ash)

410

Fair - Die back. Off site

Fair - spreading linb to southwest

N/A off site

10-20

Crataegus monogyna (Hawthorn)

380

Good - Ivy on tree. Off site

Good

N/A off site

20-40

210

Fair Off site

Fair - poor form.

N/A off site

10-20

160

Good Off site

Good

N/A off site

40+

Tree No.

Species

Fraxinus excelsior (Ash)

T7 T8

Carpinus betulus (Hornbeam) Crataegus monogyna

Height DBH (m) (mm)

Fraxinus excelsior (Ash)

430

Dead - Off site.

Fair

N/A off site

T10

Fraxinus excelsior (Ash)

390

Fair - Die back. Off site

Good

N/A off site

10-20

Prunus laurocerasus (Cherry Laurel)

Good - boundary group.

Good

None

20-40

Varied

Appendix 2.1 - Arbo. Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Attachments & Appendix Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 04/05/22

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-125

Rev :

Existing Jordan Repeater Station, Potkiln Lane, Beconsfield Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement

March 2022

Client

Design Labs, London

Job name

Existing Jordan Repeater Station, Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

Report title

Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement

File reference

21-1195-Report

Author

Name

Position

Date

Neil Taylor

Arboricultural Consultant

March 2022

Design Labs, London

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

Report Contents 1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Site Description ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Proposed Works ............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Aims of Study .................................................................................................................. 1

2 Methodology ............................................................................................ 2 3 Assessment ............................................................................................... 3 3.1 Tree Character Groups ................................................................................................. 3

4 Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) ............................................. 4 4.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 4 4.2 Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 4

5 Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) ............................................ 6 5.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 6 5.2 Demolition within the RPA of Retained Trees .................................................. 6 5.3 Construction within the RPA of Retained Trees ............................................... 6 5.4 Services ............................................................................................................................... 7 5.5 Tree Protection................................................................................................................ 7 5.6 Site Monitoring and Supervision ............................................................................ 8

6 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 9 7 Appendices ............................................................................................. 10

21-1195-Report

Design Labs, London

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

1 Introduction 1.1 Site Description Existing Jordan Repeater Station, Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield (the ‘’site’’) currently comprises a single disused building set within a plot of land. The site is largely flat across its entirety and is bound to the north by woodland, to the east by Potkiln Lane, to the south by a residential dwelling and to the west by a residential garden. There are no Tree Preservation Orders on the site and the site is not within a conservation area.

1.2 Proposed Works The demolition of the existing building and the construction of a single detached dwelling with the associated landscaping are proposed. Works that are likely to affect retained trees include the installation of hard surfaces and the movement of construction vehicles.

1.3 Aims of Study To inform a planning application, Canopy Consultancy has been commissioned by Design Labs, London to undertake a tree survey of the site, in accordance with British Standard (BS) 5837:2012 “Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations”. The aim of this report is to present the results of the survey, including a Tree Survey Schedule (TSS), an Arboricultural Implications Assessment (AIA), and an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS). A Tree Protection Plan (TPP) has also been produced and accompanies this report as a separate drawing. This report in no way constitutes a health and safety survey report. Where concerns for tree health and safety exist, the necessary and appropriate tree inspections should be carried out.

21-1195-Report

Page 1

Design Labs, London

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

2 Methodology The trees were inspected from ground level by consultant arboriculturist Neil Taylor on 27th April 2021 and measurements taken in accordance with the recommendations set out in the BS 5837:2012. Canopy spreads were measured and plotted to the four compass points. Where direct access was not possible measurements have been estimated. The surveyed trees are colour coded on the accompanying tree survey drawing according to their relevant BS category. The tree data collected is used to enable the current canopy spread of the surveyed trees and the Root Protection Area (RPA) to be plotted on the accompanying TPP. The RPA is defined by the formula in paragraph 4.6 from the BS 5837:2012 and may be refined by taking into account current on-site constraints to root activity such as buildings, earthworks and hard paving. This forms part of the design process for the proposed development.

21-1195-Report

Page 2

Design Labs, London

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

Assessment

3.1 Tree Character Groups The detailed results of the tree survey are provided in the TSS, in Appendix 1. In summary, the majority of the trees within the survey area are in a state of decline due to ash die back (Hymenscyphus fraxineus). The trees can be divided into two distinct character groups as follows: 1. The first character group includes medium sized, middle aged trees found growing adjacent to the site. The majority of the trees in this character group are ash and at the time of the survey, showing advanced signs of ash die back caused by the fungus

Hymenscyphus fraxineus. 2. The second character group includes the smaller, young trees found growing adjacent to the site. The trees in this character group form an understory within the adjacent woodland.

21-1195-Report

Page 3

Design Labs, London

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

4 Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) 4.1 Methodology The AIA uses the information obtained in the tree survey to identify areas where the proposed construction may be at odds with accepted standards, in terms of a tree’s requirements for space in which to maintain existing roots and shoots, and space for future growth. The quality and relative importance of each tree is illustrated as a coloured polygon. The colour used relates to the BS categories as follows: A - green, B - blue, C - grey and U - red (see accompanying drawing reference 21-1195-TPP). In general the design process will try to retain A and B category trees. Proposed construction will therefore normally be excluded from the RPA of A and B category trees. Red trees are discounted as they are recommended for removal. Details of the trees surveyed are given in the TSS (Appendix 1). The juxtaposition of the proposed development in relation to existing tree locations are shown on the accompanying TPP drawing, reference 21-1195-TPP. The AIA considers existing site conditions and the effect that they may have on the development of the surveyed trees root systems. Hard structures such as building and paved roads and paths can influence the root activity of trees by reducing the availability of both moisture and nutrients.

4.2 Assessment Refer to the accompanying TPP, drawing, reference 21-1195-TPP, for the relationship between the proposed development and the trees on and adjacent to the site.

•

The following group of trees will be removed to enable the proposed development: G1

•

to enable the construction of a driveway

The following tree will be pruned prior to the construction of the proposed development: T3

reduce overhanging branches back to boundary

The tree is suffering from ash die back and is likely to die within a couple of years. To prevent dead wood falling in the future, proactive management of the tree has been proposed.

21-1195-Report

Page 4

Design Labs, London

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

•

There will be no demolition within the RPA of a retained tree.

•

The following trees will be affected by the construction of new hard surfaces within the RPA: T1, T2, T3 and T6 The proposed new areas of hard surface will be constructed in accordance with the ‘no dig’ principles outlined in APN12 and utilise a cellular confinement system such as Cell Web as a sub base. Refer to Section 5.3 below for details.

21-1195-Report

Page 5

Design Labs, London

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

5 Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) 5.1 Methodology The AMS provides the means by which retained trees and hedges can be protected throughout the development. The movement of demolition and construction machinery in close proximity to trees may cause compaction of the soil which affects the tree’s ability to absorb moisture and nutrients. The RPAs of retained trees and hedges will be protected by a tree protection barrier as described in paragraph 5.5 below and shown on the accompanying TPP, drawing number 21-1195-TPP.

5.2 Demolition within the RPA of Retained Trees Prior to demolition commencing, the retained trees will be protected in accordance with the accompanying TPP, drawing number 21-1195-TPP. In order to act as ground protection, the new driveway will be installed prior to demolition taking place. There will be no demolition within the RPA of a retained tree.

5.3 Construction within the RPA of Retained Trees Prior to construction commencing, the retained trees will be protected in accordance with the accompanying TPP, drawing number 21-1195-TPP. Construction of Hard Surfaces Construction of the new areas of hard surface that are within the RPA of T1, T2, T3 and T6 will utilise a cellular confinement system such as Cell Web in order to minimise the excavations required. The new hard surface will be constructed on top of the existing ground level and no excavations will take place to level the ground. Guidance on the form of construction necessary to avoid root damage and loss is provided in the form of an extract of the Cell Web Product brochure for their cellular confinement system at Appendix 2. The installation of the hard surface should proceed in the following order: •

Lay geotextile membrane over the soil and pin into place

•

Lay cellular confinement system (such as Cell Web) as specified by engineer and pin into place.

21-1195-Report

Page 6

Design Labs, London

•

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

Fill the cellular confinement system with a ‘no fines’ aggregate to engineer’s specification Work must be carried out progressively so that any machinery used only moves on the laid surface.

•

Install timber edging (if required) as specified by engineer

•

Lay geotextile membrane over filled cellular confinement system.

•

Lay wearing course as specified by landscape architect

Where the proposed new hard surface is to be installed on the existing soft landscape, allowances will be made for the increase in level which can be graded out across the remainder of the new and existing hard surface. No materials or spoil is to be stored within the RPA of a retained tree. In order to avoid damage to the retained trees the tree surgery and felling work identified in the accompanying tree survey schedule will be carried out prior to the occupation of the site by the building contractor. The work will be carried out in accordance with BS 3998:2010.

5.4 Services The proposed locations of service runs have not been finalised at this early stage. However, it is assumed that the services will enter site from Potkiln Lane and as such, will unlikely pass through the RPA of a retained tree. Where this is not the case, excavations will be carried by hand in accordance with 'broken trenches’ described in NJUG 4 Section 4, an extract of which can be found in Appendix 3. This will ensure that tree roots are not damaged during the installation of the service. All root pruning will be agreed beforehand with the named arboriculturist in consultation with the local authority arboricultural officer. All root pruning will be in accordance with current best working practice.

5.5 Tree Protection All trees that are to be retained on the site will be protected by the use of a tree protection barrier erected in the location shown on the accompanying TPP, drawing number 21-1195-TPP. The fence will consist of “Heras” type panels or similar braced at appropriate intervals and secured to keep in place. The tree protection barrier will be erected prior to the occupation of the site by the contractor and will only be removed once the construction phase is complete. The new driveway will be installed prior to the demolition phase in order to act as ground protection for the adjacent trees.

21-1195-Report

Page 7

Design Labs, London

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

5.6 Site Monitoring and Supervision The process of reporting to the client and LPA/Tree Officer will be by emailing the checklist form at Appendix 4. Site monitoring is to be at a frequency agreed and approved by the LPA. It will involve a site visit by the arboriculturist at selected intervals to ensure that the appropriate tree protection measures, as detailed in the approved drawings and method statements, are continually adhered to.

21-1195-Report

Page 8

Design Labs, London

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

6 Conclusion Canopy Consultancy was commissioned by Design Labs, London to carry out a tree survey at the site. The results of the survey indicate that the trees within the survey area vary considerably in terms of condition and contribution to the amenity of the wider landscape. A total of one group of trees will be removed to enable the proposed development. The trees to be removed are within the ‘C’ category because they are young and are easily replaced. The proposed development of the site provides an opportunity to plant a number of new trees as part of a landscape scheme for the site. This will improve the age range and species diversity of the trees in the local area, as well as enhancing the tree cover on the site in the long term. Through the specified tree protection measures and construction methodology, it will be possible to minimise the impact of the proposed development on the retained trees. Overall, there are no known overriding arboricultural constraints which would prevent the proposed development from going ahead, subject to the protection measures and construction methodologies specified within this report being correctly implemented.

21-1195-Report

Page 9

Design Labs, London

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

7 Appendices Appendix 1: Tree Survey Schedule

21-1195-Report

Page 10

Design Labs, London

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

Appendix 2: Extract from the Cell Web product brochure

21-1195-Report

Page 11

Design Labs, London

21-1195-Report

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

Page 12

Design Labs, London

21-1195-Report

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

Page 13

Design Labs, London

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

Appendix 3: Section 4, extracted from NJUG 4

21-1195-Report

Page 14

Design Labs, London

21-1195-Report

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

Page 15

Design Labs, London

21-1195-Report

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

Page 16

Design Labs, London

21-1195-Report

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

Page 17

Design Labs, London

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield

Appendix 4: Programme of Site Monitoring

Potkiln Lane, Beaconsfield Site Monitoring Form To be completed by the named arboriculturist and emailed to the client and tree officer at the completion of each operation. Arboriculturist……………………………………………………………………………………….…..…….. Client……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….. Project Manager…………………………………………………………………………….………….…….. Tree Officer…………………………………………………………………………………….……………… (The above to be filled in with names and contact numbers) OPERATION

TIMING

Pre-commencement meeting or contact

with

project/site

manager.

DATE

COMMENTS

Before any works or pre-works

site,

including storage of materials

Spot check of tree protection

Before

measures

begins

Spot check of no dig hard

Before

surfaces with RPA

begins

demolition

Once all construction Completion of development

activity

has

been

completed

21-1195-Report

Page 18

Appendix 3 - Ecology Survey

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Attachments & Appendix Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 03/24/22

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-130

Rev :

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

A Report for DesignLabs

March 2022

www.greenspace-ecology.co.uk info@greenspace-ecology.co.uk

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

March 2022

Controlled Copy 01 of 02 01 Design Labs 02 Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd Report contributors: Alexandra Ash Reviewed by: Demian Lyle MCIEEM The content of this report is the responsibility of Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd. It should be noted that whilst every effort has been made to meet the client’s requirements, no site survey can ensure complete assessment or prediction of the changeable onsite environment. Furthermore, should more than 12 months elapse between the date of this survey and any subsequent development, it may be necessary to consider the need for an update survey to be undertaken.

Report Number J21051 Rev A Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd. Suite H3, Blackham Court, Withyham, East Sussex, TN7 4DB

Tel: 01892 457062 www.greenspace-ecology.co.uk info@greenspace-ecology.co.uk

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

CONTENTS 1 2 3

7 8

FIGURES Figure 1. Figure 2.

PROJECT OVERVIEW NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Context

2 3 4 4

Site Location

Site Description

Policies and Legislation

Objectives of the Survey

Survey Constraints

SURVEY METHODOLOGY Desk Study

7 7

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

SURVEY RESULTS Desk Study

10 10

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Protected Species

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Designated Areas

16 16

Ancient Woodland

Habitats and Botanical Species of Interest

Protected Species

ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENTS REFERENCES

19 20

Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map Tree Protection Measures

APPENDICES Appendix A. Site Photographs Appendix B. Categories of Bat Roost Suitability Appendix C. Minimum Number of Bat Surveys Required in Most Instances

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

PROJECT OVERVIEW Client:

DesignLabs

Site Address:

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP9 2XB

Attending Ecologists:

Demian Lyle ACIEEM

Survey Date:

16th April 2021

Site Proposals:

Demolition of existing building and erection of a residential dwelling.

Source of Relevant Documents: Document:

Source:

Site Location Plan:

Google Earth Pro

Desk Study:

Site Plans:

Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (Magic.gov.uk) Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Environmental Records Centre (BMERC). Geopoint

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY In response to the proposed development at Jordans Repeater Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans the site has been subject to a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA). The site’s habitats and potential to support protected species were assessed and, where required, recommendations for further surveys/mitigation have been provided. Development of the site is not expected to result in any detrimental impact to designated sites, areas of ancient woodland, or habitats of principal importance (HPI) as listed under Section 41 (s41) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006). The habitats recorded on site included ephemeral short perennial vegetation, introduced shrub and hardstanding which are widespread and common with deciduous woodland recorded adjacent to the north. Due to the site’s proximity to the adjacent deciduous woodland, trees directly adjacent to the site’s northern boundary should be protected in accordance with British Standard 5837:2012 ‘Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction.’ Building B1 has been identified as being of ‘Low’ suitability to support roosting bats and further survey to determine the presence/likely absence of roosting bats is required. The site and its surrounds provide suitable foraging and commuting habitat for bats. Lighting can be detrimental to bats’ foraging and commuting behaviour and should be avoided within the site, if possible. Any external lighting that is deemed necessary for the proposed redevelopment should be sensitive to the site’s northern boundary adjacent to the woodland, avoiding direct illumination of it. Suitable nesting habitat for birds exists within the site and should be retained where possible. Should suitable nesting habitat be affected by the proposed development, timings and methods of best practice should be adhered to. The likelihood of additional protected and otherwise notable species to occur within the site is considered unlikely. However, should at any point during the development a protected or otherwise notable species be identified within the site then all works should stop, and the appointed ecologist consulted on the appropriate manner in which to proceed. In accordance with the requirement of the NPPF 2019 (as amended) and the Buckinghamshire Adopted Local Plan (as amended), recommendations to improve the site’s suitability for wildlife have been provided.

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

INTRODUCTION Context In response to a proposed development at Jordans Repeater Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordan, a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) has been undertaken of the land to be affected (henceforth referred to as ‘the site’). The habitats on site and their potential to support protected species have been assessed and appropriate recommendations have been provided. Site Location The site is situated between the town of Beaconsfield and village of Jordans, Buckinghamshire at Ordnance Survey (OS) Grid Reference: SU 96457 89789. The location of the site is depicted in Image 1.

Image 1. Jordans Repeater Station. Site Description The site is approximately 168m2 in area and currently consists of a repeater station with adjacent shrub planting and hardstanding. The surrounding landscape consists of adjacent woodland and ancient woodland, arable, and scattered residential dwellings.

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

Policies and Legislation Legislation The main pieces of legislation applying to ecological issues within England and Wales are: •

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) transposes European Union Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (EC Habitats Directive) into national law. These regulations provide for the designation and protection of 'European Sites', the protection of 'European Protected Species' and the adaptation of planning controls for the protection of such sites and species.

•

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) provides detail on a range of protection and offences relating to wild birds, other animals, and plants. The level of protection depends on which Schedule of the Act the species is listed on. Licences are available for specific purposes to permit actions that would otherwise constitute an offence in relation to species.

•

The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 imposes an obligation on all public bodies, including local authorities, to consider whether their activities can contribute to the protection of wildlife. The duty is created by section 40(1) of the Act, which states that: “Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.”

•

The Hedgerows Regulations Act 1997 serves to; enforce under the Environment Act 1995, restrict the removal of hedgerows, or parts of hedgerows which are over 20m in length. In this case, removal includes digging up and replanting elsewhere, as well as removing from the land completely or destroying in the course of other actions. This includes developments or activities which destroy the roots, causing the vegetation to die.

•

The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 exists to protect badgers Meles meles from cruelty. Under the act it a criminal offense to wilfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger, or to attempt to do so, or to intentionally or recklessly interfere with a sett.

•

The Wild Mammal (Protection) Act 1996 protects wild mammal species from certain cruel acts, including kicking, beating, nailing or otherwise impaling, stabbing, burning, stoning, crushing, drowning, dragging or asphyxiation of any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering. Crushing and asphyxiation are most likely to occur as a result of development proposals, should these works collapse any mammal burrows, or encounter wild mammals on site.

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

The above summary serves as guidance only – the reader is referred to the original legislation for definitive interpretation. UK Planning Policy The recommendations of this report are in line with the key principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2021 (as amended) and Government Circular 06/05. Local planning policies relating to ecology are invariably based on the conservation of species protected under the above legislation, including species and habitats of principal importance (HPI) listed under Section 41 (s41) of the NERC Act 2006; and the protection of designated sites. All these features are considered within the scope of this PEA and therefore any recommendations made herein are likely to be in line with this policy. The conservation and enhancement of the District’s rural landscape and biodiversity is covered by Core Policy 9 of the South Bucks Core Strategy (Adopted 2011). Objectives of the Survey The objectives of the survey were to: •

Classify the main habitats present within the site;

•

Evaluate the ecological importance of these habitats;

•

Assess buildings and trees for their potential to support roosting bats;

•

Evaluate the potential for other protected species to occur within the site; and

•

Provide appropriate recommendations for further surveys and mitigation where required.

Survey Constraints All measurements and indications of area given within this report are approximate. The loft void of the building on site was inaccessible; therefore, this could not be inspected. This was not a significant limitation as the repeater station is a small building, and a robust assessment of its potential to support roosting bats was still carried out allowing for appropriate recommendations.

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

SURVEY METHODOLOGY Desk Study A desk study was undertaken to determine the presence of sites and habitats of conservation importance, including a review of European Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) licence records, within a 2km radius of the Site. In addition, records of protected and notable flora and fauna species within 2km of the site from the local records centre are also included. The following bodies were consulted for the desk study: •

Magic.gov.org

•

Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Environmental Records Centre (BMERC)

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Habitats The site was surveyed using the methodology outlined in ‘The Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A Technique for Environmental Audit’ (JNCC, 2010). This involves identifying the main plant communities present on the site and classifying the habitat types following the JNCC methodology. This technique provides an inventory of the basic habitat types present and enables areas of greater botanical interest which may require further, more detailed, surveys to be identified. Any occurrences of recognised invasive species as listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) were also noted. A map of the habitats and areas of interest (using a variation of the JNCC, 2010 protocol for Phase 1 habitat plans) is provided in Figure 1. Photographs of features of interest are presented in Appendix A. The survey identified the main plant communities present on the site, with abundance of identified characterising species noted according to the DAFOR scale. Classification of the habitat types also follows the Phase 1 habitat survey methodology. The DAFOR scale characterises species abundance as Dominant (D), Abundant (A), Frequent (F), Occasional (O) or Rare (R). These scores represent the abundance within the defined area only and do not reflect national or regional abundances. Botanical species nomenclature follows Stace (2019). Application of the above technique provides an inventory of the basic habitat types present and enables areas of greater botanical interest which may require further, more detailed, surveys to be identified.

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

Protected Species The survey was extended to include an assessment of the site’s potential to support protected and other notable species. This involved assessing the suitability of the habitats present within the site for these species as well as connectivity to the site from other areas of potentially suitable habitat nearby. Badger Evidence of badger activity within and adjacent to the site was assessed by searching for: •

Presence of setts, indicated by suitably sized holes or burrows;

•

Evidence of badger hair and/or footprints;

•

Evidence of well-used runs supported by secondary evidence such as foraging signs or footprints; and

•

Presence of badger latrines.

Bats Where buildings, trees or other structures are present, specific survey work was undertaken to assess their suitability to support roosting bats. In this instance, a variety of equipment was used to complete the bat scoping survey, including high powered torches, cameras, and a ladder (where necessary). Where buildings were encountered, a full external and internal inspection was undertaken where safe access was available. Any likely roosting or access points for bats such as raised fascia boards, missing/lifted tiles, cracks or crevices in brick/blockwork and gaps in soffit boxes were recorded and searched for evidence of use by bats (staining, droppings, scratch marks, or the presence of bats themselves). The results of a scoping survey enable the buildings and trees to be categorised as having ‘Confirmed roosts’, or ‘High’, ‘Moderate’, ‘Low’ or ‘Negligible’ suitability to support roosting bats. An outline of the adopted categorisation procedure for classifying bat suitability is presented in Appendix B. In accordance with current best practice guidance (Collins, 2016), the level of suitability determines the need or not for further summer emergence surveys. Although left to the discretion of the appointed ecologist, in most instances Confirmed Roosts and High suitability requires three surveys visits, Moderate suitability requires two survey visits and Low suitability requires one evening emergence or pre‐dawn re‐entry survey visit(s) (although trees with Low suitability do not require further emergence or pre‐dawn re‐entry survey visits). Greater detail on the minimum number of surveys recommended in most instances is presented in Appendix C.

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

Birds The site was assessed for its potential to support nesting bird species. Factors considered include suitable cover and feeding habitat, as well as any active or disused birds’ nests. Great Crested Newt The site was assessed for its potential to support Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus populations. Suitable terrestrial habitat for GCN includes long grass, tall ruderal, woodland and hedgerow borders, as well as wood and rubble piles that act as hibernacula. Hazel Dormouse The site was surveyed for suitable hazel dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius habitat, such as the presence of a well-connected understorey broadleaf habitat, hedgerows, and suitable food sources such as oak Quercus sp., hazel Corylus avellana and other nut-bearing trees, fruiting trees and shrubs, flowers and invertebrates. Reptiles The site was assessed for its potential to support reptile populations. Suitable habitat for reptiles includes long grass, vegetated boundaries, woodland and hedgerow borders, as well as wood and rubble piles that act as hibernacula. Other Species Consideration was given to the site’s suitability to support other protected and notable species.

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

SURVEY RESULTS Desk Study Statutory Designated Sites No statutory designated sites are present within 2km of the site. The site does fall within multiple SSSI impact risk zones (IRZs); however, the development does not meet any of the criteria that would warrant further consultation from Natural England. Non-statutory Designated Sites Non-statutory designated sites within 2km of the site are presented in Table 1. Table 1 – Non-statutory designated sites within 2km of the site. Non-statutory site

Distance from site

Dean Wood LWS

1.0km NE

Bower and Burtley Woods LWS

1.1km SW

Hedgerley Green Claypits BNS

1.5km S

Great Legs, Malms Wood and the Ash Beds BNS

1.5km NE

Green Lane by the Ash Beds, Layters Green LWS

1.6km E

LWS – Local Wildlife Site, BNS - Biological Notification Site Ancient Woodland There are 28 Ancient Semi-natural Woodlands (ASNW) within 2km of the site, with the closest being Pitlands Wood 42m east of the site. NERC s41 Habitats of Principal Importance (HPI) Habitats listed under s41 of the NERC Act (2006) within 2km of the site are listed below in Table 2. Table 2 - NERC s41 Habitats of Principal Importance (HPI) within 2km of the site Priority Habitat Deciduous Woodland Traditional Orchard Woodpasture and Parkland

Distance from site Adjacent to site 613m E 1.5km SW

Protected or Notable Species Bats The data search returned records for bat species within 2km of the site. The records are presented in Table 3. Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

Table 3 – Bat species records within 2km of the site. Common Name

Scientific Name

Legal Protection / Conservation Priority Status1

Brown long-eared bat

Plecotus auritus

HabDir:A4; Bern:A3; Bonn:A2; WCA5

Common pipistrelle

Pipistrellus pipistrellus

HabDir:A4; Bern:A3; Bonn:A2; WCA5

Noctule bat

Nyctalus noctula

HabDir:A4; Bern:A2; Bonn:A2; S41; WCA5

Soprano pipistrelle

Pipistrellus pygmaeus

HabDir:A4; Bern:A2; Bonn:A2; S41

The desk study returned two records of EPSM licences granted for bats within 2km of the site. With a case reference of 2017-28065-EPS-MIT-1, the closest licence was 1.5km from the site. This licence permitted the damage and destruction of a resting place (non-breeding) for brown long-eared bats, common pipistrelle, and soprano pipistrelle bats and runs between 2017 and 2022. Badger Seven records of badger within 2km of the Site were returned in the desk study. The most recent record of these was recorded in 2018, within 703m of the site. Hazel Dormouse The desk study returned no records of hazel dormouse within 2km of the Site. Other Mammals The data search returned six records of west European hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus within 2km of the site. The most recent record is from 2018, approximately 1.8km north of the site. No records of other mammals of conservation interest were returned in the desk study within 2km of the site. Birds Bird species of conservation interest recorded within 2km of the Site and of potential relevance to the proposed redevelopment works are presented in Table 4.

HabDir:A4 = Habitats Directive Annex 4; Bern:A2 = Bern Convention Appendix II; Bern:A3 = Bern Convention Appendix III; Bonn:A2 = Bonn Convention Appendix II; WCA 5 = Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) Schedule 5; S41 = Schedule 41 of the NERC Act (2006)

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

Table 4 – Relevant bird species records within 1km of the site. Common Name

Scientific Name

Legal Protection / Conservation Priority Status2

Bullfinch

Pyrrhula pyrrhula

S41, UKBA

Dunnock

Prunella modularis

Bern, S41, UKBA

House sparrow

Passer domesticus

S41, UKBR

Lesser spotted woodpecker

Dryobates mino

Bern, S41, UKBR

Mistle thrush

Turdus viscivorus

UKBR

Song thrush

Turdus philomelos

BDir2.2., RD1-NT, S41, UKBR

Starling

Sturnus vulgaris

BDir2.2, RD1-VU, S41, UKBR

Stock dove

Columba oenas

BDir2.2, UKBA

Tawny owl

Strix aluco

Bern, CITES, UKBA

Yellowhammer

Emberiza citrinella

Bern, S41, UKBR

Herpetofauna The data search returned records of both reptiles and amphibians within 2km of the site. The results from the data search are presented below in Table 5. Table 5 – Herpetofauna records within 2km of the site. Common Name

Scientific Name

Legal Protection / Conservation Priority Status

Adder

Vipera berus

BAP, Bern, S41, WCA5

Common frog

Rana temporaria

Bern, HDir, WCA5

Common lizard

Zootoca vivipara

BAP, Bern, S41, WCA5

Common toad

Bufo bufo

BAP, Bern, S41, WCA5

Grass snake

Natrix helvetica

BAP, Bern, S41, WCA5

Great crested newt

Triturus cristatus

BAP, Bern, EPS, HDir, S41, WCA5

Palmate newt

Lissotriton helveticus

Bern, WCA5

Slow worm

Anguis fragilis

BAP, Bern, S41, WCA5

The desk study returned two records of EPSM licences granted for GCN within 2km of the site. The closest record was located 384m from the site and had a case reference of 2014-261-EPS-

Bern = Bern Convention; S41 = Schedule 41 of the NERC Act (2006) UKBR = Birds of Conservation Concern 4 – Red Listed; UKBA = Birds of Conservation Concern 4 – Amber Listed; CITES = Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

MIT, the licence permitted the destruction of a resting place and ran from 2014 to 2016. The desk study also returned four records of GCN class survey licence returns carried out in 2014 and 2015 within 2km of the Site. GCN were recorded as present at all locations with the closest located 917m from the Site. Invasive and non-native species (INNS) A selection of INNS species records of potential relevance to the Site are presented in Table 6. Table 6 – A selection of relevant INNS recorded within 2km of the Site. Common Name

Scientific Name

Legal Status

Closest Record

Most Recent Record

American mink

Neovison vison

INNS, WCA9

1km

02/12/2015

Edible dormouse

Glis glis

Bern, INNS, WCA9

1.9km

29/01/2015

Himalayan balsam

Impatiens glandulifera

INNS, WCA9

1.2km

27/07/2011

Rhododendron

Rhododendron ponticum

INNS, WCA9, WFD[High]

672m

13/05/2016

Yellow archangel

Lamiastrum galeobdolon subsp. argentatum

INNS, WCA9

1.9km

07/06/2011

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal The following habitat types were recorded within the site: •

Ephemeral/short perennial vegetation

•

Introduced shrub

•

Buildings

•

Hardstanding

Ephemeral/short perennial vegetation The ephemeral short perennial vegetation present on-site surrounds building B1 and hardstanding. Botanical species present include frequent dock species Rumex sp., hybrid bluebell Hyacinthoides x massartiara, and cuckoo-pint Arum alpinum; occasional lesser celandine Ficaria verna, cleavers Galium aparine, common nettle Urtica dioica, perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne, and ivy-leaved speedwell Veronica hederifolia; and rare annual meadowgrass Poa annua and European holly Ilex aquifolium.

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

Introduced Shrub One small parcel of introduced shrub is present on-site located at the north-east boundary. The shrub consists of three cherry laurel Prunus laurocaprams. Buildings One building is present on-site which is the Jordans repeater station (B1). This building is described in terms of its suitability to support roosting bats in Section 5.3 below. Hardstanding Areas of hardstanding are present in the form of a driveway and a concrete pathway surrounding the building. The hardstanding is in good condition with little to no recolonising botanicals. Protected Species Badger The site does offers limited suitable opportunities for sett creation or foraging, and no evidence of badger or badger setts was recorded during the survey. Bats Roosting Habitat - Buildings B1 B1 is a small one-storey, brick-built repeater station with a simple pitch roof and in relatively good condition. The roof is constructed of slated tile with a wooden soffit. Soffit boxes are present on the north-east and south-west elevations of the building with small gaps present at the western extents of both soffits The roof tiles are also in good condition, with only one gap recorded underneath a warped ridge tile at the north-western elevation of B1. Overall B1 is deemed to be of ‘Low’ suitability for roosting bats. Bats - Foraging and Commuting Habitat The woodland adjacent to the northern boundary of the site provides suitable habitat for foraging and commuting bats. Birds Suitable nesting habitat is present in the form of introduced shrub and buildings. Great Crested Newt Owing to the lack of refuges within the site, terrestrial habitats within the site are considered to be sub-optimal for GCN, with suitable habitats being limited to areas of introduced shrub and short perennial vegetation. No suitable waterbodies are present within 250m of the site.

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

Hazel Dormouse Due to the urban nature of the site and the lack of scrub and hedgerow habitats within it, the site is considered unsuitable for hazel dormouse. Reptiles Owing to the urban nature of the site, habitats are considered to be of sub-optimal suitability for reptiles lacking refuges, with suitable habitats being limited to areas of introduced shrub only. Other species The survey recorded no evidence of other notable species.

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Designated Areas There are no statutory designated sites that are located within 2km of the site. However, there are five non-statutory designated sites located within 2km of the site, the closest being Dean Wood LWS located 1km north-east of the site’s boundary. Owing to the localised and small-scale

nature of the proposed development works and the distance between the site and the designated site, the proposed development is not anticipated to affect any non-statutory designated sites. Additionally, the site lies within a SSSI IRZ but the development does not meet the criteria that would warrant further consultation from Natural England on the potential impacts on statutory designated sites. Ancient Woodland The closest ancient woodland is Pitlands Wood, located approximately 42m east of the site. Separated from the site by a road and situated beyond the recommended 15m buffer enforced by Natural England when working in close proximity to ancient woodland, no impact to this or any other ancient woodland sites is expected to result from the proposed development. Habitats and Botanical Species of Interest The closest HPI listed under s41 of the NERC Act (2006) is a deciduous woodland adjacent to the site’s north-eastern boundary. As this is not an area of ASNW and owing to the small-scale nature of the proposed development, the proposed development is not anticipated to result in any significant negative impacts upon any HPI listed under s41 of the NERC Act (2006). Since the deciduous woodland is directly adjacent to the site’s northern boundary, there is a potential for root compaction and/or collision with trees if tree protection measures are not put in place. Therefore, to avoid impacts to trees adjacent to the site’s boundary, these trees should be protected in accordance with BS 5837:2012 ‘Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction’ (Figure 2). The habitats to be affected are common and widespread and no further botanical surveys are required in this instance.

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

Protected Species Badger No evidence of badger activity or badger setts was recorded during the survey and the site is considered to have negligible suitability for badger sett creation; as a result, no further surveys for badgers are required. Bats Roosting Habitat – Buildings B1 was deemed to have ‘Low’ suitability for roosting bats and further surveys to determine the presence/likely absence of roosting bats should be carried out prior to the commencement of any demolition or construction works to the building. Surveys should be carried out in line with best practice guidance (Collins, 2016). For buildings with Low suitability, a single dusk emergence/pre-dawn re-entry survey should be carried out between May and August. The survey should be carried out by appropriately trained surveyors during suitable weather conditions. If at any point during this survey, roosting bats are identified in the building, further bat surveys of the building and a European protected species mitigation (EPSM) licence from Natural England may be required. Bats - Foraging and Commuting Habitat The proposed development is not anticipated to result in a significant loss of suitable foraging and commuting habitat and as a result, no further bat activity surveys are required. Since lighting can be detrimental to bats using vegetation for foraging and commuting, although best set out after the application of the above-recommended further bat surveys, any external lighting proposed for the proposed development should be sensitive to these features and avoid illumination of them, for example through the use of directional and lowlevel bollard lighting. The Institution of Lighting Professionals (ILP), in partnership with the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT), has published guidance relating to bats and lighting – this is available at the following link: Guidance Note 8 Bats and Artificial Lighting. Birds Suitable nesting habitat exists in the form of introduced shrub and a buildings. As all nesting birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) it is recommended that works to these areas (where necessary) are conducted outside the core breeding period for birds of Late February – August inclusive. Should this timeframe be unobtainable, a thorough search for the presence of nesting birds should be conducted by a suitably experienced ecologist prior to the start of works. Should

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

evidence of nesting birds be recorded, works within 5m of the nest, or works that have potential to destroy the nest, should stop until the eggs have hatched and the chicks fledged, or the nest is deemed by a suitably experienced ecologist to have been abandoned. Great Crested Newts Habitats on-site are of sub-optimal suitability for GCN. No suitable waterbodies were recorded within 250m of the site and GCN are therefore deemed likely absent from the site and no further surveys for GCN are required. Hazel Dormouse Habitats on-site are deemed unsuitable for hazel dormice and no further surveys for hazel dormice are required. Reptiles Habitats on-site are of sub-optimal suitability for reptiles and limited in their extent within the site. Reptile presence is considered unlikely and no further surveys for reptiles are required. Given that the desk study returned recent records of multiple reptile species within 2km of the site, it is recommended that clearance of the introduced shrub be done sensitively. In the unlikely event that an animal is found, then all works should stop, and the appointed ecologist consulted on the appropriate manner in which to proceed. Other species No further surveys to determine the presence of other protected species is required in this instance. However, should at any point during the development a protected or notable species be identified within the site, then all works should stop, and the appointed ecologist consulted on the appropriate manner in which to proceed.

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENTS Opportunities to include biodiversity enhancements within the proposed development and landscaping exist and in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF 2021 (as amended) and the South Bucks Core Strategy Adopted 2011, the following recommendations are considered appropriate for the site: •

In order to support Policy 9 of the Core Strategy, for new developments to provide opportunities to create and enhance wildlife habitats, it is recommended that integrated bird boxes are installed within the new structures. To maximise suitability, the boxes should be installed on sheltered aspects, at eaves height and preferably on north, northeast or north-west facing elevations.

•

Recommendations for incorporating enhancements for roosting bats would be best set out on completion of the above-recommended bat surveys but could include provision of integrated bat tubes or bat boxes.

•

Ornamental planting around the proposed building should comprise a variety of wildlifefriendly and native plant species, to enhance local flora and fauna and aid pollination locally.

•

To support the local invertebrate and pollinator populations, it is recommended that one to two insect hotels be installed within the site alongside the wildlife-friendly planting.

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

REFERENCES Bat Conservation Trust and the Institute of Lighting Professionals (BCT & ILP). (2018). Guidance Note 8; Bat and Artificial Lighting in the UK. https://www.theilp.org.uk/documents/guidance-note-8-bats-and-artificial-lighting/ Collins, J. (ed.) (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). Bat Conservation Trust, London. Eaton, M. A., et al. (2015). Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108. English Nature. (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. Peterborough English Nature. (2004). Reptile Mitigation Guidelines. Peterborough English Nature (2006). Dormouse Conservation Handbook. Peterborough Harris. S., Cresswell. P.s and Jefferies. D., (1989). Surveying Badgers. The Mammal Society. London. Herpetofauna groups of Britain and Ireland (HGBI). (1998). Evaluating Local Mitigation / Translocation Programmes: Maintaining Best Practice and Lawful Standards. Suffolk. JNCC. (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey; A Technique for Environmental Audit. Peterborough. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2021. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/740441/National_Planning_Policy_Framework_web_accessible_version.pdf Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/contents Protection of Badgers Act (1992). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/51 South Bucks Core Strategy – Adopted February 2011. https://www.southbucks.gov.uk/media/4196/South-Bucks-Core-Strategy-AdoptedFebruary-2011/pdf/South_Bucks_Core_Strategy_-_Adopted_February_2011.pdf Stace, C. (2019). New Flora of the British Isles (4th edn). C & M Floristics. Cambridge. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (Habitats Regulations) 2017 (as amended). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1012/contents/made Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended) 1981. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1377

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

Figures

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Site Boundary Fence Ephemeral / short perennial vegetation Introducted Shrub Hardstanding Building

Target Note

Job Reference : J2051 Project Title: Jordans Repeater Station Figure 1: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map Date : 09-08-2021

Checked : DL

Drawn : DL

Approved : N/A

Status : Final

Scale : NTS

Copyright - Greenspace Ecological Solu ons No dimensions are to be scaled from this drawing . All dimensions are to be checked on site. All measurements are for indica ve purposes only

Job Reference : J21051 Project Title: Jordans Repeater Station Figure 2: Tree Protection Measures Date : 11-11-20

Checked : GN

Drawn : MTR

Approved : N/A

Status : Final

Scale : NTS

Reproduced from BS5837:2012 with permission from BSI’ No dimensions are to be scaled from this drawing . All dimensions are to be checked on site. All measurements are for indica ve purposes only

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

Appendices

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

J21051 Rev A

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

APPENDIX A – PHOTOGRAPHS

Plate 1. B1 exterior.

Plate 2. B1 interior.

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

J21051 Rev A

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

Plate 3. Ephemeral short perennial vegetation adjacent to hardstanding.

Plate 4. Introduced shrub.

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

J21051 Rev A

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

APPENDIX B – Categories of Bat Roost Suitability Roost type Level of suitability

Summer Roost used by Non- Breeding Bats

Maternity Roost

Hibernation Roost

Confirmed roost

Presence of bats or evidence of bats identified. Confirmation of a roost will likely require further surveys.

High

Building/Structure or tree with multiple opportunities for one or more species of roosting bat. Optimal orientation. Good connectivity to optimal foraging habitats.

Moderate

Building/Structure for tree with some opportunities for roosting bats. Preferable orientation. Connectivity to moderate to high quality foraging habitat available.

Low

Building/Structure or tree with limited opportunities for roosting bats. Poor connectivity to foraging habitat.

Negligible

Building/Structure or tree with no or very limited opportunities for roosting bats. Little to no connectivity to foraging habitat

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Building/Structure or tree with multiple roosting opportunities for pregnant female bats and young pups. Optimal orientation. Good connectivity to optimal foraging habitats. Building/Structure or tree with some roosting opportunities for pregnant female bats and young pups. Good orientation. Good connectivity to moderate to high quality foraging habitats. Building/Structure or tree with limited opportunities for breeding bats. Poor connectivity to foraging habitat. Building/Structure or tree with no or very limited opportunities for breeding bats. Little to no connectivity to foraging habitat.

Building/Structure or tree that has suitable thermal stability and levels of humidity to support torpid bats throughout the winter months. Building/Structure or tree that has suitable thermal stability and levels of humidity to support torpid bats for some of the winter months. Moderate connectivity to suitable foraging areas. Building/Structure or tree with limited potential to support hibernating bats due to instable environmental conditions.

No suitable roosting opportunities for hibernating bats.

Proposed New Dwelling at Existing Repeater Station

J21051 Rev A

APPENDIX C – Minimum Number of Bat Surveys Required in Most Instances Negligible

Low roost suitability

Structures: 1 survey visit. 1 dusk emergence or pre-dawn re-entry surveya. Dusk emergence and/or pre-dawn re-entry surveys unlikely to be required.

To be conducted during May – August. Trees: Dusk emergence and/or pre-dawn reentry surveys unlikely to be required.

Moderate roost suitability

2 separate survey visits. 1 dusk emergence survey and 1 pre-dawn re-entry surveyb. To be conducted during May-September with at least one of the surveys May – August.

High roost suitability*

3 separate survey visits. At least 1 dusk emergence survey and a separate pre-dawn reentry survey. The third visit could be either a dusk or dawn surveyb. To be undertaken during May-September with at least two of the surveys between May and August.

Structures that have been categorised as low suitability can be problematic and the number of surveys required should be judged on a case by case basis. If there is a possibility that quiet calling, late-emerging species are present then a dawn survey may be more appropriate, providing weather conditions are suitable. In some cases, more than one survey may be needed, particularly where there are several buildings in this category. b

Multiple survey visits should be spread out to sample as much of the recommended survey period as possible; It is recommended that surveys are spaced out at least two weeks apart, preferably more. A dawn survey immediately after a dusk survey is considered one visit. If there is potential for a maternity colony, then consideration should be given to seasonal detectability and the ecologist should use their professional judgement to design the most appropriate survey regime. *For the purpose of this exercise a confirmed roost is considered under the criteria of ‘High roost suitability’

Greenspace Ecological Solutions Ltd

Appendix 4- Bat Survey

Client : Mr Sadozai Project : Former Jordans Repeater

Station, Potkiln Lane, Jordans, HP6 Drawing : Attachments & Appendix Scale :

Status : Planning

Date : 04/05/22

Dwg No : PL-DR-PR-XX-140

Rev :

Bat Survey Report Site: Jordans Telephone Repeater Station, Sandy Bottom Lodge, Pot Kiln Lane, Beaconsfield, HP9 2XB Ref: 21617/E Client: Pasoon Sadozai

(Mail) | 2nd Floor, 1 Hunters Walk, Canal Street, Chester, CH1 4EB 0333 123 7080 | info@indigosurveys.co.uk www.IndigoSurveys.co.uk

Author: Neil Musgrave BEng. (Hons)

Pasoon Sadozai | CLIENT Jordans Telephone Repeater Station, Sandy Bottom Lodge, Beaconsfield| SITE 21617/E| REF 26th June 2021| DATE

QUALITY CONTROL

Date

Version

Name

26.06.21

Daytime inspection

Neil Musgrave – BEng (Hons)

17.08.21

Report prepared

Neil Musgrave – BEng (Hons)

17.08.21

Checked

17.08.21

Reviewed and issued

Andy Warren – BSc (Hons), MA (LM), Tech Cert (Arbor A), MCIEEM, TechArborA

The information in this report has been prepared in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s (CIEEM) Code of Professional Conduct. The conclusions and recommendations expressed are reasoned judgements based on the evidence. Every reasonable attempt has been made to comply with BS42020:2013 Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development, CIEEM Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing (CIEEM, 2017) and Bat Conservation Trust’s Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edition, Collins, 2016). If there has been deviation from recognised practice, justification/explanation has been given.

PAGE | 2 of 13

Pasoon Sadozai | CLIENT Jordans Telephone Repeater Station, Sandy Bottom Lodge, Beaconsfield| SITE 21617/E| REF 26th June 2021| DATE

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.

SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................4 1.

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................5

METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................6

RESULTS ....................................................................................................8 3.1

Nocturnal Emergence Survey ........................................................................... 8

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................10

REFERENCES .........................................................................................11

APPENDICES .....................................................................................................11 Appendix 1: Location plan ......................................................................................... 12 Appendix 2: Site layout .............................................................................................. 13

PAGE | 3 of 13

Pasoon Sadozai | CLIENT Jordans Telephone Repeater Station, Sandy Bottom Lodge, Beaconsfield| SITE 21617/E| REF 26th June 2021| DATE

SUMMARY At Jordans Telephone Repeater Station, Sandy Bottom Lodge on Pot Kiln Lane in Beaconsfield, planning permission is being sought to demolish the existing buildings and replace them with a new dwelling. As this could impact on features typically used by bats as roosting places, a Preliminary Roost Assessment was undertaken, with the result that: “The building was assessed as having low potential to support roosting bats. This is in part due to the ancient woodland adjacent but ultimately because there are suitable access features. Therefore, in line with best practice guidance the building requires one dusk or dawn survey visit. The potential features identified were a raised ridge tile and small gaps behind the fasciae at the north of the building.” In June 2021 Indigo Surveys were instructed to undertake the nocturnal survey, this carried out on the evening of 26th June 2021. During the survey no bats emerged from the Telephone Repeater Station, but one or two Common Pipistrelles Pipistrellus pipistrellus were recorded flying around and over the site. With no bats recorded emerging from the building, Jordans Telephone Repeater Station has not been identified as a bat roost, and as such no further surveys or mitigation measures are required.

PAGE | 4 of 13

Pasoon Sadozai | CLIENT Jordans Telephone Repeater Station, Sandy Bottom Lodge, Beaconsfield| SITE 21617/E| REF 26th June 2021| DATE

INTRODUCTION

At Jordans Telephone Repeater Station, Sandy Bottom Lodge on Pot Kiln Lane in Beaconsfield, planning permission is being sought to demolish the existing buildings and replace them with a new dwelling. A Preliminary Roost Assessment was undertaken, with the result that the suitability for roosting pipistrelles was considered low. As such a nocturnal survey was undertaken on the evening of 26th June 2021. The result of the survey is contained in this report. In England, Scotland and Wales, all bat species are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) (as amended), through inclusion in Schedule 5. In England and Wales this Act has been amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW), which adds an extra offence, makes species offences arrestable, increases the time limits for some prosecutions, and increases penalties. All bats are also included in Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994, (or Northern Ireland 1995) (the Habitats Regulations), which defines ‘European protected species of animals’. The above legislation can be summarised thus (Mitchell-Jones and McLeish, 2004): ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Intentionally or deliberately kill, injure or capture (or take) bats Deliberately disturb bats (whether in a roost or not) Recklessly disturb roosting bats or obstruct access to their roosts Damage or destroy roosts Possess or transport a bat or any part of a part of a bat, unless acquired legally Sell (or offer for sale) or exchange bats, or parts of bats

The word ‘roost’ is not used in the legislation but is used here for simplicity. The actual wording is ‘any structure or place which any wild animal…uses for shelter or protection’ (WCA), or ‘breeding site or resting place’ (Habitats Regulations). As bats generally have both a winter and a summer roost, the legislation is clear that all roosts are protected whether bats are in residence at the time or not.

PAGE | 5 of 13

SITE IMAGE: SHOWING FRONT ELEVATION

SITE IMAGE: SHOWING FRONT 0F RHS EAVES & FRONT VERGE

SITE IMAGE: SHOWING RHS EAVES

SITE IMAGE: SHOWING FRONT VERGE

SITE IMAGE: SHOWING UNDERSIDE OF EAVES

SITE IMAGE: SHOWING UNDERSIDE OF LHS EAVES

SITE IMAGE: SHOWING REAR VERGE

SITE IMAGE: INTERNAL CEILING BOARDED UP.

SITE IMAGE: INTERNAL CEILING BOARD & LOCKED DOOR

SITE IMAGE: INTERNAL CEILING BOARD

SITE IMAGE: INTERNAL CEILING BOARD & LOCKED DOOR

SITE IMAGE: SHOWING RHS EAVES TOWARD REAR

SITE IMAGE: SHOWING NO GAPS BETWEEN TILES.

SITE IMAGE: SHOWING NO GAPS BETWEEN TILES & RIDGE

Pasoon Sadozai | CLIENT Jordans Telephone Repeater Station, Sandy Bottom Lodge, Beaconsfield| SITE 21617/E| REF 26th June 2021| DATE

METHODOLOGY

In order to fully assess bat occupation of a particular site, the Bat Conservation Trust (2016) recommends that information gathered from a desk study of known bat records, and a daytime site walkover, is used to inform the type and extent of future bat survey work, potentially including nocturnal surveys. The diurnal walkover provides an opportunity to check for signs of occupancy, such as droppings, scratch marks, feeding remains, carcasses, or even animals in residence, whilst nocturnal surveys (if required) allow numbers and species of bats to be confirmed. The latter are also used to determine the presence or absence of bats, where signs of bat activity are indeterminate or absent, but suitability of roosting is considered to be medium to high. Roosting places vary depending on the species. Pipistrelles usually inhabit narrow cracks or cavities around the outside of buildings, but they will roost in similar niches inside larger barns. Typical sites include soffit spaces, gaps behind fascia boards and end rafters, crevices around the ends of projecting purlins, under warped or lifted roof and ridge tiles, or in gaps in stone and brickwork where mortar has dropped out. Larger species such as Brown Long-eared Bats Plecotus auritus, Myotis bats (Natterer’s Myotis nattereri and Whiskered/Brandt’s M. mystacinus/M. brandtii), and Lesser Horseshoe Bats Rhinolophus hipposideros, like to roost in the roof voids of buildings, and can often be found hanging singly or in small groups from ridge boards or roof timbers, especially where these butt up against gable walls or chimney breasts. They especially favour older structures with timber frames. Here they squeeze into tight crevices making them difficult to observe. Diurnal walkovers can be carried out at any time of the year, but nocturnal surveys should only be undertaken when bats are out of hibernation and in their summer roosts. The recommended period is from May to September inclusive, with May to August optimum and September sub-optimum. The season can be extended into October, although particularly cold weather will render this inadvisable. Indeed, the air temperature at the start of each survey must be at least 10°C or above. Visits will be a minimum of two weeks apart, and the number of surveys is dependent on the evidence found or the suitability of the site to bats. Where bats are found, or there is evidence of bat occupation or activity, i.e. that bat use is confirmed, the number and timing of visits will be decided by the ecologist and will be appropriate for the type of roost. In general, at least two nocturnal surveys will be carried out, both of which can be emergence surveys, or one emergence and one dawn re-entry. Where there is no evidence of bat presence, and no suitability for roosting, no nocturnal surveys will be needed.

PAGE | 6 of 13

Pasoon Sadozai | CLIENT Jordans Telephone Repeater Station, Sandy Bottom Lodge, Beaconsfield| SITE 21617/E| REF 26th June 2021| DATE

For a site with no evidence but low suitability, just one nocturnal emergence survey is required, this to be in the optimum period. For medium suitability a minimum of two visits are needed, of which one must be in the optimum period, and one must be a dawn re-entry survey. With high suitability, three visits will be necessary, of which two must be in the optimum period. At least one of these must be a dawn reentry survey, with the third visit either an emergence or a dawn re-entry. For sites < 5 ha in size, and/or regularly shaped structures, at least two surveyors must be present, with more surveyors at larger sites and more complex buildings, e.g. those with multiple elevations and/or roof structures. On the evening of 26th June 2021, a nocturnal emergence survey of Jordans Telephone Repeater Station was undertaken by Neil Musgrave (Natural England bat licence No. 2020-44602-CLSCLS) and assistant, to confirm the presence or absence of roosting bats. The emergence survey began 15 minutes before and continued for approximately one and half hours after sunset. The surveyors were aided using electronic Echo Meter Touch bat detectors and iPads. The result of the nocturnal survey is detailed in Section 3.

PAGE | 7 of 13

Pasoon Sadozai | CLIENT Jordans Telephone Repeater Station, Sandy Bottom Lodge, Beaconsfield| SITE 21617/E| REF 26th June 2021| DATE

RESULTS

3.1 Nocturnal Emergence Survey The emergence survey was carried out on 26th June 2021, commencing at 21:10 and finishing at 22:50. The weather conditions during the time of the survey were recorded and are presented in Table 1. Parameter Temperature (ºC) Cloud cover (%) Precipitation Wind speed (Beaufort scale) Sunset

Value 17.0 start; 16.5 finish 250 None 0 21:25

Table 1 Weather conditions during the nocturnal survey One or two Common Pipistrelles flew around and over the site. No bats emerged from the Telephone Repeater Station. The times of bat observations and detections are shown below. Time

Observation

21:44

Common Pipistrelle flew to the northeast of the site

21:48

Common Pipistrelle flew to the northeast of the site

22:06

Common Pipistrelle flew to the northwest of the site

22:09-22:11

Common Pipistrelle flew up and down the northeast of the site

22:15-22:17

Common Pipistrelle flew up and down the northeast of the site

22:22

Common Pipistrelle flew up the road on other side of the road

22:24

Common Pipistrelle flew over the site from the south

22:37

Common Pipistrelle flew to the northeast of the site

22:50

No further observations or detections and survey ended

The bat flight paths at emergence are shown on Plan 1 overleaf.

PAGE | 8 of 13

Pasoon Sadozai | CLIENT Jordans Telephone Repeater Station, Sandy Bottom Lodge, Beaconsfield| SITE 21617/E| REF 26th June 2021| DATE

Plan 1 Bat flight paths at emergence on 26th June 2021

Jordans Telephone Repeater Station Common Pipistrelle Bats Positions of observers

PAGE | 9 of 13

Pasoon Sadozai | CLIENT Jordans Telephone Repeater Station, Sandy Bottom Lodge, Beaconsfield| SITE 21617/E| REF 26th June 2021| DATE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Bats tend to be seasonal visitors to properties and are not usually in occupation all year round. The females normally form maternity colonies during May or June and then leave for adjacent trees and/or woodland during July or August once the young bats are able to fly and become independent. Here they will spend the winter months in hibernation before returning to the house or barn the following spring. Male bats generally live alone and have a number of favoured roosts. During the summer they visit each of these for a few days at a time, before moving to their chosen hibernation site in midlate October. Different species have different habits, but this seasonal movement is common to all. Bats choose their roosts carefully. During the summer they look for sites which are warmed by the sun, and as a result are most often found on the south and western side of buildings. Pipistrelles, our smallest and commonest bats, prefer to roost in very confined spaces around the outside of buildings, typical places being behind hanging tiles, weather boarding, soffit, barge and eave boarding, between roof felt and roof tiles or in cavity walls. As such they can be difficult to find, so the suitability for roosting was also assessed. This was considered to be low for the Telephone Repeater Station, but the absence of roosting pipistrelles was confirmed by the nocturnal survey, when no bats were recorded emerging from the building, although one or two Common Pipistrelles were noted flying round and over the site. With no bats recorded emerging from the building, Jordans Telephone Repeater Station has not been identified as a bat roost, and as such no further surveys or mitigation measures are required.

PAGE | 10 of 13

Pasoon Sadozai | CLIENT Jordans Telephone Repeater Station, Sandy Bottom Lodge, Beaconsfield| SITE 21617/E| REF 26th June 2021| DATE

REFERENCES

Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines. (3rd edn). Bat Conservation Trust, London. English Nature, 2004. Bat mitigation guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough. Mitchell-Jones A. J. & McLeish, 2004. Bat Workers’ Manual. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Russ, J., 1999. The Bats of Britain and Ireland. Echolocation Calls, Sound Analysis and Species Identification. Alana Ecology Ltd., UK. Stebbings R.E., 1986. Which bat is it? The Mammal Society and The Vincent Wildlife Trust, London. The Vincent Wildlife Trust, 2003. The Bats of Britain and Ireland. The Vincent Wildlife Trust, Ledbury.

APPENDICES Appendix 1:

Location plan

Appendix 2:

Site layout

PAGE | 11 of 13

Pasoon Sadozai | CLIENT Jordans Telephone Repeater Station, Sandy Bottom Lodge, Beaconsfield| SITE 21617/E| REF 26th June 2021| DATE

Appendix 1: Location plan

Jordans Telephone Repeater Station, Sandy Bottom Lodge, Pot Kiln Lane, Beaconsfield

PAGE | 12 of 13

Pasoon Sadozai | CLIENT Jordans Telephone Repeater Station, Sandy Bottom Lodge, Beaconsfield| SITE 21617/E| REF 26th June 2021| DATE

Appendix 2: Site layout

Jordans Telephone Repeater Station

PAGE | 13 of 13