new university of glasgow - whatdotheyknow · 2020. 7. 13. · kelvin also provides amenity value,...

www.arup.com

Scotstoun House

South Queensferry

West Lothian

EH30 9SE

www.arup.com

University of Glasgow

Garscube Campus

Baseline Ecology Survey

218846-00

Issue | 9 March 2012

This report takes into account the particular

instructions and requirements of our client.

It is not intended for and should not be relied

upon by any third party and no responsibility is

undertaken to any third party.

Job number 218846-00

Appendix A F0219415

Appendix A F0219415

University of Glasgow Garscube Campus Baseline Ecology Survey

218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012

J:\210000\218000\218846-00\02 EIA TOPICS\2-04 ECOLOGY\2-04-01 ASSESSMENT\LASTEST DRAFT\GARSCUBE CAMPUS-BASELINE ECOLOGY REPORT-ISSUE-

06.03.12.DOCX

Contents

Page

1 Summary 1

2 Introduction 2

3 Desk Study and Consultations 4

4 Legal and Policy Context 5

4.1 Legislation 5

4.2 Policy and Initiatives 6

5 Survey methodology 8

5.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey 8

5.2 Protected Species 8

6 Desktop Baseline Review 16

6.1 Existing data 16

7 Baseline Environment 17

7.1 Habitats 17


8 Potential impacts 26

8.1 Habitats 26

8.2 Bats 26

9 Mitigation and Recommendations 29

9.1 Habitats 29


10 Conclusions 34

Appendices

Appendix A

Development of the Garscube Campus

Appendix B

Protected Species Records

Appendix C

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Bat Survey

Appendix D

Otter Survey

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 1

1 Summary

Arup Scotland was commissioned by the University of Glasgow to undertake an initial desk-based study and baseline ecological survey for the potential development of the Centre for Virus Research (CVR) and Veterinary Hospital area on the southern aspect of the Garscube Campus.

In summary, ecological baseline surveys and a site walkover were required to inform the client of any ecological risks associated with the development site, such as designated sites, valuable semi-natural habitats and protected species issues.

This report describes the results of the Phase 1 Habitat Survey1, which mapped the

habitats present on the site while also investigating the potential for protected species. Desk-based research has been undertaken with a number of organisations to determine any existing ecological data for the development site or the wider Garscube campus.

The proposed development is on the southern side of the Garscube Campus, south west of the River Kelvin. The study area is predominantly used for educational and research purposes, while the walkway along the southern aspect of the River Kelvin also provides amenity value, with an informal but busy pathway. The main habitats present are amenity grassland, broadleaved-leaved woodland of plantation origin, introduced scrub, buildings and bare ground.

Overall, the habitats present are generally of low or local ecological value, as they are planted habitats, though some of these are long established. However, the broadleaved plantation woodland to the south of the River Kelvin does provide ecological value to the site. The habitats present on site do provide potential for breeding birds and bats.

A detailed bat survey of the buildings proposed to be demolished as part of the CVR development, and adjacent trees, was undertaken and showed no evidence of roosting bats. Two otter surveys have been undertaken, including an in-channel assessment of potential holt sites. Otter (Lutra lutra) use the River Kelvin, and the riparian habitat of the River Kelvin was found to contain suitable habitat for resting sites, but no key sites were recorded in close proximity to the CVR development.

There is potential for breeding or nesting birds within the scrub and trees around the site. It is recommended that any vegetation and trees to be affected by the works should be cleared outside of the main breeding bird season of March-August inclusive.

There are a number of possibilities for biodiversity enhancement of the site, which could be incorporated into the scheme design, and a number of these are outlined within the report.

1 JNCC, 2007 Phase 1 Habitat Survey – A technique for environmental audit

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 2

2 Introduction

Arup Scotland was commissioned by the University of Glasgow to undertake the baseline ecological surveys for the potential development of the CVR and Veterinary Hospital area. The ecological baseline surveys were required to inform the client of any ecological risks associated with the development site, such as designated sites, valuable semi-natural habitats and protected species issues.

The baseline surveys and subsequent baseline report are anticipated to be used as supporting information as part of a planning application to Glasgow City Council (GCC) for the CVR development. These baseline surveys have also been used to inform the overall masterplan proposals developed by Sheppard Robson Architects which include a wider site parking strategy for the western campus.

Garscube estate is parkland and is situated on the north-west boundary of Glasgow, approximately six miles from the city centre, adjacent to the suburb of Bearsden. The Garscube campus itself is divided by the River Kelvin. The focus of this study is the area of the campus located west of the River Kelvin. Currently, development works are being undertaken to the north west of the campus, where a Translation Research Centre (TRC) is currently being constructed.

As part of the proposed development works, it is proposed construct a CVR, south west of the campus between adjacent to the Henry Welcome Building. Four buildings to the south west of the campus notably the Campbell building refectory, large animal ops, Stewart building and clinical isolation unit are to be demolished over a period of time. These facilities are currently use for a combination of purposes including administration, animal isolation and canteen facilities for students and staff. The site parking strategy is anticipated to create new parking bays in front of the McCall and GLaSS buildings, and also along the existing roadway to the front of the Weiper’s equine centre, equine stables and exercise buildings. Appendix A outlines the development proposals for the western campus.

This report describes the results of the Phase 1 Habitat Survey, which mapped the habitats present on the site while also investigating the potential for protected species.

It is anticipated that the report will inform the BREEAM assessment for the CVR development.

This report outlines and discusses the following issues:

• Phase 1 Habitat Survey report with target notes of key ecological findings and areas of bat roost potential;

• Presence/likely absence/or evidence of protected species on or adjacent to the site, and the legal and mitigation implications of this;

• The results of detailed bat surveys undertaken of existing mature trees (to be felled) or buildings (to be demolished), where these were considered to have bat roost potential;

• Otter activity surveys and identification of potential otter shelter habitat within the campus and immediately adjacent areas;

• Identification of potential breeding bird habitat; and

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 3

• Presence of invasive species such as Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) and giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum).

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 4

3 Desk Study and Consultations

A desktop review was undertaken to identify features of ecological importance within the proposed development site and its environs. A review of areas designated (or being considered for designation) for nature conservation was carried out by consulting the Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) website. These included Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA) for birds (both internationally important), and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (nationally important). A review of the published literature was undertaken in order to collate data on the receiving environment, including UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species and habitats within or on the boundary of the study area.

The following resources formed the basis of this research:

• National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway (http://data.nbn.org.uk) – online database of UK biodiversity data;

• Forestry Commission Land Information Search (GLADE) -http://fortingall.forestry.gov.uk/glade/ccheck/ConstraintsChecker.htm;

• Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Draft River Basin Management (RBMP) Interactive Map http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/monitoring_and_classification/previous_schemes.aspx; and the Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map http://go.mappoint.net/sepa/;

• Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Sitelink website (http://www.snh.org.uk/snhi/), database of statutory designated sites for nature conservation in Scotland;

• Glasgow Biodiversity Records Office [email protected] (Richard Sutcliffe);

• Clyde Amphibian and Reptile Group http://c-arg.webnode.com/; and • Scottish Badgers - http://www.scottishbadgers.org.uk/contact.html (Ian

Hutchison). Research and consultations with the organisations listed above was undertaken between September and October of 2011.

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 5

4 Legal and Policy Context

There is a comprehensive system of legislation, both domestic and international,

which aims to protect biodiversity at the landscape, habitat and species level.

There is also a range of policy documents relating to biodiversity that apply to

developments requiring planning permission. These are briefly outlined below.

4.1 Legislation

4.1.1 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981) (as amended)

This is the primary legislation covering endangered species in Scotland and sets

out the framework for the designation of SSSIs. It confers differing levels of

protection on species themselves, their habitats or both depending on their

conservation status. Species offered protection by the Act are listed in a series of

schedules. This is also the main piece of legislation regulating the release of non-

native species in Great Britain.

4.1.2 Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004

This Act introduces a range of protection and enforcement measures to safeguard

and enhance Scotland’s natural heritage. It affords a greater level of protection to

SSSIs. This Act has also amended the Wildlife and Countryside Act by the

addition of the term ‘recklessly’ to Section 1(5) and Section 9 (4) which has

resulted in additional obligations with respect to protected species. As such, it is

now an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb protected species listed on

the relevant Schedules of the Act. This act also introduced a number of new

measures to tackle non-native species.

4.1.3 Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 (WANE Act)

The WANE Act 2011 repeals Schedule 9 of the W&C Act 1981 in Scotland. The

WANE Act 2011 is moving away from listing species and is based on the ‘no

release general presumption’ – making it a much wider offence to release any

non-native animal or plant species into the ‘the wild’. Section 15 of the WANE

Act 2011 inserts a new section into the 1981 Act which relates to a Code of

Practice. The final draft of this code is currently being consulted. This Code will

provide practical guidance in respect of the release, keeping, sale and notification

offences contained in the act. It also contains information on species control

agreements and species control orders, and sets out a framework of

responsibilities agreed by the key government agencies dealing with non-native

species.

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 6

4.1.4 EC Directive Conservation of Natural Habitats & Flora (92/43/EEC)

The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994 (as amended in

Scotland in 2007 and 2008) are the British response to the Habitats & Species

Directive 1992 issued by the European Community (EC). They offer protection to

a number of plant and animal species throughout the EC via the designation of

SACs. In the United Kingdom these regulations are implemented through the

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The Regulations for the

protection of European Protected Species (EPS) were strengthened in 2007 and

2008. Key changes include the removal of most of the defences from regulation

40 and regulation 43 including the removal of the ‘incidental result of an

otherwise lawful operation’ defence, and the increase in the threshold for the

offence of deliberately disturbing an EPS. EPS include otter, Atlantic salmon

(Salmo salar) and all species of bats.

4.2 Policy and Initiatives

4.2.1 UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP)

The existence of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, published in 1994, arises from

the UK Government’s commitment to biodiversity made at the 1992 Earth

Summit in Rio de Janeiro and in direct response to the resulting Convention on

Biological Diversity. To implement the UKBAP, the UK Biodiversity Group2 has

produced a list of Habitat Action Plans and Species Action Plans (HAPs and

SAPs). These nation-wide plans are implemented on a local level through local

biodiversity action plans (LBAPs), which are drawn up by individual or groups of

Local Authorities.

4.2.2 Glasgow Local Biodiversity Action Plan

Glasgow’s LBAP was launched in September 2001 and comprised an introductory booklet along with nine Species Action Plans (SAPs) and 11 Habitat Action Plans (HAPs). A further 10 Action Plans were produced in September 2002, with more being planned for future publication. Each individual Species or Habitat Action Plan has a number of objectives, and details actions to be carried out in order to conserve and enhance populations of particular animal and plant species, or to protect and enhance valuable habitats

3.

4.2.3 Glasgow Open Space Map

The Open Space Map4 has been created as part of the Glasgow City Plan to

identify areas subject to Policy ENV 1 – Protected Open Space. It pinpoints every

open space within the City. Ranging in size from hectares to square metres

approximately 26,000 individual open spaces have been classified using the

2 http://tna.europarchive.org/20110303145238/http://www.ukbap.org.uk/default.aspx

3http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/Residents/Parks_Outdoors/Ecology/Biodiversity/localbiodiversity

actionplan.htm 4 http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/exeres/E363BC90-0426-4176-8DF3-

556403B72624,frameless.htm?NRMODE=Published

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 7

extended typology set out in Annex 1 to Planning Advice Note 65. The south

west bank of the River Kelvin adjacent to the CVR development is a ‘green

corridor, riparian route’. The aim of policy ENV1 is to ensure that areas of formal

and informal open space are protected from inappropriate development, in order

to maintain or enhance the quality of life, health, well being and amenity of the

communities they serve and also promote sustainability and biodiversity.

4.2.4 Scottish Biodiversity List

The Scottish Biodiversity List5 has been developed to meet the requirements of

Section 2 (4) of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) 2004 Act for the conservation

of biodiversity. This legislation requires Scottish Ministers to publish lists of

species of flora and fauna and habitats considered to be of principal importance

for the purposes of biodiversity.

4.2.5 Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Government, 2010

This document6 outlined Scottish planning policy relating to landscape and natural

heritage. Developments that affect a SSSI will only be permitted where it will not

affect the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been designated, or

any such adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or

economic benefits of national importance.

If there is evidence to suggest that a protected species is present on site or may be

affected by a proposed development, their presence must be established, the

requirements of the species factored into the planning and design of the

development and any likely impact on the species fully considered prior to the

determination of the planning application. In no circumstances can development

be approved which would be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of

an EPS at a favourable conservation status in its natural range.

4.2.6 Planning Advice Note 60 (PAN 60)

The Scottish Government is committed to safeguarding Scotland's unique natural

heritage and integrating the principles of sustainable development into all

Government policies. This Planning Advice Note (PAN)7 provides advice on how

development and the planning system can contribute to the conservation,

enhancement, enjoyment and understanding of Scotland's natural environment and

encourages developers and planning authorities to be positive and creative in

addressing natural heritage issues.

5 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/05/17102624/6 6 Scottish Planning Policy, February 2010

(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/02/03132605/12) 7 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2000/08/pan60-root/pan60

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 8

5 Survey methodology

5.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey

A Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the south western aspect of the campus was undertaken to JNCC methodology

8 on the 15

th September, 2011. The survey date

is considered to be within the suitable season to carry out habitat surveys. A subsequent Phase 1 Habitat survey of the north western campus was undertaken on the 7

th November, 2011 to inform the development of the wider site parking

strategy of any ecological implications. The weather during both visits was generally bright with no rain resulting in no limitations to the survey results.

The survey was undertaken by

with Arup Scotland assisted in the habitat survey.

A Phase 1 habitat survey provides a rapid assessment of habitat presence and quality. Whilst it is focussed upon categorisation of parcels of land based on their vegetation, the potential value of areas to fauna (including protected species) is also considered. Blocks of land are assigned to recognised broad-habitat categories (e.g. amenity, semi-improved grassland, running water), and marked on a map using standard mapping colour codes. Target notes are used to provide additional descriptions of features of particular note (e.g. key and characteristic plant species, sensitive or valuable ecological habitats, areas with suitability for protected species). The purpose of the Phase 1 habitat survey undertaken for this study was to provide an ecological baseline assessment, highlight possible ecological constraints, and highlight features that might require more detailed field investigations i.e. further detailed protected species surveys. No attempt was made to identify bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) or lichens during the survey as these are not required for Phase 1 Habitat surveys.

5.2 Protected Species

The National Biodiversity Network ‘online map viewer’ was referenced to establish potential protected species known to be occurring in the study site or its environs. Otter, Daubenton’s bat (Myotis daubentonii), Pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus spp.), brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus) and badger (Meles meles) occurred within the 10km grid squares NS55 and NS56 which cover the study site.

A survey for signs and features for the presence of badgers (setts, latrines and trails) was undertaken along the western woodland corridor of the River Kelvin. No formal bird survey was undertaken as all surveys were undertaken outwith the bird breeding season; however, any nests present on site were noted if found.

8 JNCC, 2010 Phase 1 Habitat Survey – A technique for environmental audit

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 9

5.2.1 Bat Roost Potential

A summary of the bat survey methodology is outlined below with a summary of the findings detailed in Section 7.2.1 ‘Bat Surveys’.

5.2.1.1 Trees

A visual inspection of mature trees along the south western aspect of the River Kelvin was undertaken by two Arup ecologists on August 17

th 2011. This survey

was limited to immediately north east of the Campbell building refractory (see Appendix C), where the CVR scheme parking bays and access road are proposed.

An additional bat roost potential survey of the wider campus was undertaken on the 7

th November, 2011 to inform any future developments most notably the

creation of additional parking spaces. The results of this survey are also outlined in Appendix C.

The methodology for assessing the bat roost potential of trees followed the Bat Conservation Trust’s Bat Surveys, Good Practice Guidelines (BCT, 2007

9). Each

tree was observed from all angles where possible and potential features were observed with binoculars. The features that could potentially be suitable to support bat roosts include splits in the main truck or mature branches, woodpecker holes, boss holes that have a complex cavity, and any loose or peeling bark.

By describing the nature and features of the trees, based on the criteria detailed in Table 1 below, the level of bat roost potential (low, medium and high) can be assigned to each tree surveyed.

Table 1: Criteria for assessing bat roost potential of trees (BCT, 2007)

Risk Assessment

Description

Low • No visual holes or crevices; • No major dead branches; • Flight lines to trunk highly obscured; and • No or very little ivy on the trunk.

Moderate • Visual holes or crevices or small superficial holes beginning to form;

• Minor dead limbs but no obvious cavities/lifting bark/splits;

• Flight lines to trunk slightly obscured; • Lifting bark on main trunk; and • Trunks covered by ivy on semi-mature trees / clean

trunks.

9 Bat Conservation Trust (2007). Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation Trust,

London

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 10

Risk Assessment

Description

High • Cavities and crevices present; • Major dead limbs present; • Good flight lines to trunk; • Heavily ridged and lifting bark; and • Trunks covered by ivy on mature trees.

Evidence of bat activity was also recorded if found, although it is recognised that bats may offer little or no evidence of their occupation when trees are viewed from the ground. The following field signs were also searched for in all instances:

• Dark staining on the tree below a hole (usually urine); • Staining around a hole caused by the natural oils in bat’s fur; • A maze of tiny scratch marks around the hole from the bats claws (rarely

visible); • Droppings below a hole (similar to mouse but crumble to fine dust when

rubbed); • Noise especially on a hot day or at dusk – audible squeaking; • Large roosts or regularly used sites may produce an odour; • Wasps / bees / birds using the cavities; and • Flies around the entrance attracted by guano etc.

5.2.1.2 Buildings

An internal inspection of the interior facades of the clinical isolation unit, Stewart building, large animal ops and Campbell building refectory (see Appendix A ‘Proposals for the western Garscube Campus’ for locations) was undertaken on the 15

th September, 2011. This involved the identification of features (if found)

such as location and number of droppings, freshness, shape and size of droppings, location and quantity of feeding remains, location of clean, cobweb-free timbers, crevices and holes, staining from urine and /or grease marks, known and potential access points to the roost

10.

The external inspection of these buildings involved recording features (if found) such as missing mortar on gable ends giving access under tiles, lifted slate tiles on roof, cable holes in roof giving access inside the building, missing mortar around the window giving access between brick and window frames, and large cracks in mortar between bricks on gable ends.

By describing the structure based on the criteria detailed in Table 2, the level of bat roost potential (low, medium and high) can be assigned to each building surveyed.

10

Bat Conservation Trust (2007). Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation

Trust, London

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 11

Table 2: Criteria used to indicate good and poor quality for roosting bats in buildings.

Good Poor

• Pre-20th Century construction • A lowland, rural setting • Woodland, mature trees, species-

rich grassland and/or water nearby • Large dimension roof timbers with

cracks, joints and holes • Numerous crevices in stonework

and structures • Uneven roof covering with gaps,

though not too draughty • Hanging tiles or roof cladding,

especially on south-facing walls • Roof warmed by the sun • Disused or little used; largely

undisturbed

• Urban setting with little green space

• Heavy disturbance • Small, cluttered roof void • Roofs damaged, partially intact

or missing • Modern construction with few

gaps or crevices • Prefabricated of steel or sheet

materials • Active industrial premises

The internal and external inspection revealed that only one building offered ‘moderate’ bat roost potential. This was the Campbell building refectory which has a wooden hut located on top of the building, providing easy access and egress for bats and potential roost habitat behind some of the wall insulation panel. All other buildings were considered to offer low bat roost potential, although this does not exclude entirely their potential to be used occasionally or temporarily.

5.2.1.3 Emergence/re-entry survey

Dusk emergence and dawn re-entry surveys were undertaken for all four buildings proposed to be demolished. Surveys were undertaken on the evening of 14

th, 15

th,

21st and 22

nd of September and the mornings of the 15

th, 16

th, 22

nd and 23

rd of

September. The dusk surveys started approximately half an hour before dusk and finished approximately an hour and half after dark. The dawn surveys were undertaken two hours before dawn and finished at dawn paying particular attention to possible swarming in close proximity to a roost before entering.

Dusk emergence and dawn re-entry surveys were undertaken for all trees identified with ‘moderate’ potential for roosting bats. The location of each surveyor during each survey is outlined in Appendix C, ‘Bat Survey Map’.

If bats are found roosting within trees or buildings, then no tree removal or demolition would be possible until detailed mitigation has been discussed and agreed with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), who is responsible for all wildlife licensing in Scotland, following the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act, 2011. The survey visits were undertaken as outlined below in Table 3. An indication of the location of each surveyor during each survey is located in Table 4 and shown again in Appendix C.

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 12

Table 3: CVR bat survey details

Date (2011)

Dusk/dawn Times

(Start and End)

Temperatures

(Start – End)

Weather

14th

Sept, 2011

Dusk emergence 19.05 – 21.10 12°C - 11°C Dry, slightly breezy, ~80% cloud cover

15th

Sept, 2011

Dawn re-entry 05.20 – 07.00 4°C - 5°C Cold, clear with no rain

15th Sept Dusk emergence 19.00 – 21.05 13°C - 11°C Clear and light breeze

16th

Sept Dawn re-entry 05.20 – 07.00 9°C - 9°C ~50% cloud cover, light breeze, no rain

21st Sept Dusk emergence 18.45-20.55 12°C - 11°C Intermittent

spells of heavy rain, light drizzle and dry periods

23rd Sept Dawn re-entry 05.04 – 07.05 12°C - 12°C Clear with no rain

The surveys were undertaken by two Arup ecologists and

The survey followed relevant methodologies in Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines

11. Two surveyors were present at all times, as demonstrated in Table 4

below.

11

Bat Conservation Trust (2007) Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 13

Table 4: Location of surveyors during each bat survey session conducted in

September, 2011

Type of survey Location of each

surveyor

112

213

314

Dusk emergence

(Wednesday

14.09.11)

In front (western

aspect) of Campbell

Building Refectory

(NS 55037, 69932)

overlooking the

west facing facades

of this building, the

Stewart building

and large animal

op.’s.

East of the

Campbell Building

Refectory

overlooking the

eastern facade of

this building and the

wooden hut located

on top of this

structure (NS

55030, 69962)

Dawn re-entry

(Thursday

15.09.11)

Overlooking the

eastern facade of

Campbell Building

Refectory , stewart

building and mature

trees to the west

(NS 55019, 69945)

Overlooking the

eastern and southern

facade of the

clinical isolation

unit and large

animal ops (NS

55111, 69909)

Dusk emergence

(Thursday 15.09.11)

North west of the

Campbell Building Refectory building

overlooking the

northern facade of

this building (NS

55060 69945)

South western

facade of the clinical isolation

unit (NS 55092

69935)

Dawn re-entry

(Friday 16.09.11)

Stand of mature

beech trees at the

north east corner of

the CVR car park

(NS 55170, 69917)

Stand of mature

beech trees at the

south eastern corner

of the veterinary car

park (NS 55157,

69917)

Dusk emergence

(21.09.11)

North west of the

Campbell Building

Refectory building

overlooking the

northern facade of

this building (NS 55060 69945)

A mature beech

(Fagus sylvatica)

categorised as

having moderate bat

roost potential

located on the southern banks of

the River Kelvin

(NS55149, 69955)

12

Arup 13

14

, Arup

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 14

Type of survey Location of each

surveyor

112

213

314

Dawn re-entry

(23.09.11)

Western banks of

the River Kelvin, north west of the

Campbell Building

Refectory, where a

stand of mature

trees were identified

as having moderate

bat roost potential

(NS55054, 69982)

Western banks of

the River Kelvin, north west of the

Campbell Building

Refectory, where

two mature oaks

(Quercus sp.) were

identified as having

moderate bat roost

potential (NS55054,

69982)

5.2.1.4 Limitations

Weather conditions were changeable during the survey session, air temperatures varied between 8°C and 12°C however a drop in temperature occurred on the morning of the 15

th September, 2011 with a starting temperature of 4°C and an

end temperature of 5°C. These temperatures are outwith Best Practice Guidelines (BCT, 2007

15) and therefore a repeat survey of these locations was conducted on

Wednesday the 21st September, 2011. Heavy rainfall occurred intermittingly

during the dusk survey on the evening of the 21st from approximately 19.28pm to

19.42pm which eased off to a light drizzle. Apart from a further light drizzle at 20.18pm, the majority of the survey was conducted in dry weather conditions. Given that bat activity remained throughout the survey, it is not anticipated that the prevailing weather conditions affected activity on the night.

All British bats are peripatetic and move between roosting sites through seasons and sometimes within seasons. The absence of bats on a particular occasion does not necessarily rule out their presence at other times. An absence of physical signs does not always indicate absence of a roost.

5.2.2 Otter survey

An otter survey was undertaken over two days on the 6th

December 2011 and again on the 19

th of January 2012, to determine the status of otter activity and

sheltering potential along the River Kelvin. Both the eastern and western banks of the River Kelvin were surveyed with the upstream limit located approximately 25m downstream of Maryhill Road Bridge (NS 55359, 70610) and the downstream limit was located in line with the Urquhart building (NS 55263, 69882) as outlined in Appendix D, Otter Survey Map

The survey involved an assessment of potential otter shelter habitat by checking for the presence and status of any otter holts (underground or underwater cavities) or couches (above ground resting areas for shelter). A visual assessment of any cavities both when in the river and also on the embankment was undertaken to investigate for signs of occupancy by otter. In some areas where dense vegetation occurred, a survey for otter signs entering these areas was undertaken e.g. footprints.

15

Bat Conservation Trust (2007) Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 15

The surveys involved searching for a range of otter signs listed below16

:

• Spraints

• Food remains

• Rolling places

• Slides down river banks

• Footprints or paths; and

• Shelters (either holts or couches).

Notes were taken of riparian habitat type, suitability, quality and disturbance during the first survey visit. Water levels were acceptable for in-channel access to check for holts for the second survey. Water levels had been low for some time due to low levels of rainfall for the preceding week, meaning that recent signs of activity would not have been washed away by spate flows. River levels were checked before going to the study site on the SEPA river level data website

17.

All surveys were undertaken by and both experienced protected species ecologists with Arup. Double manning was required for the otter survey due to health and safety implications.

5.2.3 Other protected species

A badger survey was undertaken in December 2011 according to the methodology outlined in Harris et al (1989

18). Field signs are characteristic and sometimes quite

obvious and include tufts of hair caught on barbed wire fences, conspicuous badger paths, footprints, small excavated pits or latrines in which droppings are deposited, scratch marks on trees and snuffle holes, which are small scrapes where badgers have searched for insects and plant tubers. During the walkover survey, any features as outlined were noted including setts, if found. The footprint of the proposed study area is not considered significant in terms of habitat use by badgers.

16 Scottish Natural Heritage (1997), Scotland’s Wildlife: Otter and Development 17

http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river_levels/river_level_data.aspx?sd=t&lc=133099 18

Harris, S., Cresswell, P. and Jefferies, D. (1989) Surveying Badgers. The Mammal Society,

Baltic Exchange Buildings, London

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 16

6 Desktop Baseline Review

6.1 Existing data

6.1.1 Protected Areas and Areas of Conservation Interest

The Garscube Campus is outwith any designated nature conservation areas. The nearest statutory designated site is Possil Park SSSI, designated for its standing open water and canals, which is approximately 3km to the east of the campus. Dawsholm Park is a wooded area immediately downstream of the Garscube campus on the right bank of the River Kelvin, and is designated as a Local Nature Reserve.

However, both of these sites are outwith the zone of potential impact of the CVR development, and are not considered further as part of this report.

6.1.2 Glasgow Museum Biological Records Office

Accompanying this report is a table containing details of all notable and protected species records found within 200m of the footprint of the study area (Appendix B: Protected Species Records).

Atlantic salmon were recorded five times from the period 1980 to 1995. A single record for brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri) was noted in 2007. Signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) were recorded on two occasions in the River Kelvin for the first time in August of 2010, downstream of Dawsholm (NS 55321 70494) at the Garscube Estate.

6.1.3 Clyde Amphibian and Reptile Group (CARG)

In total, ninety records of amphibians were recorded by the CARG. It was noted that the vast majority of these records were for common frog (Rana temporaria) and common toad (Bufo bufo) with a handful of records for smooth newt (Triturus vulgaris) and palmate newt (Lissotriton helveticus). The CARG has two records of great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) from 1960 or before. However, the reliability of this record is unknown.

6.1.4 Scottish Badgers

Badgers were recorded within the 10km grid square NS55 in which this survey site is located (National Biodiversity Network Interactive Map).

6.1.5 National Biodiversity Network

The study site is located in the 10km grid square NS55. A full species list of European and nationally protected species found within this grid square is included in the Appendix B ‘Protected Species Records’.

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 17

7 Baseline Environment

A Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map is located in Appendix A. A full species list for all habitats is located in Appendix A ‘Phase 1 Habitat Survey Target Notes’ in addition to a number of photographic plates showing features of ecological interest.

The habitats on site vary from negligible ecological importance to moderate ecological importance. A significant amount of species-poor amenity grassland occurs throughout the site. A number of ornamental and non-native shrub species have been planted sporadically as part of the historical landscaping of the Garscube campus. The habitats are not managed to maximise their ecological value. A list of the habitats recorded on site according to JNCC methodology is outlined in detail below.

7.1 Habitats

7.1.1 J1.2 – Amenity grassland

Amenity grassland covers large areas of the Garscube campus after the exclusion of hard standing areas and buildings. This habitat is intensively managed by frequent mowing, which generally results in a species-poor sward.

Amenity grassland was recorded across the site both north and south. Towards the north of the site it mainly occurs in the form of football pitches, regularly mown in good condition. Amenity grassland was also recorded south of the playing fields and car park, adjacent to the River Kelvin (Target Note 12, Appendix A ‘Phase 1 Habitat Map’). No riparian habitat was recorded in this area, with the river bank strengthened by brickwork. Thin fragments of Phragmites were noted.

This habitat also regularly occurs as the ground flora with scattered trees of broadleaved species notably sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) and beech (Fagus sylvatica), as well as coniferous species.

The recurring species noted were perennial rye grass (Lolium perenne), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), and white clover (Trifolium repens). Target Note 5 in Appendix A provides a full species list for this habitat.

7.1.1.1 Evaluation

This area is anticipated to be disturbed during the proposed works, in limited areas close to the existing vet school buildings. The habitat is regularly managed, of low botanical diversity and does not appear to be used by any protected species and therefore deemed to be of low ecological importance.

7.1.2 J1.3 - Ephemeral/short perennial

This habitat was recorded as a small section to the south west of the site boundary. It is also occur in conjunction with bare re-colonising ground along the eastern aspect of the clinical isolation unit, between the buildings and the woodland on the riverbank. It must be noted that this latter area was essentially a habitat of bare ground grading into patchy ephemeral/short perennial with grassland and

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 18

scattered scrub habitats also developing in undisturbed areas. This is used as an informal parking and storage area for the vet school buildings.

7.1.2.1 Evaluation

This habitat was considered as being of negligible ecological value.

7.1.3 J1.4 – Introduced shrub

This habitat was recorded in a number of locations across the site. Species recorded within this habitat included the invasive non-native Rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum) and ornamental species such as box hedge (Buxus sempervirens). Dense Rhododendron can shade out the native ground flora of an area.

7.1.3.1 Evaluation

The species assemblage was mainly ornamental and non-native and considered to be of negligible ecological value, though could offer some breeding bird habitat between March and August each year.

7.1.4 A1.1.2 – Broadleaved Plantation Woodland

Broad-leaved plantation woodland was recorded along the western boundary, surrounding the wooden janitor’s hut (Target Note 1 in Appendix A). A strip of amenity grassland lies parallel to the road verge at this site and introduced shrub surrounds the wooden hut.

This section of broadleaved woodland comprised of yew (Taxus baccata), horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), sycamore, hawthorn, sessile oak (Quercus petraea) and ash. The understory was species poor and included bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.), foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), rosebay willow herb (Chamerion angustifolium) and common nettle (Urtica dioica). Rhododendron dominates some of the scrub layer while in other sections the understory is completely absent.

This habitat continued to the north west, parallel to Bearsden Road, and opposite the small animal hospital site. This area was found to contain mature trees of equal age and is relatively un-managed with significant Rhododendron encroachment. Species included horse chestnut, beech, holly and sycamore.

A large linear area of broadleaved plantation woodland occurs along the steep western (right) bank of the River Kelvin (Target Note 2 in Appendix A). Despite being planted, this area was considered as being of relatively high diversity both in terms of tree species and ground flora. The main tree species recorded within this plantation was sycamore (locally dominant according to the DAFOR scale – see Appendix B) and beech and to a lesser extent pedunculate oak (Quercus robur), ash, alder (Alnus glutinosa), goat willow (Salix caprea), hawthorn, common lime (Tilia x europaea), cherry (Prunus avium), rowan (Sorbus aucuparia), horse chestnut, silver birch (Betula pendula). The understory included such species as ivy (Hedera helix), bramble and creeping buttercup.

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 19

This habitat offers a good resource for a range of species due to its location beside the River Kelvin. It contains suitable shelter habitat for otter resting sites under the Rhododendron scrub, though this is likely to be limited by the general human disturbance. There is potential habitat for badger setts on the steep bank, and bird breeding habitat was also evident. A number of mature oak, beech and ash trees were recorded within this woodland belt that could offer some bat roost potential.

The invasive non-native species Japanese knotweed was recorded as two small stands at two locations within this habitat at the bottom of the slope facing north adjacent to the footpath (NS 55159 69935 and NS 55231 69896).

There is an informal footpath running through this area that is well used by pedestrians, dog walkers and runners.

7.1.4.1 Evaluation

The narrow belt of broadleaved plantation woodland to south west (Target Note 1) is comprised of a number of even aged mature trees both native and non-native. This woodland is deemed to be local importance to nesting and breeding birds. Three trees were identified as having bat roost potential within this site and this area was found to be a foraging habitat for bats during the surveys undertaken. This area was not subject to an individual bat survey assessment as it will not be affected by the current proposed works and is unlikely to be affected in future proposed works for the wider campus.

The broadleaved plantation woodland on site had a dense canopy; this combined with significant stands of Rhododendron has led to an impoverished ground flora. Evidence of previous bird nesting was noted. Overall this woodland is of local or low ecological importance.

The riparian area (Target Note 2) is the most ecologically valuable habitat within the immediate vicinity of the CVR building, as some areas are quite diverse and together with the River Kelvin it could act as an important green or ‘wildlife corridor’. It can be considered to be of moderate ecological importance, for its own intrinsic value, and as a supporting habitat for fauna.

The retention of as many native trees as possible on this bank should be regarded as priority, or any felling should be carefully managed. A significant amount of scrub covers also exists and again removal should be minimised in order to conserve potential impacts on nesting and breeding birds.

7.1.5 A1.3.2 – Mixed Plantation Woodland

This habitat occurs to the north west of the site (Target Note 9) as a small discrete and fenced area. It has been planted as part of the site landscaping, perhaps twenty years or so old. In addition, an island located downstream of the footbridge, is a continuation of this mixed plantation woodland, heavily endowed with Rhododendron and ornamental species (Target Note 14).

7.1.5.1 Evaluation

This smaller pocket of mixed broadleaved woodland to the north west of the site did not contain any suitable mature trees for bat roost potential. However, it is

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 20

considered suitable as breeding bird habitat. These areas are considered to be low ecological value.

7.1.6 Mixed plantation woodland on former ancient woodland site

The largest area of mixed plantation woodland is in the centre of the campus, between the Campus Drive and the River Kelvin, to the east of the small animal hospital, equine stables, and equine exercise building. It’s an area of former ancient woodland recorded on the Forestry Commission GLADE website. Despite this designation, this area of ancient woodland has been subject to replanting (Appendix A2 – Phase 1 Habitat Map). This is likely to be have been undertaken as part of the historic landscaping of the Garscube grounds. Species recorded included silver birch (Betula pendula), yew, holm oak (Quercus ilex), pedunculate oak (Quercus robur), holly (Ilex aquifolium), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), noble fir (Abies procera), yew, Corsican pine (Pinus nigra), western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and cherry (Prunus cerasifera). In more open areas, the ground flora is amenity grassland, and in other areas there is dense coverage of Rhododendron scrub.

7.1.6.1 Evaluation

Despite this designation of a former ancient woodland site, this area has been subject to replanting and historic landscaping. It continues to provide good bird nesting potential and some matures trees are highlighted as having moderate bat roost potential. The area can be considered to be of moderate ecological importance, and would not be impacted by any of the CVR development proposals.

7.1.7 B4 – Improved grassland

A small area of improved grassland exists to the south aspect of The Byre building, (Target Note 4 in Appendix B). Species recorded were representative of unmanaged grassland and included Cock’s-foot grass (Dactylis glomerata), perennial rye grass and red clover (Trifolium pratense) and a number of agricultural weeds such as dock (Rumex sp.).

7.1.7.1 Evaluation

This small area of improved grassland is of low ecological value and does not appear to be used by any protected species, and will not be impacted by the CVR scheme.

7.1.8 A3 – Scattered trees

Scattered trees were located in a number of amenity grassland areas throughout the western campus. A section of mature broadleaved species occurs on regularly mown and managed amenity grassland upstream of the footbridge over the River Kelvin (Target Note 13). This was considered as parkland habitat predominantly with a mix of broadleaved species, mainly sycamore, beech, oak, and oak.

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 21

7.1.8.1 Evaluation

A number of mature broadleaved trees were identified which offered potential both as breeding bird habitat and bat roost potential, particularly towards the north of the study site. It is unlikely that any of these trees will be impacted by the proposed plans for the western campus, but they can be considered to be of low ecological value.

7.1.9 G2 – Running Water

The River Kelvin (Water body identifier code: 1013119

) flows from north to south through the Garscube Campus. It was classified as having an overall WFD ecological status of poor in 2008. The pressures which have contributed to this waterbody’s failure are point sources, including sewage disposal. The objective for this watercourse under the WFD Directive for 2015 is to reach ‘good ecological status’. The River Kelvin is protected under the Fresh Water Fish Directive Salmonid Waters and is also classified as an existing UWWTD

20

sensitive area. Despite its poor ecological status, sections of the riparian habitat offer considerable potential for otter resting or shelter habitats, (see Section 7.2.2). In other sections (Target Note 12 and 13), little or no riparian habitat occurs. Daubenton’s bats were recorded foraging over the Kelvin during the bat surveys, as outlined below, in addition to the common Pipistrelle bats.

7.1.9.1 Evaluation

The Kelvin is considered an important habitat for aquatic life. Parts of the riparian habitat within the study area are considered to be semi-natural in sections on the south west side of the Kelvin. It is likely to support a broad range of species, including bats and otter. Overall, this habitat is evaluated as being of moderate importance as it feeds into the designated River Clyde, though no impacts are anticipated as part of the proposed CVR works within the campus. The River Kelvin and adjacent riparian habitat will act as a green or ‘wildlife corridor’ for flora and fauna.

7.1.10 J1.2 - Intact hedge

Intact species-poor hedgerow formed the northern boundary of the study area. Species included hawthorn, beech, occasional bramble and ground ivy.

7.1.10.1 Evaluation

The hedgerow is regularly managed and trimmed and species-poor. It has potential as breeding bird habitat.

19

http://gis.sepa.org.uk/rbmp/ 20

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Sensitive Area

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 22


7.2.1 Bat emergence/re-entry survey results

7.2.1.1 Surveys of built structures

The buildings that are due to be potentially demolished (shown in Appendix A) were observed over three dusk and three dawn surveys between the 14

th and 21

st

September 2011. No bats were observed emerging or re-entering the veterinary buildings during the surveys undertaken.

An internal inspection of these buildings was conducted on the 15th

September, 2011. Bat potential was considered low in all three buildings with the exception of a small wooden hut located on top of Campbell building refectory. No signs of bat activity or presence were recorded in any of the buildings

Activity in the form of commuting, foraging and feeding bat activity was recorded in the environs of these buildings at various times throughout the surveys, but this was not considered to be at times or locations associated with roosts. Three confirmed bat species were observed, common (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) and Daubenton’s bats (Myotis daubentonii).

The first bat recorded on the night of 14th

September was a pipistrelle at 20.09 (27 minutes after sunset), commuting along the woodland belt to the east of the Campbell building refectory. More passes were then observed and became more frequent from 20.11 to 20.48. Both common and soprano pipistrelle bats were recorded continuously foraging and commuting between the mixed plantation woodland to the east and the broadleaved plantation woodland to the west of the janitors hut. Occasional passes over the building were observed.

Further activity in the environs of the broadleaved plantation woodland was recorded on the evening of 15

th September with pipistrelle bats commuting from

the River Kelvin direction and foraging in this small area of broadleaved plantation woodland surrounding the janitor’s hut.

7.2.1.2 Tree surveys

A bat roost potential survey was undertaken of trees along the western boundary of the River Kelvin extending from the Urquhart building in the south and terminating immediately north east of the Campbell refectory building.

The bat roost potential survey identified that the majority of trees to the east of the car park in front of the proposed CVR site were immature; single stemmed predominantly sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) with no visible defects or cavities. These trees were noted as being unsuitable for bats with low roost potential.

Areas of moderate bat roost potential in the south of the study area were noted as follows (Appendix C):

• Two small pockets of mature beech (Fagus sylvatica) located to the north east corner of the CVR car park and to the south east corner of the veterinary car park;

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 23

• To the east of the Stewart building and large animal ops building: mature trees including a well established oak;

• Two stands of mature oak and beech tree to the north east of the Campbell refectory building overlooking the walkway of the River Kelvin.

No bats were observed exiting, swarming or re-entering the trees under investigation. Foraging and commuting was activity of both pipistrelle species was recorded throughout the surveys, but this was not considered to be at times or locations associated with roosts.

Daubenton bat activity was noted along the River Kelvin embankment, from the footpath at the foot of the slope. A significant of amount of Daubenton activity was recorded during one of the dawn surveys undertaken north east of the Campbell building, on the riverside footpath. The amount of activity recorded in a short space of time suggested the presence of a roost. The activity decreased towards dawn suggesting that the roost was not in the immediate vicinity of the survey point. The movement of the Daubenton’s bats was generally from west to east across the River Kelvin, and it is considered likely that a roost may be present downstream of the University grounds in the woodland immediately adjacent to the River Kelvin.

The bat survey locations and results are outlined in Appendix C.

A further bat roost risk assessment survey was undertaken on the 7th

of November, 2011 which identified trees of bat roost potential in the wider western campus, in areas not associated with the CVR development. This involved recording all trees which were noted to have suitable cracks, crevices, knot holes, loose bark, ivy and other observations that may suggest suitability of a tree as a bat roost. The results and limitations of which are outlined in Appendix C ‘Bat Roost Potential Map’.

7.2.2 Otter

Otter and signs of otter have been recorded on eleven occasions from 1995 with the latest record from 2010, from the desktop research undertaken. The River Kelvin as is flows through the Garscube Campus has an unsurfaced walkway on both the eastern and western banks. The western bank contains a dense area of mixed plantation woodland that grades into former ancient woodland and subsequently amenity grassland with scattered trees before eventually ending in scrub dominated by dense Rhododendron, downstream of the Maryhill Road Bridge.

The eastern bank is largely composed of amenity grassland, with a few scattered trees occurring along the bank. A tree line of beech occurs parallel to the playing field, which opens out into amenity grassland. The south eastern boundary terminates in ancient woodland that is dominated by an understory of Rhododendron.

There is a high level of disturbance along both banks of the River Kelvin, throughout both winter and summer months, being regularly used by joggers, walkers, dog walkers, and sporting activity associated with the playing fields. There is also significant noise and light pollution, particularly along the eastern bank.

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 24

There are limited areas of undisturbed shelter habitat that could be utilised by otters for lying up or sheltering within the University ground. It is considered that a potential lying up or shelter site is present to the north of the study area, at the northern extent of the University campus. This area is dominated by dense Rhododendron scrub and mature ivy covered trees along the riverbank, which is considered a good habitat for lying-up sites for otter. This area is also less exposed to human disturbance due to the presence of a fence line, deterring entry. A backwater side channel was present in which a single otter footprint was recorded on a sandy inlet (NS55328, 70539) on the right hand bank (Target Note 1, Figure 5). This area is approximately 500m from the CVR development.

Downstream of the campus footbridge over the Kelvin, Rhododendron thicket occurs. However, it is not considered dense enough or undisturbed enough to provide optimal otter shelter or lying-up habitat.

Sprainting was initially recorded during the site walkover on the 17th

August, 2011, on the banks of the Kelvin located below the CVR car park (NS55203, 69921). Further records in the form of four old spraints were recorded on the 7

th

November at the outfall, upstream of the footbridge (NS55217, 70367) (Target Note 2, Figure 5).

Both banks of the River Kelvin were walked in-channel using waders, inspecting for suitable cavities and potential holt sites. No suitable shelter or holt areas were identified from downstream of the footbridge (NS55219, 70347) to downstream of the playing fields (NS55173, 69938) with the exception of a mid-channel island (Target Note 3, Figure 5) which provides undisturbed otter shelter habitat in an otherwise consistently disturbed area. This area was inspected and was considered to contain suitable above ground cover. However, no signs of otter activity were recorded during the single visit to the island, and it is approximately 250m to the nearest point of the CVR development, and separated by the slope and riparian woodland.

At the downstream and southern extent of the study area, good potential habitat was again recorded with suitable lying sites noted on both the left hand bank (NS55268, 69914) and the right hand bank (NS55263, 69882), but this densely wooded areas is outwith the University grounds. Target notes and an outline of the survey limits are demonstrated in Appendix D, Figure 5 ‘Otter Survey Map’.

No impacts are anticipated upon otter shelter habitat, no holts were recorded in-channel within the University campus, and their movement throughout their territory will not be hindered by any of the current development proposals or by construction activity.

7.2.3 Other protected species

No badger setts or signs of badger of activity were recorded within the footprint of the CVR site, and they are considered absent from the west side of the University campus.

Trees and scrub on the site provides suitable habitat for breeding and nesting birds. However, no formal or thorough surveys were undertaken due to the timing of the commission, which did not coincide with the breeding bird season.

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 25

7.2.4 Invasive species

Japanese knotweed was recorded on the western bank of the River Kelvin (NS55159 69935), in two small and discrete locations on the slope between the University buildings and the River Kelvin. Japanese knotweed is an invasive species listed under Schedule 9, part II of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This makes it is an offence to ‘plant or otherwise cause to grow in the wild any plant which is included in Part II of Schedule 9’. Any future development in this area will require prior address of these invasive non-native species due to the long time period needed to eradicate these plants.

This has implications for construction as once established it has the potential to grow rapidly to form dense stands in both open and riparian areas and excludes native vegetation by prohibiting regeneration. It can grow through tarmac and concrete (and in some cases dwellings) and therefore must be cleared completely before starting to build or lay roads

21. It can disperse via wind or water by

movement of plant fragments, via movement of soil or plant debris on vehicles can also introduce this species into an area. It is therefore critical that all machinery is washed thoroughly before entering a site and exiting a site.

Rhododendron dominated the mixed broadleaved plantation woodland on the western embankment of the River Kelvin and also within the broadleaved woodland located to the west of the janitors hut (NS 55005 69955). Rhododendron grows in such dense stands that it can shade out all other ground flora, leading to an impoverished and species-poor habitat.

21

http://www.invasivespeciesscotland.org.uk/invasive_non_native_species/japanese_knotweed.asp

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 26

8 Potential impacts

8.1 Habitats

The study area (or redline boundary) is predominantly comprised of buildings, and areas of hardstanding associated with roads and car parks, introduced scrub, and amenity grassland predominantly associated with scattered tress and parkland. Broadleaved plantation woodland surrounds the eastern and western boundaries of the site, but with the exception of two small discrete areas will not be impacted by the CVR development.

Areas of moderate ecological value within close proximity to proposed development works include the broadleaved plantation woodland on the western bank of the River Kelvin which further upstream is a former ancient woodland site planted with mixed plantation woodland as part of the historic landscaping of the site. The only direct landtake from the broadleaved plantation woodland area will be the loss of approximately eight scattered trees growing over amenity grassland at the west end of the existing vet school buildings, to allow the realigned road access into the CVR development, and five trees between the vet school buildings and River Kelvin at the top of the slope. The trees that will be removed either have low bat roost potential, or have been subject to bat activity surveys.

However, the main direct landtake impacts will be largely limited to the areas of low ecological value such as the amenity grassland, hardstanding (car parks), existing buildings, ephemeral /short perennial habitat adjacent to the vet school buildings, and immature scattered trees associated with the entrances to the buildings.

Considering the wider masterplan proposals to date, there are no significant negative ecological impacts anticipated on the habitats identified as a result of the proposed development. As part of the iterative design process that has been undertaken, the ecological value of wooded area of the site have been stressed, and these have been safeguarded and retained by the proposed scheme as far as possible. Because of this, the woodland area between the University buildings and the River Kelvin will remain as an intact green or ‘wildlife corridor’.

8.2 Bats

8.2.1 Evaluation of built structures

The buildings proposed to be demolished were generally evaluated as being of low bat roost potential. The clinical isolation unit had a galvanised iron roof, with roof voids densely covered in cobwebs. The Stewart building and large animal ops building had little or no roof voids and few opportunities for bat access. The Campbell building refectory provided the most opportunity for roosting bats due to the small wooden hut located on top of the building due to unobstructed entrances, insulation panelling on the wall, poorly maintained fabrics providing ready access points to the wall and roof space, as well as hanging features.

During the surveys undertaken, no bats were observed emerging or re-entering these structures, and so they are not considered to be bat roosts. The loss of these buildings is not considered to significantly impact on the local bat population

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 27

provided the mitigation measures outlined in Section 9.3.1 below are implemented.

8.2.2 Evaluation of tree surveys

The preliminary survey of the broadleaved and mixed plantation woodland along the western bank of the River Kelvin revealed that this area provides optimal bat foraging and commuting habitat. No bats were recorded roosting in any of the trees to be felled for the CVR scheme during the summer 2011 surveys, so they are not considered at the current time to be roosts.

While no roosts were found at the time of survey, it is considered that woodland in the immediately adjacent areas, downstream of the University grounds, have a high potential to host a Daubenton’s bat roost due to the high amount of activity recorded and the timing of this relative to dawn on the day of the survey.

This area is not anticipated to be impacted by any of the proposed works in question. However, all woodland areas in conjunction with the River Kelvin provide optimal foraging and commuting habitats and are of importance to foraging and commuting bats at a local level. The woodland habitats used by foraging and commuting bats will stay intact, and their value to bats will not be lowered by the scheme proposals.

8.2.3 Evaluation of impacts

No building or trees roosts have been recorded during the bat surveys of summer 2011 and no impacts upon any bat roosts are anticipated if mitigation proposals are implemented in full.

If future proposed long-term projects for the wider campus involve removal or disturbance to broadleaved or mixed plantation woodlands highlighted, this may result in a loss of potential roost sites, foraging habitat and shelter from weather and light.

The proposed scheme has been developed in a way which minimises vegetation removal within areas known to be used by foraging bats, and indeed, post-construction there is the potential for more greenspace and softworks/landscape planting. The eight trees lost to create the entrance and road access to the CVR development will not inhibit the use of this area by foraging or commuting bats.

There has been consultation with the lighting specialist involved in the scheme design to minimise the potential impacts upon protected species, specifically bats. Artificial lighting can cause disturbance to bats at the roost and can also affect feeding behaviour. In some circumstances, it is thought to increase the chances of bats being preyed upon. Reference has been made to the guidance prepared by Bat Conservation Guidance on ‘Bats and Lighting in the UK

22’ which contains

suitable recommendations for lighting type and level. There will be no incursion of lighting into the woodland habitats, and so the riparian woodland used by bats and otters will remain unlit following construction.

In relation to wider bat roost potential survey for the northern and western site boundaries, a number of mature trees were highlighted as having bat roost

22

Bats and Lighting in the UK; Bats and the Built Environment Series

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 28

potential. If there is a requirement to remove any of the highlighted trees in question to facilitate any future developments, a bat survey will need to be undertaken during the appropriate time of year (May to September) in advance of any subsequent planning applications.

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 29

9 Mitigation and Recommendations

9.1 Habitats

A large section of the proposed development area is categorised as hard standing,

buildings, introduced shrub and amenity grassland, which are all considered to be

of low or negligible ecological value.

The main areas within the site boundary that are of ecological value and diversity

are the mixed plantation woodland, broadleaved plantation woodland and former

ancient woodland areas. Currently, there are approximately 20 trees in total that

could be removed to allow the scheme to progress, with eight of these required to

be removed at the western end of the vet school buildings, and five between the

buildings and the River Kelvin. This is a direct and permanent impact. However,

the scheme proposals will mitigate this with planting of approximately 50 trees as

part of the landscaping proposals. Any new tree planting will be comprised of

native deciduous tree species, such as ash, rowan, sessile oak and silver birch.

This will help to consolidate the existing woodland resource.

It would be recommended that the client aims to minimise disturbance to

woodland habitats in any future masterplans for the western side of the campus.

This could be carried out by only removing trees that are non-native e.g.

sycamore, and aim to retain mature native trees such as oak, ash and horse

chestnut which are also more favourable to bats.

It is proposed to further increase the ecological value of the proposed landscaping

with the introduction of a wildflower meadow along the northern edge of the

development site, between the riverside woodland and the parking bays. It is

proposed that this wildflower species mix would be of species native to Scotland,

and is likely to be in greater than 20 species in total.

Swales will form a key part of the Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) and

drainage strategy, taking water from hard surface run off. The mix of species for

the swales will be varied and include a range of grass and herbaceous species,

predominantly native.


There are no significant protected species issues anticipated to arise as a result of

the CVR development or demolition of the proposed buildings.

9.2.1 Bats

9.2.1.1 Bats and the law

All bat species were designated as European Protected Species (EPS) by Article 12 of The European Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (1992). This was enshrined in Scots Law by The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations (1994).

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 30

The following actions constitute criminal offences:

• Capturing or killing bats. This is an absolute offence – there is no need for the prosecution to demonstrate an intention to commit the offence to secure conviction.

• Harassing bats. • Disturbing bats:

1) Affecting their ability to survive, breed or rear young. 2) Affecting their local distribution or abundance. 3) Whilst rearing or caring for their young. 4) Whilst occupying a structure or place used for shelter or protection.

• Obstructing bats from accessing a breeding site or resting place. • Damaging or destroying a breeding site or resting place used by bats. • Possessing any live bat, dead bat or part of a dead bat.

In certain circumstances a Scottish Government derogation license may be obtained, permitting an offence to be committed without prosecution. For a license to be issued, three legal tests must be met:

• The reason for committing the offence must fall within certain narrow parameters, including:

1. The proposal is in the public interest, e.g. the construction of an education facility;

2. The proposal is necessary on grounds of safety;

3. The proposal is necessary to safeguard property;

4. The proposal is necessary to safeguard livestock.

• All reasonable alternatives must have been considered; and • The favourable conservation status of the bat species must be undiminished.

This usually requires a mitigating work programme to minimise disturbance/harm and usually compensation measures (often wrongly referred to as mitigation), to ensure the bats are not disadvantaged, e.g. the creation of a replacement roost.

Applications for derogation licenses can take up to eight weeks to be processed and often require strict timetables for action. Early action can therefore reduce delays caused by licensing, mitigation and compensation.

9.2.1.2 Bat mitigation

Given that no roosts were identified in the buildings investigated, no implications are currently anticipated with the removal of the buildings one to four as per Appendix A. Ideally demolition works should be programmed to take place outside of the bat activity period, which can be regarded as between May and September, and demolition should be achievable at any time between October and April. However, as no bats or signs of bat activity have been recorded to date, demolition should be achievable at any time of year, if further bat surveys pre-demolition confirm the absence of bats.

A repeat survey of the buildings in question will need to be undertaken due to the peripatetic nature of bats and due to their behaviour to take up occasional or temporary transitional roosts. This should be undertaken in the 12 months prior to demolition occurring (and during their active season), to inform any EPS licence that could be required if they are subsequently found to be present. If no bats are

Appendix A F0219415


218846-00 | Issue | 9 March 2012


06.03.12.DOCX

Page 31

found at the time of this second survey, then demolition could be undertaken during the summer months. This would however increase the risk of a bat using the buildings as a temporary and transient roost at this time, which could incur delays if demolition was to be delayed while a licence was obtained and mitigation agreed with SNH

The preliminary survey of the mixed woodland belt, west of the River Kelvin, determined signs of repeated foraging and commuting activity, however, no bats were considered to be roosting in any of the trees that could be impacted by the scheme. If future developments are to affect this area, it is recommended that further survey work is undertaken, to specifically address targeted mature trees identified as having moderate-high bat roost potential that could be removed. This would become particularly important if planned felling was to affect trees older than 80 years.

Cognisance has been made to Bat Conservation Guidance on ‘Bats and Lighting in the UK’

23, when the lighting strategy for the site has been developed. The

lighting plan has been discussed with Arup ecologists to ensure that the impact of lighting during and most importantly post-construction on bats is minimised. Lighting along the River Kelvin and riparian woodland will be avoided, and the direction of lighting will be towards the existing buildings.

Findings from this survey will be passed to the local bat group to increase the local knowledge base of bats species in the area.

9.2.2 Otter

The otter is protected in the UK by Regulation 39(1) of the Conservation (Natural

Habitats, &c) 1994 (Amended 2007 and 2008) and Schedule 6 of the WCA 1981.

Under the provisions of these regulations it is a criminal offence to deliberately or

recklessly:

• Capture, injure or kill an otter; • Harass an otter while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for

shelter or protection; • Disturb an otter while it is rearing or otherwise caring for its young; • Obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place of an otter or otherwise to

deny an otter use of the breeding site or resting place; • Disturb an otter in a manner that is, or in circumstances which are, likely to

significantly affect the local distribution or abundance of otters; • Disturb an otter in a manner that is, or in circumstances which are, likely to

impair its ability to survive, breed or reproduce, or rear or otherwise care for its young; and

• Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of an otter

From the surveys undertaken it is considered that otters will pass through the

campus and River Kelvin site relatively frequently, demonstrated by existing

records and the signs of otter observed during the various surveys. There are a

new university of glasgow - whatdotheyknow · 2020. 7. 13. · kelvin also provides amenity value,...

Documents