Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea bat survey report 2010 · Pearce (Licence Number: 20101149...

The London Bat Group is a registered charity no: 1068048

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea bat survey report 2010

Report for: Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

Prepared by: London Bat Group

Date: March 2011

Reference No:

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Bat Survey March 2011

2

Content

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 3

1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Description of survey area .................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Summary of the bat survey ................................................................................................................... 6

1.4 Rationale for the bat survey .................................................................................................................. 6

1.5 Experience of bat surveyors .................................................................................................................. 7

2 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Data search ........................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Habitat Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Bat activity transect surveys ................................................................................................................. 9

3 Results ............................................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Data Search ......................................................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Habitat assessment ............................................................................................................................. 14

3.3 Bat activity transect surveys ............................................................................................................... 17

3.4 Site descriptions and analysis ............................................................................................................. 20

3.5 Comparison with the 1994 surveys ..................................................................................................... 27

4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 29

5 Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 30

5.1 Bat roosting habitat ............................................................................................................................ 30

5.2 Bat foraging habitat ............................................................................................................................ 30

5.3 Bat commuting habitat ....................................................................................................................... 30

5.4 Lighting ................................................................................................................................................ 31

5.5 Enhancements ..................................................................................................................................... 31

6 References ......................................................................................................................... 32

7 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 33


3

Executive Summary

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea commissioned the London Bat Group to undertake bat surveys at nine sites within the Borough.

The objectives of the project were to design a methodology for a quantified bat survey to be repeated every seven years; establish the species diversity present at each site; record the distribution of bats in the borough owned / managed sites; and make appropriate site specific recommendations for habitat improvements which may be undertaken to benefit bat populations.

A survey transect was mapped out for each site to ensure consistency of recording when repeating the surveys in future. The transects were divided into listening stations interspersed with walks. Species encountered were identified and number of passes counted on each walk and at each listening station. The surveys were carried out using heterodyne detectors with frequency division detectors and digital recorders also used to enable post-survey sound analysis for the purpose of species verification.

Each site was surveyed in May, July and September 2010.

Two species were recorded on the surveys: common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and soprano pipistrelle P. pygmaeus.

Common pipistrelle was recorded at all nine sites, while soprano pipistrelle was only recorded at four sites. Three sites had no bats recorded on at least one survey.

A data search produced additional records from within or just adjacent to the borough for six further species or species groups: brown long-eared bat, Leisler’s bat, Myotis sp., Nathusius’ pipistrelle, noctule, and serotine. None of these records were from any of the nine study sites with the exception of brown long-eared bat which was last recorded in Holland Park in 1994.

Four of the sites had evidence of active bat roosts adjacent to the site.

Several of the sites were identified as having good habitat features for bats, including open water, mature trees, hedgerows and dark areas. These should be retained and enhanced where possible.

Lighting was identified as the most significant issue likely to be reducing the value of these sites for bats. Other issues included high proportions of amenity grassland and hardstanding within some of the sites, and a lack of linear features, mature trees and open water.


4

1 Introduction

1.1 Background 1.1.1 A bat survey of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea was completed by the London

Bat Group in 1994 to establish which species were present in the borough. Two species, brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus and pipistrelle Pipistellus pipistellus, were recorded.

1.1.2 Since 1996, a number of educational events have been organised including bat walks and talks, bat boxes have been installed in Holland Park and some additional ad hoc bat surveys have been undertaken. However, no systematic work has been completed in recent years.

1.1.3 The London Bat Group was commissioned by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) in April 2010 to undertake bat surveys at nine sites: Holland Park, Avondale Park, Little Wormwood Scrubs, Emslie Horniman Garden, Athlone Gardens, Kensington Memorial Park, Westfield Park, Cremorne Gardens and St. Luke’s Garden, which are currently owned and managed by their Ecology Service.

1.1.4 The purpose of the surveys was to:

• design a methodology for a quantified bat survey to be repeated every seven years;

• establish bat species diversity present at each site;

• record the distribution of bats in the borough owned/managed sites; and

• make site specific recommendations for habitat improvements that may be undertaken to benefit bat populations.

1.2 Description of survey area 1.2.1 The survey area comprised nine sites that are located within the Royal Borough of

Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) in London (Appendix 1, Plan 1). The sites are owned and managed by the RBKC. They provide public amenity space and are typically open daily to the public between 7:30am until dusk. A summary of the location, size and key habitats associated with each site is provided in Table 1.

1.2.2 Five sites, Holland Park, Avondale Park, Little Wormwood Scrubs, Emslie Horniman Garden and Kensington Memorial Park, are designated as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation. Where applicable, site specific grades of designation are presented in Table 1.

1.2.3 Metropolitan Sites are those which contain the best examples of London’s habitats. These sites are of strategic significance and are of the highest priority against loss or damage.

1.2.4 Sites of Borough Importance Grade I & II are important in the context of the Borough. The nature conservation quality of these sites varies considerably. These sites are therefore graded as I & II in relation to their quality.

1.2.5 Sites of Local Importance are local sites which do not qualify on their intrinsic nature conservation quality for either of the categories described in Sections 1.2.4 and 1.2.5, but may be of particular value to the local community and to schools.


5

Table 1: Description of the survey sites

Site Name Grid Reference

Area in Hectares

Key habitat types Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (Grade)

Holland Park 22 Non-native-broadleaved woodland, native broadleaved woodland, planted shrubbery, scattered trees, amenity grassland, semi-improved neutral grassland, standing water, and ornamental gardens.

Site of Metropolitan Importance

Avondale Park 1.4 Formal gardens, children’s play areas, a small wildlife area, which includes semi-improved neutral grassland, scrub and a small pond, amenity grassland and a modern multi-usage games area for 5-a-side football, netball and tennis.

Site of Local Importance

Little Wormwood Scrubs

8.8 Amenity grassland, semi-improved neutral grassland, scrub, scattered trees and woodland. An adventure playground with an adjoining One o' Clock club is located on the west side of the park and a smaller toddlers playground is located on the east side. Little Wormwood Scrubs is a Site of Nature Conservation Importance. The large area of semi-improved neutral grassland has a good range of grasses which supports a diverse number of invertebrates such as grasshoppers, butterflies and ants. The scrubland, consisting of young bramble, hawthorn and the semi-mature woodland, creates a habitat mosaic that provides an abundance of nesting and feeding areas for birds and mammals.


Emslie Horniman Garden

1.4 Amenity grassland, ornamental planting (The formal Voysey Garden), children’s play area, an all-weather floodlit sports area, changing rooms.


Athlone Gardens 2.2 Amenity grassland, mature/semi-mature trees and shrubs, ornamental planting, a children's playground. There is a floodlit hard play area located adjacent to the site.

None

Kensington Memorial Park

2.6 Amenity grassland, formal ornamental gardens, scattered trees and shrubs, water play area, buildings (toilet and changing room facilities), an adventure playground, provision for: tennis, football, junior cricket and One O'clock club.


Westfield Park 1 Amenity grassland, scattered mature/semi-mature trees, shrub, ornamental planting , Buildings (toilet block) and children’s play area

None

Cremorne Gardens

1 Amenity grassland, scattered trees and shrubs, ornamental gardens/planting, buildings and hard-standing

None

St. Luke’s Gardens

1.5 Amenity grassland, ornamental planting which includes flower beds, trees and shrubs, children's playground and Multi-Use-Games-Area.

None


6

1.3 Summary of the bat survey 1.3.1 An assessment of the value of the nine sites for bats was completed between the 8th May and

18th September 2010. This comprised daytime walkover surveys and habitat assessments, and three dusk bat activity transect surveys of each site. A data search was made of all known bat records within the borough,

1.3.2 The survey followed the methodology outlined in the Bat Conservation Trust (2007) Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines and The Bat Conservation Trust National Bat Monitoring programme Field Survey techniques (Bat Conservation Trust 2001). The surveys complied with guidance produced by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management Survey Methods with respect to bats (http://www.ieem.net/mammals.asp).

1.4 Rationale for the bat survey 1.4.1 The surveys will contribute to achieving the aims and objectives described within the Local

Biodiversity Action Plan 2010/2011 – 2014/2015, notably:

• To audit and monitor the ecological status of habitats and species, by carrying out focused biodiversity surveys and monitoring key indicators for species and habitats.

• To protect and enhance the borough’s biodiversity resource, by improving the quality of the local environment through practical management, habitat creation and protection of important wildlife sites.

1.4.2 Specific ‘Targets’ and ‘Actions’ that are described within the Survey and Management Section of the LBAP would be delivered. These are described in Table 2 and 3 below.

Table 2: Key targets described within the Survey and Management section of the Local Biodiversity Action Plan that would be delivered

Target Code

Description of target Species/Habitats Goal Date Sites

SM01 To establish baseline data for primary parks and maintain a programme for reporting on biodiversity within the borough

All habitats 9 sites 31st March 2015

Primary Parks

SM02 Establish survey programme of important ecological features within the borough.

Mammals, birds, vegetation, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates

9 sites 31st March 2015

RBKC

Table 3: Key Actions described within the Survey and Management section of the Local Biodiversity Action Plan that would be delivered

Action Code

Description of Action Goal Start date/End Date

Site

S01.01 Carry out quantified bat surveys of all primary parks in RBKC every 7 years to monitor bat species populations

9 sites 01/04/2010 – 31/03/2015

Primary Parks

http://www.ieem.net/mammals.asp�


7

1.5 Experience of bat surveyors 1.5.1 The daytime site assessments were carried out by Natural England Bat Licensee Huma

Pearce (Licence Number: 20101149) and experienced bat ecologists Philip Briggs and Richard Bullock.

1.5.2 The bat activity transect surveys were led by Philip Briggs and Richard Bullock.

1.5.3 Philip Briggs has over nine years of bat survey experience during which time he has carried out over 150 bat surveys. He co-wrote a paper on trends in London's bat populations which was published in the London Naturalist in 2007. Since 2003 he has worked for the Bat Conservation Trust where he manages the National Bat Monitoring Programme and delivers training in bat identification and survey techniques.

1.5.4 Richard Bullock has over fifteen years of bat transect survey experience. He has overseen bat monitoring at the WWT London Wetland Centre since 1996, which has included the discovery of London’s third ever record of the nationally rare Nathusius’ pipistrelle in September 1999. He has co-authored a paper on trends in London’s bat populations, published in The London Naturalist in 2007. He has also been involved with an overseas project in 1992 with Action Comores and Jersey Zoo concerning the Globally Endangered Livingstone’s Fruit Bat.

1.5.5 Huma Pearce has five years experience of bat survey and mitigation work. She has worked as a consultant ecologist specialising in bats since April 2007 and prior to this as an Assistant Conservation Officer for Natural England where her principal role was to review protected species planning case-work and European Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) licence applications.

1.5.6 An extensive list of London Bat Group members and other local volunteers assisted with the surveys. A full list of survey assistants is given in the acknowledgements at the end of this report.


8

2 Methodology

2.1 Data search 2.1.1 A data search of all known bat records (roosts and foraging/commuting records) within a

rectangular search area encompassing the borough (between grid refs TQ228765 - TQ287829) was completed by London Bat Group’s Records Officer, Jackie Wedd.

2.2 Habitat Assessment 2.2.1 A daytime walkover survey was undertaken at each site to assess the potential value of the

habitats present for roosting, foraging and commuting bats. Aerial photographs were also used as part of the assessment. The surveys were all completed during May 2010. Full details of the survey dates and the weather conditions reported during the assessments are summarised in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Dates and weather conditions reported during the daytime habitat surveys.

Site Name Date of survey Weather conditions

Holland Park 8th May 2010 Cloudy, breezy, drizzle, cool

Avondale Park 19th May 2010 Cloudy, light wind, dry, 16°c

Little Wormwood Scrubs 8th May 2010 Cloudy, breezy, drizzle, cool

Emslie Horniman Garden 8th May 2010 Cloudy, breezy, drizzle, cool

Athlone Gardens 8th May 2010 Cloudy, breezy, drizzle, cool

Kensington Memorial Park 8th May 2010 Cloudy, breezy, drizzle, cool

Westfield Park 18th May 2010 Patchy cloud, calm, dry, 15°c

Cremorne Gardens 18th May 2010 Patchy cloud, calm, dry, 15°c

St. Luke’s Gardens 19th May 2010 Cloudy, calm, dry, 16°c

2.2.2 Potential roosting habitat includes built structures, underground sites and trees that supported suitable access to cavity and crevice features. The identification of potential roost features was completed using close focusing binoculars and any signs of use or potential to support roosting bats was noted.

2.2.3 The value of the site to foraging bats was assessed according to the occurrence of habitats that typically support high insect biomass such as edge and mosaic habitats, sheltered habitat features, broadleaved trees, hedgerows, grazed pasture, parkland and aquatic habitats.

2.2.4 Potential bat commuting habitat included linear features such as hedgerows, treelines and rivers. Connectivity within the site and between the site and the surrounding area was noted.


9

2.3 Bat activity transect surveys Transect Routes

2.3.1 Three dusk bat activity transect surveys were completed at each of the nine sites during May, July and September 2010. The transect routes were mapped during daytime field surveys (May 2010). Transect maps for each site are provided in Appendix 2.

2.3.2 The transect methodology was modelled on a long-running technique used since 1996 at the WWT London Wetland Centre in Barnes (Briggs, Bullock & Tovey, 2007), which based itself on the methodology of the National Bat Monitoring Programme Field Survey (Bat Conservation Trust, 2001). This involves mapping out a transect that samples as much of the site as possible, with a focus on linear features, trees, water and other habitats that are likely to be utilised by bats. Each route was divided into twelve sections or “walks” interspersed with twelve ‘Listening Stations’. Listening Stations were regularly spaced along the transect routes and typically they were located at or along notable bat habitat features.

2.3.3 In order to make the surveys more time- and cost-effective, small sites in close proximity to each other were combined into one transect. For ease of description, each transect route was assigned a Transect Code. Sites that were included within each transect route are shown in Table 5.

2.3.4 Where several sites were combined, most survey time was spent within the specified sites but the adjoining routes between sites were also included. It was hoped that data collected during brief walks between sites would identify any bat roosts and commuting routes associated with the sites.

2.3.5 Mapping of the transect routes ensured consistency between the surveys completed during 2010. Furthermore, the transect routes could be easily followed during future monitoring surveys of the sites and thus should enable meaningful comparisons to be made of the species composition, distribution and abundance between years.

Table 5: Sites included within each transect route

Transect Route Name of sites Dates of survey

RBKC 1 Holland Park 16th May 2010

9th July 2010

16th September 2010

RBKC 2 Avondale Park 19th May 2010

9th July 2010

16th September 2010

RBKC 3 Little Wormwood Scrubs 17th May 2010

15th July 2010

17th September 2010

RBKC 4 Emslie Horniman Garden 17th May 2010


10

Athlone Gardens


11th July 2010

17th September 2010

RBKC 5 Westfield Park

Cremorne Gardens

18th May 2010

13th July 2010

18th September 2010

RBKC 6 St. Luke's Gardens 19th May 2010

13th July 2010

18th September 2010

Timing of surveys

2.3.6 The bat activity surveys at each site were undertaken at two-monthly intervals, and comprised three dusk surveys at each site during May, July and September. Survey dates for each transect route are presented in Table 5.

2.3.7 Survey dates were selected within two week periods based around the following new moon dates: Friday 14th May 2010, Sunday 11th July 2010, Wednesday 8th September 2010. These survey periods were chosen in order to eliminate the possibility of reduced bat activity around full moon phases. This plan proved possible for the May and July surveys, while the September surveys were a week later than planned due to poor weather conditions.

2.3.8 Surveys commenced at sunset and continued for approximately 1.5 - 2 hours. A ten minute listening stop occurred at the start of each transect in order to listen for early emerging species such as noctule. Surveyors began walking transects at ten minutes after sunset.

Collection of bat activity data

2.3.9 A minimum of two surveyors were employed for each of the bat activity transect surveys in order to comply with health and safety regulations. At least one of the surveyors named in Sections 1.5.3 and 1.5.4 were present during all surveys.

2.3.10 All surveyors were equipped with a bat detector. A combination of heterodyne (Pettersson D100, BatBox III) and frequency division (Bat Box Duet, Bat Box Baton) bat detector were used during all surveys. Anabats were also used on occasion.

2.3.11 At least two heterodyne bat detectors were used during all surveys. One detector was tuned to a default setting of 25 kHz in order to target bigger bat species that tend to emit calls at lower frequencies. The other detector was set to a default tuning of 50 kHz in order to target smaller bat species that typically emit calls around this frequency. When bats were heard the detectors were tuned up and down in order to identify the species more precisely. Where possible, all bat species were identified using this method and the numbers of passes encountered during each walk and at each listening station were counted.

2.3.12 Data collected using heterodyne detectors were also supplemented by recordings made from BatBox Duet and BatBox Baton frequency division detectors linked to digital recorders. Anabats which have an in-built recording system were also used on some surveys.

2.3.13 A series of 24 sound files were generated for each transect on any given survey night. Each


11

sound file comprised recordings from one walk or one listening station. The purpose of this was to assist with the management and storage of the large data files and to make the data analysis more efficient.

2.3.14 Recordings were analysed using BatSound, TF32 or Analook software in order to verify species identification. Each walk and listening station recording was split into 5 second samples using WaveSplitter software and sonogram analysis was carried out on each sample and species presence was logged. The number of samples with species present was totalled for each walk and listening station on each survey. Anabat bat detectors automatically produce files of 15 seconds in length, so when these were used species presence was logged for each of the three five second intervals within each file generated.

GPS mapping of bat contacts

2.3.15 GPS data were collected for each transect, with the GPS units set to record data every two seconds. Precise matches were made between GPS data points and the corresponding listening stations. Approximate matches were made between GPS data points and the five-second survey recordings between stopping points by counting the number of samples in each survey walk and using the filter option in Garmin MapSource to cut the GPS data down to the same number of GPS data points at approximately equal intervals.

2.3.16 This approach was needed because GPS devices were not available on every survey evening and therefore GPS data were collected once for each transect and then adapted to match the bat data collected on each survey. For example, Walk 1 at Holland Park on 16th May produced 46 five-second sound files so the GPS data were filtered to retain 46 GPS data points at approximately equal intervals (typically around 4-6 metres). On the 9th July the survey team walked marginally more quickly and 44 five-second sound files were produced on Walk 1, so 44 approximately equally spaced GPS data points were needed to roughly match up to each sound file.

2.3.17 Using this methodology, the bat data could be plotted using Dmap software. Each resulting map was saved as an image file, then edited in Photoshop to create a transparent layer that was placed on top of a habitat map of the relevant site. Listening stations were also marked on the Dmap layer to enable correct positioning over the site map. Cross-checking against survey forms and consultations with the relevant surveyors confirmed that the species records were correctly positioned on each map. These maps are shown in Appendix 3.

2.3.18 A word of caution is needed about the precision of the coordinates for each individual bat record given the approximation of the data matches which do not take into account surveyors speeding up or slowing down at specific points along the route. Furthermore, the coordinates indicate where the surveyors were standing when a bat was recorded and not precisely where the bat was flying, which could be 10-20 metres away for a pipistrelle heard faintly on a bat detector.

2.3.19 However, clusters of records will give a reasonably accurate visual impression of the activity hot spots and, as mentioned above, the maps were checked and verified by the surveyors.

2.3.20 GPS accuracy is also a factor that needs to be taken into account. On the whole this was good, the error being within 6m as many of the parks were open and impact from buildings was limited. The exception was St. Luke’s Gardens, where error was around 10 metres on a few occasions


12

3 Results

3.1 Data Search 3.1.1 A data search of all bat records within the borough held by London Bat Group was completed

by the group’s Records Officer, Jackie Wedd. The data search was based on a rectangular search area encompassing the borough (between grid refs TQ228765 - TQ287829).

3.1.2 The complete results of the data search are presented on a map in Appendix 4. The records from outside the borough show concentrations of records around water bodies which are all marked on the map. The map clearly indicates that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has a much lower proportion of this habitat than is present in some of the surrounding boroughs.

3.1.3 The results of the data search were filtered to only include records from within the borough or just outside the borough (within the 1km squares that include the borough boundary). These data are summarised in Table 6 below.

3.1.4 A total of nine bat roosts were identified related to the following species: common pipistrelle Pipistellus pipistellus (4 roosts), soprano pipistrelle P. pygmaeus (2 roosts), noctule Nyctalus noctula (1 roost), Leisler’s bat N. leisleri (1 roost) and an unconfirmed species from the family Vespertillionidae (1 roost).

3.1.5 A total of 150 bat flight records were generated from the data search which referred to bat records obtained between 1985 and 2010. These included Pipistellus sp., common pipistrelle, soprano pipistelle, Nathusius’ pipistelle P. nathusii, noctule, Leisler’s bat, unidentified Myotis sp, and unidentified bats from the family Vespertillionidae.

Table 6: Summary of the London Bat Group data search species records from within or just outside the borough boundary together with species conservation status

Species Conservation status (from Battersby, 2005, with London status added where this differs from UK status)

No of records from data search

Roost records

Flight records

Bat sp 1 6

Brown long-eared bat

Native, common. A woodland species that also roosts preferentially in large loft spaces. Vulnerable to woodland loss and fragmentation and potential conflicts with owners of dwellings. Priority species in UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

Relatively scarce in London where it is largely confined to darker wooded areas.

0 1

Common pipistrelle

Native, common across the UK. Colonies largely found in buildings so particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic factors such as disturbance, timber treatment and building renovation.

4 45

Leisler's bat Native, widespread, scarce in GB, common in Northern Ireland.

Regularly recorded in London in recent years.

1 4

Myotis sp Likely species within London include:

Daubenton’s bat Native, common throughout much of the UK. This species is a good

0 2


13

indicator of riparian habitat management and water quality.

Natterer’s bat Native, fairly common throughout much of the UK. Requirements of this species are largely unknown, but it is probably subject to the same threats as other bat species, i.e. the loss of roost sites, foraging habitats and insect prey. Possibly particularly associated with old large stone buildings with large timbers, where renovation could be a threat.

Scarce in London where it is largely confined to darker wooded areas.

Nathusius' pipistrelle

Native, rare. A relatively recent discovery as a resident species in the UK, little is known about populations of this species.

Regularly recorded in London in recent years.

0 11

Noctule Native, generally uncommon, but more numerous in well wooded areas. The noctule is a tree-dwelling species, often roosting in large colonies in the hollow trunks or branches of old or dead trees. Vulnerable to the loss of suitable roost sites through woodland management. Priority species in UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

Once common in London but has shown a marked decline over the last ten years.

1 9

Pipistrelle sp See common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle. 0 28

Serotine Native, widespread in southern Britain. Roosts almost exclusively in buildings so is particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic factors, such as building renovation and timber treatment. May also rely on cattle pastures for insect prey at certain times of the reproductive cycle and so management of agricultural land is an important consideration.

0 1

Soprano pipistrelle

Native, common across the UK. Appears to be more reliant on aquatic habitats than the common pipistrelle. The soprano pipistrelle also roosts preferentially in buildings, but tends to form larger colonies than the common pipistrelle. This may increase the threat from human interactions, because of potential conflicts with occupants of dwellings. Priority species in UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

2 43

3.1.6 Several of the flight records were reported from within the survey sites selected for the present study. These included bat species Pipistellus sp, soprano pipistelle, brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus and unidentified species from the family Vespertillionidae. Details of these records are summarised in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Records generated from the data search which related to the survey site

Species (common name)

Species (scientific name)

Site Name Grid reference

Date

Soprano pipistelle Pipistellus pygmaeus Holland Park TQ247798 May 2009



Pipistrelle bat Pipistellus sp Holland Park TQ247797 August 1994

Pipistrelle bat Pipistrelus sp Little Wormwood Scrubs

TQ231819 August 1994


14

Pipistrelle bat Pipistrellus sp Emslie Horniman Garden

TQ244822 August 1994

Pipistrelle bat Pipistrellus sp Holland Park TQ247797 August 1994

Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus Holland Park TQ247797 June 1994

Bat Vespertillionidae Holland Park TQ247797 1985 Bat Vespertillionidae Holland Park TQ47797 1985

3.2 Habitat assessment 3.2.1 The results of the habitat assessments that were completed at the nine sites during May 2010

are presented in Table 8 below. Key features within the site that offered potential roosting foraging and commuting habitat for bats are noted.

3.2.2 Factors such as sources of light spillage are included. Light pollution can exclude nocturnal species from areas (Royal Commission On Environmental Pollution, 2009). The Commission reported on the nuisance caused by badly designed lighting and the effects of artificial light on nature and ecosystems. It concluded that there was an urgent need for government to recognise that artificial light in the wrong place at the wrong time is a pollutant, which can harm the natural environment.


15

Table 8: Description of site and assessment of the value of the habitats for bats.

Site Name Potential roosting habitat Potential foraging habitat Potential commuting habitat Holland Park • Several mature trees with

cavity/crevice features, in particular those located within undisturbed secondary woodland habitat.

• Buildings at the centre of the site. • Light pollution during concerts may

reduce the value of potential roosting habitats in the park.

Ponds, avenues of mature trees, mixed deciduous and coniferous secondary woodland, edge habitat associated with hedgerows and tree lines, diverse understorey of herbs and shrubs.

Linear vegetated features included avenues of trees, woodland edge and hedgerows. The site was well connected to Avondale Park to the the north via communal and residential gradens along Landsdowne Road.

Avondale Park • Hybrid Black Poplars / mature trees with woodpecker holes / cavities.

• A disused / derelict building at the north-east corner of site.

• A heritage site Brick Kiln located across the road from the east side of the park.

• Light pollution from the sports pitch and other lights within the park may reduce the value of potential roosting habitats in the park.

Edges of site containing mature parkland trees of hybrid Black Poplar, London Plane, etc and adjoining residential gardens which offer suitable bat feeding opportunities. Foraging potential within the remainder of the site was limited since this supported floodlit hard surface playing pitches, hard surface children’s play area, lit tarmac pedestrian pathways and close-cut lawns.

There is good connectivity between Avondale Park and Holland Park to the south. This is provided by large communal and residential gardens alongside Landsdowne Road, which offer a linear vegetated feature that would enable bats to commute between the two parks. Furthermore, the communal gardens are unlit at night and are also likely to attract foraging bats (and provide roosting sites too).


• Mature trees along the boundary of the site offer potential roosting habitat.

• The site is surrounded by residential properties which may offer suitable roosting sites for bats immediately adjacent to the site.

The diversity of neutral grassland, scrub and mature trees is likely to provide good habitat for insects and suitable foraging habitat for bats. However, with the exception of the boundary habitats, the site is exposed to the prevailing wind which may reduce its value to feeding bats.

The boundary treelines offer a linear habitat feature and potential flightline for bats within the site. These are also well connected to the adjacent tree-lined streets offering connectivity between the site and surrounding area.


• A few mature trees. • A building within the site and

surrounding residential houses may offer roosting opportunities.

A few trees and bushes but mainly quite sparse.

Lack of natural linear features within the park. Tree-lined roads and gardens in adjacent residential area.


16

Site Name Potential roosting habitat Potential foraging habitat Potential commuting habitat Athlone Gardens • A few mature trees.

• Houses adjacent to the site. Mature trees, low vegetation and scrub.

Lack of natural linear features within the gardens. Tree-lined roads and gardens in adjacent residential area.


• Mature trees. • Houses adjacent to the site.

Hedgerows and tree lines Hegerows and tree lines within the park. Tree-lined roads and gardens in adjacent residential area.

Westfield Park • Mature trees throughout the site • Holes and cracks were noted in two

maple trees close to Tetcott Road north gate.

• Houses adjacent to the site.

The high density of tree cover and low light levels (when lights are switched off) provide suitable foraging habitat.

High density of tree cover offers extensive opportunities for bats to commute through the site.

Cremorne Gardens • The trees on site may offer roosting opportunities but their value is reduced by the high light levels at this site.

• Houses adjacent to the site.

Low tree density and high ambient light levels minimise potential for foraging activity. Close proximity to river may enhance insect abundance.

Tree-lined roads and gardens in adjacent residential area.

St. Luke’s Gardens. • St Luke’s Church though roosting potential may be reduced by floodlights.

• Casual roost opportunities amongst mature trees in the dark church garden which is unaffected by floodlighting.

• Small buildings on site, including work sheds and changing rooms.

The dark unlit section of parkland (south of St Luke’s Church) comprising mature parkland trees and formal shrubs. The “wildlife” buffer strip between the south east corner of the park and residential houses to the east.

St Luke’s Gardens are approximately 500m west northwest of a significant area of Inner London greenspace comprising Burton’s Court, Royal Chelsea Hospital, Ranelagh Gardens, Chelsea Physic Garden and Saatchi Gallery. From Google Earth there appear to be strips of tree-lined avenues, gardens and parks (e.g. Markham Square / Smith Street or the Royal Avenue) which would facilitate the commute for bats to foraging opportunities in these locations. The Ranelagh / hospital gardens lie immediately adjacent to the tidal River Thames. About 250m south across the Thames is Battersea Park, which is a notable Inner London bat foraging site, comprising a large area of wetland habitat (park lake) in its southeast corner (approx. 1.5km from St Luke’s Church).


17

3.3 Bat activity transect surveys Accuracy of data

3.3.1 A comparison was made between the heterodyne records collected in the field (species identification and number of passes) and the frequency division records collected through sonogram analysis (species identification and number of five second samples with species present).

3.3.2 On the whole, the sonogram analysis confirmed that the species identification carried out in the field was correct. Only minor discrepancies were reported between the number of passes recorded in the field and the number of five second samples logged in the sonogram analysis, but this is to be expected using two slightly different systems of measuring activity.

3.3.3 In the few cases where species were missed or proved unidentifiable using the heterodyne method in the field, the heterodyne records were adjusted to incorporate the sonogram analysis figures in order to give a more accurate and complete picture of species composition and relative activity levels. These adjusted figures are used in the analysis that follows.

Species distribution and abundance

3.3.4 Full details of the results of the bat activity transect surveys are shown in Appendix 5. This includes information on the weather conditions reported during the surveys, survey start times and survey end times. Plans showing the transect routes walked and the location of listening stations and all bat contacts recorded are provided in Appendix 2 and Appendix 3.

3.3.5 Two bat species: common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and soprano pipistrelle P. pygmaeus were recorded during the surveys. At least one bat contact was recorded at each of the nine sites during the survey period (see Table 9).

Table 9: Bat species recorded at each of the sites

Site name Date Species recorded

Holland Park

16-May-10 Common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle 09-Jul-10 Common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle

16-Sep-10 Common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle

Avondale

19-May-10 Common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle 09-Jul-10 Common pipistrelle

16-Sep-10 Common pipistrelle


17-May-10 Soprano pipistrelle 15-Jul-10 Common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle

17-Sep-10 Common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle


17-May-10 - 11-Jul-10 -


Athlone Gardens

17-May-10 - 11-Jul-10 -



17-May-10 Common pipistrelle 11-Jul-10 -


Westfield Park

18-May-10 Common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle 13-Jul-10 Common pipistrelle



18

Site name Date Species recorded

Cremorne Gardens

18-May-10 Common pipistrelle 13-Jul-10 -

18-Sep-10 -

St Luke's Gardens

19-May-10 Common pipistrelle 13-Jul-10 Common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle


Bat activity observed during the survey period

3.3.6 Figure 1 below plots the total bat passes recorded at the nine sites during each of the three survey periods.

Figure 1: Changes in bat activity over the survey period.

3.3.7 Bat activity recorded at all sites in July was generally lower in July compared to the May counts. Possible reasons for this are that pups are born in early June and females are less likely to travel far from their roost sites until the pups have been weaned.

3.3.8 With the exception of St. Luke’s Gardens and Westfield Park, the number of bat passes recorded during the September surveys was higher than for May and July. This is to be expected since pups become active during August and therefore these counts comprise both adults and pups.

Site activity in each survey period

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

May July September

Survey period

Tota

l bat

pas

ses Athlone Gardens

Avondale Cremorne Gardens Emslie Horniman Garden Holland Park Kensington Memorial Park Little Wormwood Scrubs St Luke's Gardens Westfield Park


19

Relative activity levels between each site

3.3.9 Figure 2 compares the level of common pipistelle and soprano pipistelle bat activity at each site. This is expressed as the average number of bat passes for each species recorded within all transect sections per site i.e. each listening stop and its preceding walk, in order to account for the fact that five sites (Kensington Memorial Park, Athlone Gardens, Emslie Horniman Garden, Westfield and Cremorne Gardens) had fewer transect sections.

Figure 2: Average number of passes by common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and pipistrelle sp reported per listening station/walk at each site.

3.3.10 Common pipistrelles were recorded at all nine sites. In comparison, soprano pipistrelle bats were not recorded at four sites: Athlone Gardens, Cremorne Gardens, Emslie Horniman Garden and Kensington Memorial Park. Overall, the level of soprano pipistrelle activity at all sites was significantly lower than that of common pipistrelle bats.

3.3.11 Common pipistrelle activity was highest at St Luke’s Gardens. The highest level of soprano pipistrelle activity was recorded at Holland Park.

3.3.12 Possible reasons for the relative activity levels at each site will be discussed in the site accounts in section 3.4.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Athl

one

Gar

dens

Avon

dale

Cre

mor

ne G

arde

ns

Emsl

ie H

orni

man

Gar

den

Hol

land

Par

k

Kens

ingt

onM

emor

ial P

ark

Littl

e W

orm

woo

dSc

rubs

St L

uke'

s G

arde

ns

Wes

tfiel

d Pa

rk

Pip sp55 pip45 pip


20

3.4 Site descriptions and analysis Transect RBKC 1 - Holland Park

3.4.1 Full details of the bat species recorded along each walk and at each listening station within Holland Park during the three surveys are presented in Appendix 7. Light meter readings were taken at key locations along the transect route during the July survey and the Lux values recorded are also documented where applicable. A summary of the number of bat passes recorded at Holland Park on each survey is shown in Table 10 below.

Table 10: Bat activity observed at Holland Park during the 2010 surveys

Date Common pipistrelle

Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrelle sp Total

16-May-10 23 27 3 53

09-Jul-10 5 24 2 31

16-Sep-10 91 4 7 101

3.4.2 Holland Park supports a high proportion of semi-natural habitat, much of which is typically associated with high levels of bat activity and species diversity. This includes avenues of mature trees, mixed deciduous and coniferous secondary woodland, edge habitat associated with hedgerows and treelines that border amenity space, and a good understorey of herbs and shrubs, some of which are non-native but still probably support good insect biomass. The occurrence of small ponds within the site was considered to be a notable habitat feature.

3.4.3 High levels of foraging activity were recorded at a number of locations. The locations with high activity varied considerably between each survey, suggesting that activity levels are likely to be influenced by environmental conditions and seasonal differences in bat activity and abundance related to their annual cycle.

3.4.4 On the May survey the key foraging area was the ornamental carp pond which had high levels of both common and soprano pipistrelle bat activity. Several passes of both species were also recorded nearby along the tree-lined footpath to the west of the carp pond, and it is likely that this feature provides a commuting route for bats to and from the pond. Occasional passes were recorded at other points along the transect, but on the whole activity was sparse, with bats recorded along 9 of the 25 transect sections. The most brightly lit area was around the tennis courts on the west side of the park, which had floodlights on. No bats were recorded at this location.

3.4.5 On the July survey the highest number of bat passes was recorded along Walk 3, specifically along the eastern boundary of the park in the area between the youth hostel and the pig enclosure. Twelve soprano pipistrelle passes were recorded here. On this evening there was an event at the Opera Holland Park and the immediate surroundings were more brightly lit than before, which may have been a limitation on the survey as no bats were recorded at this location. Where it became darker, bat activity increased, with soprano pipistrelles recorded along the eastern boundary of the playing fields. Tree lines and hawthorn hedgerows provided some screening from light spillage, providing a strong linear feature, which acted as a dark corridor. On the whole, bat activity was consistent with that reported in May, with bats recorded at 9 of the 25 transect sections. Numbers of common pipistrelle passes were lower than on the May survey, while numbers of soprano pipistrelle passes were roughly similar.


21

3.4.6 There was an increase in common pipistrelle bat activity during the September survey. Activity was continuous at the following locations: the main access path from Kensington High Street towards the south-east corner of playing field, the tree-lined footpath west of the carp pond, and the wildlife pond (which had no activity during previous surveys). During September, activity was widespread across the site, though often at a low level, with bats recorded at 14 of the 25 sampling locations. This increase in activity reflects the presence of juveniles at this time of year.

3.4.7 Given the occurrence of suitable bat habitat within Holland Park, the level of bat activity and species diversity recorded was lower than expected. Overall, bat species diversity and abundance was considered relatively poor for a London park environment.

3.4.8 No records for noctule, Leisler’s bat or Daubenton’s bat were recorded during the surveys despite the fact that they have been recorded locally and that the park supports suitable habitat for these species. Similarly, there was no sign of brown long-eared bats which had been recorded around the wildlife pond during 1994 (Herbert, 1994). Possible reasons for this low level of diversity and abundance include adverse impacts associated with lighting and the absence of optimal habitat such as extensive open water habitat.

3.4.9 At the western side of the park are floodlit tennis courts. The floodlighting was operational during the May survey (despite the fact they were not in use) and the September survey. Furthermore, it was noted that an event was taking place at the Opera Holland Park on the July survey evenings and there was considerable light spillage from the arena onto the adjacent habitats. There was no apparent thought in restricting the event lighting, which could possibly impact on any roosts in the vicinity. The levels of lighting reported during the surveys are likely to reduce the value of Holland Park to light sensitive species such as Myotis sp and brown long-eared bats, and may be the cause of their absence.

3.4.10 Large areas of open water habitat are features attractive to species such as Daubenton’s bat, noctule and Leisler’s bat within London. The relatively small size of the ponds within Holland Park may partially account for their apparent absence.

Transect RBKC 2 - Avondale Park

3.4.11 Full details of the bat species recorded along each walk and at each listening station within Avondale Park during the three surveys are presented in Appendix 7. A summary of the number of bat passes recorded at Avondale Park on each survey is shown in Table 11 below.

Table 11: Bat activity observed at Avondale Park during the 2010 surveys



19-May-10 11 26 0 37

09-Jul-10 3 0 0 3

16-Sep-10 12 0 0 12

3.4.12 Avondale Park is a small site and the transect route only comprised four walks and listening stations. In order to make up the standard number of transect sections used at other sites, the route was walked three times on all surveys.

3.4.13 Overall bat activity recorded at the site was low (apart from in May when there was an active bat roost along one section of the transect route) and even seemingly suitable habitat features such


22

as the wildlife pond were not found to be used by bats during the three surveys. Bat activity recorded within the site was largely restricted to the plane trees in the north-west corner.

3.4.14 Greater activity was recorded outside of the site boundary, within habitat immediately adjacent to the site. A suspected soprano pipistrelle roost was discovered apparently within a hybrid black poplar within the residential gardens to the south-west of the site. Bat feeding activity was reported to the south-east of the site

3.4.15 The low level of bat activity reported at the site may be due to: the high proportion of artificial surface (football pitches, children’s playground and tarmac paths) and regularly mown short grass in relation to the small size of the park; the lack of variety of vegetation structure and sympathetic habitat management (apart from the wildlife pond); and lighting (which included floodlighting on the football pitch, all night park lighting across the park and also adjacent street lighting on nearby roads).

3.4.16 The wildlife pond was of low value to bats as it was small and abutted a floodlit football pitch. Poplar trees (beside the children’s playground) were severely pollarded and the tree canopy was reduced far more than aerial photographs suggested (Google Earth, 2010). Park lighting columns were constantly illuminated and the floodlights on the football pitch remained on until 9.30 when in use. The floodlights were switched off when the pitch was no longer in use but the park lights remained on throughout each survey. Consequently, there was very little ’true darkness’ and bat records related to bats feeding in the darkest areas at the outer perimeter of the park (except the May roost record). Gardens in the immediate vicinity, especially the dark wooded gardens 100m to 200m to the east of the park, function as part of a bigger network of green spaces.

Transect RBKC 3 - Little Wormwood Scrubs

3.4.17 Full details of the bat species recorded along each walk and at each listening station within Little Wormwood Scrubs during the three surveys are presented in Appendix 7. A summary of the number of bat passes recorded on each survey is shown in Table 12 below.

Table 12: Bat activity observed at Little Wormwood Scrubs during the 2010 surveys



17-May-10 0 4 1 5

15-Jul-10 3 0 3 6

17-Sep-10 37 23 2 62

3.4.18 Little Wormwood Scrub comprises a large area of semi-natural grassland, extensive areas of open scrub and mature trees. This diversity of habitat should support high levels of insect biomass and consequently provide suitable foraging habitat for bats.

3.4.19 Four soprano pipistrelle passes and one unidentified pipistrelle pass were recorded on the May survey, while on the July survey three common pipistrelle and three unidentified pipistrelle passes were recorded. The highest activity levels were recorded during the September survey but even these peak counts were considerably lower than might be expected for a site containing the habitat described above.

3.4.20 Possible causes for the low level of bat activity recorded include high levels of ambient light and exposure to the prevailing wind. Being a very open site that lacks tree cover, there was little


23

shelter from nearby sources of light pollution and the ambient light levels remained high for the survey duration (90 minutes after sunset).

3.4.21 The activity hot spots during the September survey were around a copse of willow trees halfway along the western boundary of park, favoured by common pipistrelles. Soprano pipistrelles were drawn to a mature black poplar in the NW corner of the site and were observed foraging back and forth along the western edge of the scrub in the northern half of the site.

Transect RBKC 4 - Emslie Horniman Garden, Athlone Gardens and Kensington Memorial Park

3.4.22 Emslie Horniman Garden, Athlone Gardens and Kensington Memorial Park were combined into one transect (RBKC4) since all three are relatively small sites in close proximity to one another.

3.4.23 Kensington Memorial Park is the largest of the three sites and therefore five of the twelve walks and listening stations were located within this site. Four walks and listening stations were located in Emslie Horniman Garden and three were located in Athlone Gardens (the smallest site). The routes between each site were treated as extended survey “walks” and bat activity continued to be monitored along these routes in order to detect any possible nearby roosts and commuting routes.

3.4.24 Full details of the bat species recorded along each walk and at each listening station within Emslie Horniman Garden, Athlone Gardens and Kensington Memorial Park during the three surveys are presented in Appendix 7.

3.4.25 A summary of the number of bat passes recorded at Emslie Horniman Garden on each survey is shown in Table 13 below.

Table 13: Bat activity observed at Emslie Horniman Garden during the 2010 surveys



17-May-10 0 0 2 2

11-Jul-10 0 0 0 0

17-Sep-10 3 0 0 3

3.4.26 Very few bats were recorded at this site and all bat records were restricted to brief passes by the trees towards the southern end of the site and may have been associated with a dark enclosed garden area to the south of the building on the western boundary of the site.

3.4.27 Likely causes for the low level of bat activity recorded include the small area of the site and low habitat diversity, comprising predominantly amenity grassland and hardstanding. Although mature poplars were present within the site, they were scattered and did not provide suitable connectivity sufficient to be a flightline or shelter against the prevailing wind.

3.4.28 A summary of the number of bat passes recorded at Athlone Gardens on each survey is shown in Table 14.


24

Table 14: Bat activity observed at Athlone Gardens during the 2010 surveys



17-May-10 0 0 0 0

11-Jul-10 0 0 0 0

17-Sep-10 17 0 0 17

3.4.29 Bat activity was low during the surveys. No bats were recorded in the gardens during the May and July surveys, although one common pipistrelle pass was recorded just outside the site in May. Common pipistrelle activity was recorded during the September survey, which may reflect the expansion of bat numbers following the breeding season and the use of sub-optimal habitats by some individuals.

3.4.30 Possible explanations for the low numbers of bats recorded at the site include the small size of the site, the lack of habitat diversity and the light pollution. As at Emslie Horniman Garden, the site was dominated by amenity grassland and hardstanding and only a few semi-mature trees were present. The intensive management at the site, particularly close mown amenity grass, provides poor habitat structure and offers few opportunities for insects. The scattered trees within the site provide sub-optimal flightlines, limited shelter from the prevailing wind and no light shields. Athlone Gardens was very brightly lit.

3.4.31 A summary of the number of bat passes recorded at Kensington Memorial Park on each survey is shown in Table 15 below.

Table 15: Bat activity observed at Kensington Memorial Park during the 2010 surveys



17-May-10 7 0 0 7

11-Jul-10 0 0 0 0

17-Sep-10 11 0 0 11

3.4.32 Common pipistrelle was the only species recorded at this site and activity levels were low. The site is of low habitat diversity and largely consists of amenity grassland. Bat activity was mainly recorded along the boundary hedgerows which are the main linear features. No activity was recorded along the avenue of horse chestnut trees across the centre of the site which was identified as being a potential commuting route.

3.4.33 On the September survey bats appeared to leave residential gardens to the north-west of the site. The hedgerow in that area may provide a commuting route. On this date bat activity was also recorded in the ornamental garden towards the south-east corner of the site.

3.4.34 No activity was recorded on the July survey at any of the above three sites.


25

Transect RBKC 5 - Westfield Park and Cremorne Gardens

3.4.35 Westfield Park and Cremorne Gardens were combined in one transect since both are small sites in close proximity to one another. Four listening stations were located in Westfield Park and two in Cremorne Gardens. The routes between each site were treated as extended survey “walks” and recording of bats continued in order to detect any possible nearby roosts and commuting routes. The transect was walked twice on each survey in order to conform to the standard protocol of twelve walks and listening stations per transect. Full details of the bat species recorded along each walk and at each listening station within Westfield Park and Cremorne Gardens during the three surveys are presented in Appendix 7.

3.4.36 A summary of the number of bat passes recorded at Westfield Park on each survey is shown in Table 16 below.

Table 16: Bat activity observed at Westfield Park during the 2010 surveys



18-May-10 38 1 3 42

13-Jul-10 39 0 3 42

18-Sep-10 26 0 0 26

3.4.37 Westfield Park is one of the smaller sites surveyed, yet high levels of bat activity were recorded compared to other sites of similar size e.g. Avondale Park and Emslie Horniman Garden. The high level of common pipistrelle activity is attributable to the fact that Westfield Park was considerably darker than the other eight sites with no lighting within the site. This is because the lights were broken at the time of the surveys; they have since become operational and are in use despite the park being closed. Although there was street lighting associated with the adjacent roads, the good extent of tree cover provided sufficient screening to ensure minimal light spillage onto the park habitats. Additionally, the site was located close to the River Thames and it is possible that the park is located along a bat flightline between roost sites and the river habitat.

3.4.38 Activity hot spots varied on each survey. These include the hedge by the northern Tetcott Road gate (May and July), the footpath towards the north-west corner of the site (July) and the south-east corner of the site (September).

3.4.39 The Westfield Park and Cremorne Gardens transect was walked twice on each survey evening. On each occasion the bat activity had dropped off considerably by the time of the second visit to Westfield Park.

3.4.40 On the September survey a predator was noted inside the Upcerne Road gate in the form of a cat repeatedly leaping in an attempt to catch low-flying bats

3.4.41 A summary of the number of bat passes recorded at Cremorne Gardens is shown in Table 17 below.


26

Table 17: Bat activity observed at Cremorne Gardens during the 2010 surveys



18-May-10 3 0 0 3

13-Jul-10 0 0 0 0

18-Sep-10 1 0 0 1

3.4.42 Cremorne Gardens is attractively managed with an unmown grass and wildflower area which adds aesthetic and potential wildlife interest to what is otherwise largely amenity grassland. However the site has a very high level of ambient light, partly from the lights within the garden but also due to the lack of tree cover providing a shield from the adjacent streetlights. As a result very little bat activity was recorded here with just three common pipistrelle passes on the May survey and a single bat pass detected from outside the park when leaving the site on the September survey.

3.4.43 A common pipistrelle was recorded flying past the corner of Ashburnham Road and Lots Road at 19.29 and again at 19.43 (between sites, September survey). This suggests that this is a commuting route and there may be a roost in the vicinity, possibly in the Thames Water building across the road from this spot.

Transect RBKC 6 - St Luke’s Gardens

3.4.44 St Luke’s Gardens is a small site that was surveyed by mapping out a transect with four walks and four stops and walking this three times on each survey in order to make up the standard number or sampling points used at other sites.

3.4.45 Full details of the bat species recorded along each walk and at each listening station during the three surveys are presented in Appendix 7. A summary of the number of bat passes recorded at St Luke’s Gardens on each survey is shown in Table 18 below.

Table 18: Bat activity observed at St Luke’s Gardens during the 2010 surveys



19-May-10 120 0 1 121

13-Jul-10 72 1 0 73

18-Sep-10 53 0 0 53

3.4.46 This site had the highest levels of bat activity and is clearly an important site for common pipistrelle. The habitat was assessed as having a good structure with large London plane trees and a wild garden area. The one major negative feature associated with the site was the floodlit sports area located to the north of St Luke’s Church. Limited bat activity was recorded within this


27

half of the site and only where tree cover afforded some shelter from the floodlights.

3.4.47 The floodlights remained on after the park was closed during the final survey and it is considered likely that this was sufficient to reduce the potential for bat roosting within the church itself.

3.4.48 The highest levels of bat foraging activity were recorded in the darker southern portion of the site, particularly in the shadow of the church.

3.4.49 On the September survey a potential common pipistrelle roost was located beyond the northern boundary of the site, with four bats seen flying from the direction of Elbourn House on Cale Street.

3.5 Comparison with the 1994 surveys 3.5.1 Four sites were surveyed in both the 1994 and 2010 surveys: Holland Park, Little Wormwood

Scrubs, Emslie Horniman Garden and Avondale Park.

3.5.2 It is not possible to make direct comparisons between the results of the 1994 and 2010 surveys for the following reasons:

3.5.3 The 1994 survey simply involved visiting specific areas of the larger sites whereas the 2010 survey involved walking transects covering the breadth of each site.

3.5.4 The 1994 survey involved estimating numbers of individual bats present whereas the 2010 survey involved measuring activity levels (numbers of passes) as this measure can be quantified with more accuracy and used as an index for population changes over time.

3.5.5 The surveys were not carried out within similar date periods in 1994 and 2010.

3.5.6 In 1994 the surveys were carried out by a single surveyor who on one of the survey evenings visited three sites at some distance from each other. In 2010 each survey was carried out by between two and six surveyors each focusing on one site or 2-3 smaller sites in close proximity.

3.5.7 The 1994 survey probably involved simply using a heterodyne detector, though if so the model is not specified. In 2010 a wider range of bat detecting technology was available and utilised, including broadband detectors and recording devices which enabled additional data to be collected post-survey.

3.5.8 At the time of the 1994 survey the pipistrelle bat Pipistrellus pipistrellus had yet to be reclassified as two separate species, common pipistrelle P. pipistrellus and soprano pipistrelle P. pygmaeus. Therefore it is not possible to assess any differences in how these two species’ populations appear to have fared within the borough. For the purposes of discussion below, common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and pipistrelle sp counts from 2010 are added together and simply described as “pipistrelle”.

3.5.9 The 1994 and 2010 survey results from each site are summarised below and conclusions drawn where possible.

Holland Park

3.5.10 In 1994 the estimated number of individual pipistrelle bats was 7+ on 23rd June and 4+ on 4th August. Recording was concentrated around the two ponds and it was assumed that smaller numbers would have also been present in the more formally managed parts of the site.

3.5.11 In 2010 53 pipistrelle passes were recorded on 16th May, 31 on 9th July, and 102 on 16th September. The carp and the wildlife pond were considered to be hot spots of activity. On the latter survey it was noted that there was a minimum of two individuals present at the wildlife pond. Otherwise no assessment was made of number of individuals present at these two locations but it is not thought to exceed the minimum count of seven individuals estimated in


28

1994.

3.5.12 In 2010 areas identified as ‘hot spots’ of activity (on at least one occasion) included the tree-lined path leading to the Kensington High Street gate and the eastern boundary of the park in the area between the youth hostel and the pig enclosure. These areas were not surveyed in 1994 and comparisons are therefore not possible.

3.5.13 In 1994 four brown long-eared bats were recorded around the wildlife pond on 23rd June. They were not relocated on 4th August nor were they recorded on any of the 2010 surveys or any of the public bat walks held at Holland Park in intervening years.


3.5.14 The one visit to this site in 1994 was on 4th August and it appears that the remit was to only survey a narrowly defined area of the site, since the only record is of a single pipistrelle recorded from what was defined as the Kensington & Chelsea section of the site. It is not known which section of the site this refers to as no record has been found of a Kensington & Chelsea section of Little Wormwood Scrubs. One possibility is that it refers to the area where new flats were built adjacent to the NE corner of the site. In addition, the site may have been visited for a shorter time in 1994 than in 2010 since the surveyor visited two other sites on the same evening.

3.5.15 In 2010 five pipistrelle passes were recorded on 17th May, six on 15th July and 62 on 17th September. It is thought that several individuals were present throughout the site but since these surveys covered the breadth of the site it is not possible to make any meaningful comparison with the result from the more restricted survey carried out in 1994


3.5.16 In 1994 the only visit to this site was on 4th August when the surveyor also visited two other sites. A solitary pipistrelle was recorded briefly but it did not remain on the site to forage.

3.5.17 In 2010 two pipistrelle passes were recorded on 17th May, no activity on 11th July and three passes on 17th September. All activity was fleeting and confined to the southern end of the park where it appeared to be associated with a dark enclosed garden area. As in 1994, the survey time on each evening was shared between three sites, but these were all relatively small and close proximity to one another, possibly enabling the surveyors to remain longer within Emslie Horniman Garden than may have been the case in 1994.

Avondale Park

3.5.18 In 1994 Avondale Park was surveyed just once on 13th August when no bats were recorded. It was combined with a visit to Westway Wildlife Garden.

3.5.19 In 2010 this site was surveyed more intensively by walking a transect three times around the park on three survey evenings. Thirty-seven pipistrelle passes were recorded on 19th May, three on 9th July and 12 on 16th September. It would appear that bat numbers have increased at the site, but the difference in survey effort prevents a meaningful comparison to be made between the two studies.

Roosts

3.5.20 In the 1994 surveys no roosts were located and none had previously been found within the borough. The 2010 survey located a probable soprano pipistrelle roost associated with a poplar tree in a garden just outside the south-west corner of Avondale Park. There was also strong evidence of a common pipistrelle roost just across the road from the north boundary of St Luke’s Gardens. Common pipistrelles also appeared to emerge from the gardens adjacent to the north-west corner of Kensington Memorial Park suggesting a possible roost in one of the houses or at least a commuting route into the park. Finally, in close proximity to Cremorne Gardens, a common pipistrelle was recorded flying past the corner of Ashburnham Road and Lots Road, clearly indicating a commuting route and suggestive of a nearby roost, possibly associated with


29

the adjacent Thames Water building.

4 Recommendations

All sites

4.1.1 Consider putting up bat boxes but only in dark areas with suitable habitat. It is recommended that lighting issues are addressed before putting up bat boxes.

Holland Park

4.1.2 The hedgerow along the side of the playing field is a potentially good feature that had very little activity along it during survey evenings. The addition of standard trees within the hedgerow could increase its use by common and soprano pipistrelles.

4.1.3 A general expansion of a network of linear features and dark corridors should be considered.

4.1.4 More sensitive management of event lighting is recommended, as well as reducing the light spill from the tennis courts and ensuring that they are switched off when the courts are not in use. This may be best dealt with by way of a Light Management Plan (LMP) and this template used for all parks which incorporate lighting columns or floodlights.

4.1.5 Provide greater wetland habitat by expanding the existing ponds or creating new ponds could attract additional species associated with nearby sites such as Hyde Park, which have greater bat activity levels and more species diversity.

Avondale Park

4.1.6 Enhancement of the existing pond, or establishment of additional areas of open water (or damp places) elsewhere in the park.

4.1.7 Switch off the lights when locking up or use of light curfews, incorporated into a Light Management Plan.


4.1.8 Create more areas with dense tree cover or if possible a green wall similar to the fencing that has been covered with climbing plants at St Luke’s Gardens. Green Walls can be constructed using wires.


4.1.9 Better structured habitat with varied mowing regimes, more native trees, a water feature and management of light spillage

Athlone Gardens

4.1.10 The park is due to be relocated which offers an opportunity for creating suitable wildlife habitat. Recommendations would include: a range of structural planting with native species, a water feature and no or a reduction in lighting.


4.1.11 Enhance and increase connectivity between existing linear features. Introduce a more varied mowing regime and create a water feature.

Westfield Park

4.1.12 Preserve existing tree cover and switch lights off at dusk to recreate the low light levels observed in summer 2010 when the lights were broken and high levels of bat activity were consistently recorded.

4.1.13 Designate as a Site of Borough Importance.


30

Cremorne Gardens

4.1.14 Relaxed mowing regimes work well but biodiversity potential is marred by lights within the site and spillage from offsite sources. Light Management Plan needed to create light shields from green walls and long term tree planting as well as using other methods to be identified within the context of a LMP.

St Luke’s Gardens

4.1.15 Switch off floodlights when not in use. These lights should not be on automatic switching. Reductions in the use of floodlighting should be made as part of a LMP.

4.1.16 Designate as a Site of Borough Importance

5 Conclusions

5.1 Bat roosting habitat 5.1.1 All of the sites were identified as having potential roosting habitat to varying degrees (see table

8). Holland Park, Little Wormwood Scrubs, Westfield Park and St Luke’s Gardens were identified as having the highest levels of existing roost potential. However, roosting opportunities may be restricted by lighting within and/or adjacent to the sites.

5.1.2 The surveys identified a probable soprano pipistrelle roost just beyond the south-west corner of Avondale Park, evidence of a common pipistrelle roost just across the road from the north boundary of St Luke’s Gardens, and possible roosts in the vicinity of Kensington Memorial Park and Cremorne Gardens (see 3.5.20).

5.1.3 St Luke’s Church could be considered optimal bat roosting habitat and many churches or historic buildings have some casual bat interest at different points in the year. It is likely that in former times the church would have been used by several species of bat. Unfortunately, a major roost opportunity has been made unavailable by light pollution.

5.2 Bat foraging habitat 5.2.1 Key bat foraging habitats, defined as areas with continuous activity, were identified in Holland

Park, Little Wormwood Scrubs, Westfield Park and St Luke’s Gardens and Avondale Park. All other sites had foraging activity recorded on at least one survey but usually at a very low level.

5.2.2 Some sites appear to provide important foraging habitat at specific times of the year. For example, Avondale Park had a roost adjacent to the site in May and consequently high levels of activity which dropped off in July and September when the roost had seemingly relocated to another site. Little Wormwood Scrubs had low activity in May and July but high concentrations of localised activity in September. The same was true to a lesser extent of Athlone Gardens which had no activity recorded until the September survey when 17 common pipistrelle passes were recorded. This shows that even suboptimal habitats can have value as foraging areas at certain times of year and it is worth enhancing these where possible or at least preserving them.

5.3 Bat commuting habitat 5.3.1 All of the sites were identified as having potential commuting habitat to varying degrees within or

adjacent to the site (see table 8). Typical commuting habitat is very limited within several of the sites but Holland Park, Little Wormwood Scrubs, Kensington Memorial Park, Westfield Park and St Luke’s Gardens were all identified as containing linear features that appear to be suitable for bat commuting activity.


31

5.3.2 Linear features need to be situated within dark corridors to be fully effective as bat commuting routes and the majority of sites lacked extensive areas of darkness, notable exceptions being the more wooded areas of Holland Park and Westfield Park, though the latter site is normally lit and was only dark during the survey period due to the lights being broken.

5.3.3 Commuting habitat adjacent to the sites is also important to enable access by bats roosting some distance away. St Luke’s Gardens and Avondale Park were both identified as having good connectivity of green spaces adjacent to the sites. The former site had consistently high levels of activity which may be attributable to its apparent good connectivity to other sites or may be simply due to the potential for bats to roost in the sheltered side of the church. The latter site had high activity only when there appeared to be a roost present next to the site. The low activity levels at other times may mean that the value of its good connectivity to Holland Park is reduced by the sub-optimal habitat available at this site.

5.4 Lighting 5.4.1 The majority of the sites had lighting within the park after dusk and light spillage from sources

outside the park. Some general principals for management of light levels are given below.

5.4.2 Lighting should only be considered where the public are encouraged to go and at the times they are welcome to remain. The impact on bats from light spillage could be minimised by:

5.4.2.1 Writing a Light Management Plan clearly deciding on the required lighting levels (times, etc) so that these can be monitored

5.4.2.2 Light curfews for times of peak bat activity (usually lasting one and a half hours after sunset)

5.4.2.3 Light dimming should be considered as a possibility

5.4.2.4 Establish screen planting of green walls to act as light shields

5.4.2.5 Light spill accessories such as hoods, cowls, louvres and shields can be considered but will do little to reduce spill in the immediate area and are more for protecting distant areas.

5.5 Enhancements 5.5.1 Open water habitats should be enhanced or created where possible since existing water features

within the survey sites were typically associated with high levels of bat activity. The larger areas of open water that exist in adjacent boroughs support higher levels of bat activity and species diversity than is typically recorded with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

5.5.2 Green walls or vertical habitats such as ivy, golden hops, winter flowering clematis and other flowering climbers could be incorporated around some of the sites. Boston ivy gives good coverage of small buildings although does not provide the late pollen provided by native ivy. This is enjoyed by insects, such as Holly Blue at the end of the autumn. Hops and honeysuckle grow well under the shade cast by trees. Pyracanthas and hawthorns have multiple benefits when planted along boundary fences.


32

6 References

BCT (2001) The UK’s National Bat Monitoring Programme – Final report 2001. Bat Conservation Trust, London. DEFRA Publications, PB 5958A

BCT (July 2003). Bat Boxes – Your questions answered. The Bat Conservation Trust Advice leaflet.

BCT (May 2007). Encouraging bats – A guide for bat friendly gardening and living. Bat Conservation Trust Leaflet.

BCT (2007). Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines. The Bat Conservation Trust, London.

BCT and ILE (2008). Bats and Lighting in the UK – Bats and the built environment series. Version 2.

Battersby, J. (ed), (2005), UK Mammals: Species Status and Population Trends, JNCC/Tracking Mammals Partnership, Peterborough

Briggs, P.A., Bullock, R.J. and Tovey, J.D. 2007. Ten years of bat monitoring at the WWT London Wetland Centre – a comparison with National Bat Monitoring Programme trends for Greater London, The London Naturalist, No. 86.

Downs, N. C.; Beaton, V. Guest, J., Polanski, J., Robinson, S.L. and Racey, P.A. (2003). The effects of illuminating the roost entrance on the emergence behaviour of Pipistrellus pipistrellus. Biological Conservation 111, p247-252.

Fure, A (2006). Bats and Lighting. The London Naturalist No.85: p1-20.

Jones, J. (2000). Impacts of lighting on bats. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

JNCC (2001). Habitat management for bats – A guide for land managers, land owners and their advisors. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK.

JNCC (2004). Bat Worker’s Manual. 3rd Edition. Edited by A.J. Mitchell-Jones & A.P. McLeish, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2009), Artificial Light in the Environment.

Russ, J (1999). The bats of Britain and Ireland. Echolocation calls, sound analysis and species identification. Alana Books, Alana Ecology Ltd 1999.

Shirley, M. D. F., Armitage, V. L., Barden, T. L., Gough, M., Lurz, P. W. W., Oatway, D. E., South, A. B. And Rushton, S. P. (2001). Assessing the impact of a music festival on the emergence behaviour of a breeding colony of Daubenton’s bats (Myotis daubentonii). Journal of Zoology, London 254: p367-373.

Stone, E. (2009). Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Current Biology 19, p1-5.


33

7 Acknowledgements

We are extremely grateful to the following volunteers who assisted with the surveys:

Lauren Bell-Misri

James Blake

Greg Carson

Jason Cunningham

Anna Doeser

Alison Fure

Sue Gilroy

Tom Greaves

Ruth Hannify

Julie O’Sullivan

James Osborne

Matthew Rose

Vicki Taylor

Gayle Verdi

Bjorn Wood


34

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Bat Survey March 2011 January 2010

35

Appendix 1 Location map of sites surveyed ...................................... 36

Appendix 2 Survey transect maps ..................................................... 37

Appendix 3 Distribution of species records at each site.................... 49

Appendix 4 Data search results ......................................................... 77

Appendix 5 Survey details ................................................................. 78

Appendix 6: Bat survey form ............................................................. 79

Appendix 7: Bat survey data ............................................................. 82

Appendix 8: Legislation ..................................................................... 90


36

Appendix 1 Location map of sites surveyed

Plan 1: The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea showing the nine sites surveyed


37

Appendix 2 Survey transect maps


38


39


40


41


42


43

Survey route between Kensington Memorial Park, Athlone Gardens and Emslie Horniman Garden


44


45


46

Survey route between Westfield Park and Cremorne Gardens


47


48


49

Appendix 3 Distribution of species records at each site

Key:

Common pipistrelle

Soprano pipistrelle

Pipistrelle sp

X Survey listening station


50

Holland Park, 16th May 2010


51

Holland Park, 9th July 2010


52

Holland Park, 16th September 2010


53

Little Wormwood Scrubs, 17th May 2010


54

Little Wormwood Scrubs, 15th July 2010


55

Little Wormwood Scrubs, 17th September 2010


56

Kensington Memorial Park, 17th May 2010


57

Kensington Memorial Park, 11th July 2010


58

Kensington Memorial Park, 17th September 2010


59

Athlone Gardens, 17th May 2010


60

Athlone Gardens, 11th July 2010


61

Athlone Gardens, 17th September 2010


62

Emslie Horniman Garden, 17th May 2010


63

Emslie Horniman Garden, 11th July 2010


64

Emslie Horniman Garden, 17th September 2010


65

Westfield Park, 18th May 2010


66

Westfield Park, 13th July 2010


67

Westfield Park, 18th September 2010


68

Cremorne Gardens, 18th May 2010


69

Cremorne Gardens, 13th July 2010


70

Cremorne Gardens, 18th September 2010


71

St Luke’s Gardens, 19th May 2010


72

St Luke’s Gardens, 13th July 2010


73

St Luke’s Gardens, 18th September 2010


74

Avondale, 19th May 2010


75

Avondale, 9th July 2010


76

Avondale, 16th September 2010


77

Appendix 4 Data search results

Distribution of species records from London Bat Group data search


78

Appendix 5 Survey details

Site code Date Start time End time Cloud Wind Rain

Temp (degrees

centigrade)

Holland Park 16-May-10 20:57:00 22:35:00 Patchy Calm Dry 12

Little Wormwood Scrubs 17-May-10 20:49:00 21:55:00 Clear Calm Dry 13

Kensington Memorial Park, Athlone Gardens, Emslie Horniman Gardens

17-May-10 20:59:00 22:30:00 Clear Calm Dry 13

Westfield Park, Cremorne Gardens

18-May-10 20:50:00 22:15:00 Patchy Calm Dry 15

St Luke's Gardens 19-May-10 20:51:00 22:09:00 Full Calm Dry 18

Avondale 19-May-10 21:01:00 Not rec Full Light Dry 16

Holland Park 09-Jul-10 21:19:00 22:32:00 Clear Light Dry 25

Avondale 09-Jul-10 21:30:00 Not rec Clear Light Dry 24


11-Jul-10 21:18:00 22:39:00 Patchy Light Dry 19


13-Jul-10 21:13:00 22:39:00 Full Light Dry 19

St Luke's Gardens 13-Jul-10 21:23:00 22:38:00 Full Calm Dry 19

Little Wormwood Scrubs 15-Jul-10 21:12:00 Not rec Patchy Breezy Dry 19

Avondale 16-Sep-10 19:22:00 20:41:00 Clear Light Dry 15

Holland Park 16-Sep-10 19:20:00 20:52:00 Clear Light Dry 15

Little Wormwood Scrubs 17-Sep-10 19:13:00 20:21:00 Patchy Calm Dry 13


17-Sep-10 19:21:00 20:41:00 Clear Calm Dry 12

St Luke's Gardens 18-Sep-10 19:18:00 20:47:00 Patchy Calm Dry 16


18-Sep-10 19:08:00 20:30:00 Clear Calm Dry 15


79

Appendix 6: Bat survey form


80

LONDON BAT GROUP SURVEY FORM (SITE NAME……………………………………………….…………….)

Compatible with National Bat Monitoring Programme Field Survey – count number of passes on each walk and for two minutes at each spot.

Recorder names………………………………………Bat detectors used…………………………………………

Date………………………… Start time……………………………… End time……………………………….

Cloud (clear / patchy / full) Wind (calm / light / breezy) Rain (dry / drizzle / showers) Temp……….C

Species / no of passes

Noctule Serotine Leisler’s 45 pip 55 pip N pip Daub Unsure/other

(note species & no. of passes)

Walk 1

Spot 1

Walk 2

Spot 2

Walk 3

Spot 3

Walk 4

Spot 4

Walk 5

Spot 5

Walk 6

Spot 6

P.T.O.


81

Species / no of passes

Noctule Serotine Leisler’s 45 pip 55 pip N pip Daub Unsure/other

(note species & no. of passes)

Walk 7

Spot 7

Walk 8

Spot 8

Walk 9

Spot 9

Walk

10

Spot 10

Walk

11

Spot 11

Walk

12

Spot 12


82

Appendix 7: Bat survey data

Transect RBKC1 - Holland Park Sampling point Description Lux

16th May 9th July 16th September 45p 55p Psp 45p 55p Psp 45p 55p Psp

00 Pre-survey

High Street Kensington entrance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

01 Walk 1 Along main access path from Kensington High Street towards SE corner of playing field

150 0 0 1 0 0 0 24 0 0

02 Spot 1 SE corner of playing field 195 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

03 Walk 2 Across southern half of playing field

195 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

04 Spot 2 SE corner of playing field 40 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

05 Walk 3

Along outer northern end of playing field and up eastern boundary of park past youth hostel

2 2 0 0 12 0 0 0 0

06 Spot 3 East side of pig enclosure 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07 Walk 4 Across clearing near pig enclosure and through trees to carp pond

2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0

08 Spot 4 Ornamental carp pond with cascade

18 13 16 0 0 0 0 0 2 3

09 Walk 5 Footpath through trees just West of carp pond

4 7 0 0 0 0 24 0 0

10 Spot 5 Path cross-roads surrounded by secondary woodland

1.6 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

11 Walk 6 Footpath through trees heading East towards Lord Holland statue

1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

12 Spot 6 Lord Holland statue by ornamental pond with bridge

2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

13 Walk 7 Footpath through trees heading towards NE corner of park

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 Spot 7 NE corner of park 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

15 Walk 8 Footpath through trees at N end of park towards wildlife pond

0 0 0 0 1 0 12 0 0

16 Spot 8 Wildlife pond 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0

17 Walk 9 Footpath through trees at N end of park towards NW corner of park

0 0 0 3 1 0 2 0 0

18 Spot 9 Convergence of paths in north-west corner of park

<0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Walk 10 Footpath through trees on W side of park

0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

20 Spot 10 Near tennis courts on W side of park

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Walk 11

Along outer northern end of playing field and along hedgerow along main access path on E side of playing field

0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0

22 Spot 11 Centre of hawthorn hedgerow along main access path

<0.1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

23 Walk 12 Along main access path toward Kensington High Street

0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0

24 Spot 12 High Street Kensington entrance 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


83

Transect RBKC2 - Avondale Park Sampling point Description


00 Pre-survey

Bend in path in SE corner of site 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

01 Walk 1 Path along E boundary of site 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

02 Spot 1 Near gate in NE corner of site 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

03 Walk 2 Path along n boundary of site 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

04 Spot 2 On path just S of wildlife pond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

05 Walk 3 Path following western boundary of site

0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

06 Spot 3 By bend in path in SW corner of site

0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07 Walk 4 Cutting across play area and back down to and along S boundary of site

1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

08 Spot 4 Bend in path in SE corner of site 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0






0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0







0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



84

Transect RBKC 3 - Little Wormwood Scrubs Sampling point Description


00 Pre-survey

London plane and two ash trees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

01 Walk 1 Path alongside amenity grassland along southern boundary of site

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

02 Spot 1 Centre of southern boundary of park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

03 Walk 2 Path alongside amenity grassland along western boundary of site

0 1 1 0 0 0 6 0 0

04 Spot 2 Copse of willow trees halfway along western boundary of park

0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0

05 Walk 3 Path alongside scrub area along western boundary of site

0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0

06 Spot 3 Bend in path along western boundary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07 Walk 4 Through rough grassland by scrub towards NW corner of site

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

08 Spot 4 Mature hybrid black poplar at edge of scrub 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

09 Walk 5 Through rough grassland by scrub and back onto path toward NW corner of site

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 Spot 5 Mature hybrid black poplar along tarmac path 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0

11 Walk 6 Along path and into copse with dense understorey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Spot 6 Copse with dense understorey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Walk 7 Across path halfway along N end of site and through centre of scrub

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 Spot 7 Clearing within scrub where footpaths converge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Walk 8 Out of scrub and E through rough grassland towards seating area with table

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1

16 Spot 8 Seating area with table 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

17 Walk 9 Along eastern edge of scrub towards NE corner of site

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0

18 Spot 9 Hybrid black poplar in north-eastern corner of park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Walk 10 Path alongside scrub area along eastern boundary of site

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 0

20 Spot 10 South-eastern edge of scrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Walk 11 Along southern end of scrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Spot 11 Boundary between scrub and amenity grassland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 Walk 12 Across centre of amenity grassland area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

24 Spot 12 London plane and two ash trees 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1


85

Transect RBKC 4 – Kensington Memorial Park, Athlone Gardens and Emslie Horniman Pleasance

Sampling point

Site details Description


00 Pre-survey

KMP Northern end of central path through park

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

01 Walk 1 KMP

Along N boundary of park to NE corner and diagonally across amenity grassland to S end of avenue of horse chestnut trees

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

02 Spot 1 KMP Southern end of avenue of horse chestnut trees, adjacent to toilet block

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

03 Walk 2 KMP

Along southern edge of amenity grassland towards SW corner and up W boundary of site towards NW corner

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

04 Spot 2 KMP Convergence of privet hedge and tree/hedgeline in NW corner of site

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

05 Walk 3 KMP Along N boundary of site to avenue of horse chestnut trees and down to centre of avenue

0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0

06 Spot 3 KMP Centre of avenue of horse chestnut trees (by fourth tree down)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

07 Walk 4 KMP Across amenity grassland in a westerly direction towards corner of hedge

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

08 Spot 4 KMP Corner of hedge comprising leylandii and ornamental shrubs at site boundary

2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

09 Walk 5 KMP

Across amenity grassland in a southerly direction, then along S boundary of amenity grassland and into ornamental garden

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 Spot 5 KMP Ornamental garden, by first bench

0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

11 Walk 6a KMP Through ornamental garden to park gate

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

11 Walk 6b Between sites

St Helen‟s Street, St. Quintin Avenue, Chesterton Road, Portobello Road

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 Walk 6c Athlone Athlone gate to edge of amenity grassland

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Spot 6 Athlone Group of scattered trees over amenity grassland in southern part of site

0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0

13 Walk 7 Athlone

Following footpath NW then halfway along footpath E and then N across amenity grassland to mature London plane

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

14 Spot 7 Athlone Mature London plane surrounded by scattered sorbus sp and cherry trees

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Walk 8 Athlone Across amenity grassland and along path towards NE boundary of site

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

16 Spot 8 Athlone Centre of boundary of north-eastern part of site

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 Walk 9a Athlone Along north-eastern boundary of site to park gate

0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0


Wornington Road, Golborne Road, Southam Street, Adair Road, Appleford Road, Southern

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


86

Sampling point

Site details Description


Row

17 Walk 9c EHP Park gate to enclosed ornamental garden in SE corner of site

0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0

18 Spot 9 EHP Southern end of ornamental garden close to bird bath

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Walk 10 EHP Along path that veers into centre of site

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 Spot 10 EHP Crossroads of path at centre of site by line of Lombardy poplar trees

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Walk 11 EHP Along path that veers towards NE corner of site

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Spot 11 EHP Area of ornamental shrubs in NE part of site

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 Walk 12 EHP Along path at top of site and south along western path

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

24 Spot 12 EHP Adjacent to building along western path

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


87

RBKC 5 – Westfield Park and Cremorne Gardens Sampling point Site Description


00 Pre-survey Westfield Dog toilet sign opposite playground

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

01 Walk 1 Westfield Footpath on S side of site 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

02 Spot 1 Westfield Corner of green and houses before southern Tetcott Road gate

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

03 Walk 2 Westfield Footpath on W side of site 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

04 Spot 2 Westfield End of hedge by northern Tetcott Road gate

20 1 0 11 0 0 3 0 0

05 Walk 3 Westfield Footpath on N side of site 5 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0

06 Spot 3 Westfield NE corner of site 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0

07 Walk 4 Westfield Footpath on E side of site 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

08 Spot 4 Westfield Dog toilet sign opposite playground

1 0 3 0 0 1 12 0 0

09 Walk 5a Westfield Path from playground to Upcerne Road gate

0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0


Upcerne Road and Lots road

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

09 Walk 5c Cremorne Cremorne gate towards riverside, along riverside back into gardens

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 Spot 5 Cremorne River side of site, between two trees by “No ball games allowed” sign

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 Walk 6 Cremorne SW edge and NW edge of amenity grassland

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Spot 6 Cremorne By small bench under willow shelter

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Walk 7a Cremorne Willow shelter to Cremorne gate

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0


Lots Road, Ashburnham Road, Burnaby Street, Upcerne Road

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

13 Walk 7c Westfield Upcerne Road gate to footpath on S side of site

0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0

14 Spot 7 Westfield Corner of green and houses before southern Tetcott Road gate

0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0

15 Walk 8 Westfield Footpath on W side of site 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 Spot 8 Westfield End of hedge by northern Tetcott Road gate

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 Walk 9 Westfield Footpath on N side of site 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0

18 Spot 9 Westfield NE corner of site 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Walk 10 Westfield Footpath on E side of site 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 Spot 10 Westfield Dog toilet sign opposite playground

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Walk 11a Westfield Path from playground to Upcerne Road gate

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Upcerne Road and Lots road

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Walk 11c Cremorne Cremorne gate towards riverside, along riverside back into gardens

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Spot 11 Cremorne River side of site, between two trees by “No ball games allowed” sign

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


88

Sampling point Site Description


23 Walk 12 Cremorne SW edge and NW edge of amenity grassland

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

24 Spot 12 Cremorne By small bench under willow shelter

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


89

Transect RBKC 6 – St. Luke’s Gardens Sampling point Description Lux


00 Pre-survey Between entrance gate (near SW corner of church) and tomb

195 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

01 Walk 1 Path intersecting site directly alongside S side of church

3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

02 Spot 1 Wild area (fenced off) by gate to E of church

6 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0

03 Walk 2 Area of site to N of church, around sports pitch and to NE corner

9 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0

04 Spot 2 Between sheds towards NE corner of site

11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

05 Walk 3 Path along E boundary of site and to centre of green in S half of site

35 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0

06 Spot 3 Tree in centre of paths in S half of site

8 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0

07 Walk 4 Across green down to SW corner of site and up W boundary of site to gate by church

8 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0

08 Spot 4 Between entrance gate (near SW corner of church) and tomb

6.7 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0


5 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0


7 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0


3 0 0 7 0 0 4 0 0


2 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0


8 0 0 7 0 0 4 0 0


2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0


1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0


0.7 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0


4 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0


2 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0


0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0


0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0


1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0.4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0


90

Appendix 8: Legislation

Legislation

All bat species in the UK are fully protected under The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2010 (as amended) through their inclusion on Schedule 2. Regulation 41 prohibits:

Deliberate killing, injuring or taking (capture) of bats

Deliberate disturbance of bats in such a way as to:

impair their the ability to survive, breed, or rear or nurture their young;

or

affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of bat species; or

impair their ability to hibernate or migrate

Damage or destruction of a bat breeding site or resting place i.e. roost

Keeping, transporting, selling, exchanging or offering for sale whether live or

dead or of any part thereof.

All bat species in the UK are also protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) through their inclusion on Schedule 5. Under this Act, it is an offence to:

Intentionally or recklessly disturb any bat while it is occupying a structure or

place which it uses for shelter or protection

Intentionally or recklessly obstruct the access to any place of shelter or

protection used by bat(s)

Sell, offer or expose for sale, possess or transport a bat(s) for the purpose of

sale.

A European Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) Licence issued by the relevant countryside agency (e.g. Natural England) will need to be applied for to allow derogation from the relevant legislation i.e. for works liable to affect a bat roost or for operations likely to result in a level of disturbance which might impair their ability to undertake those activities mentioned above (e.g. survive, breed, rear young, hibernate, migrate). In certain circumstances, important foraging areas and/or commuting routes can be regarded as being afforded de facto protection, for example, where it can be proven that the continued usage of such areas is crucial to maintaining the integrity and long-term viability of a bat roost.


91

Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 2010

The species protection provision of the EC Habitats Directive 1992, as implemented by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, comprises three “derogation tests” which must be applied by the Local Planning Authority when deciding whether to grant planning permission for a development that could harm a European Protective Species. The three tests are that:

The activity to be licensed must be for imperative reasons of overriding public

interest or for public health and safety

There must be no satisfactory alternative; and

Favourable Conservation Status (FCS) of the species must be maintained.

It is the responsibility of the applicant to submit sufficient information to address these tests when applying for planning permission. For development activities, an EPSM Licence application can only be obtained after planning permission has been granted. However, the granting of planning permission does not guarantee that a licence will be issued by the relevant countryside agency

Planning Policy Statement 9.

Planning Policy Statements (PPS) set out the Government‟s national policies on different aspects of planning in England. PPS9 sets out planning policies on the protection of biodiversity and geological conservation. PPS9 states that:

Development plan policies and planning decisions should be based upon up-

to-date information about the environmental characteristics of their areas.

These characteristics should include the relevant biodiversity and geological

resources of the area. In reviewing environmental characteristics local

authorities should assess the potential to sustain and enhance those

resources.

Plan policies and planning decisions should aim to maintain, and enhance,

restore or add to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. In taking

decisions, local planning authorities should ensure that appropriate weight is

attached to designated sites of international, national and local importance;

protected species; and to biodiversity and geological interests within the wider

environment.

Plan policies on the form and location of development should take a strategic

approach to the conservation, enhancement and restoration of biodiversity

and geology, and recognise the contributions that sites, areas and features,

both individually and in combination, make to conserving these resources.


92

Plan policies should promote opportunities for the incorporation of beneficial

biodiversity and geological features within the design of development.

Development proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or

enhance biodiversity and geological conservation interests should be

permitted.

The aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and

geological conservation interests. Where granting planning permission would

result in significant harm to those interests, local planning authorities will need

to be satisfied that the development cannot reasonably be located on any

alternative sites that would result in less or no harm. In the absence of any

such alternatives, local planning authorities should ensure that, before

planning permission is granted, adequate mitigation measures are put in

place. Where a planning decision would result in significant harm to

biodiversity and geological interests, which cannot be prevented or

adequately mitigated against, appropriate compensation measures, should be

sought. If that significant harm cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated

against, or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.

This means full comprehensive ecological surveys will need to be carried out and suitable mitigation strategies compiled prior to the submission of any planning application. This information will be reviewed by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the relevant countryside agency and other conservation bodies.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC)

Part 3, Section 40 of the NERC Act 2006 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‟, otherwise known as the Biodiversity Duty. Under Section 41 of the Act, the Secretary of State must publish a list of the living organisms and types of habitat which in the Secretary of State‟s opinion are of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity. This list is based on those species listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) as priority species. The S41 list replaces the list published under Section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000.

Biodiversity Action Plan

Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) set out actions for the conservation and enhancement of biological diversity at national, regional and local level. They consist of both Habitat Action Plans (HAPs) and Species Action Plans (SAPs) and species and habitats listed within these are defined as being of Principal Importance for the Conservation of Biodiversity under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006. Local authorities must consider these species and habitats when determining planning applications.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea bat survey report 2010 · Pearce (Licence Number: 20101149...

Documents

Transcript of Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea bat survey report 2010 · Pearce (Licence Number: 20101149...