Incremental Destruction of an Important Habitat. 1

Application Number: SDNP/16/04679/CM
Address: Markwell's Wood-I Well Site South Holt Farm Dean Lane End Forestside Rowlands Castle West Sussex
Proposal: Appraisal and production of oil incorporating the drilling of one side track well from the existing well (for appraisal), three new hydrocarbon wells and one water injection well, and to allow the production of hydrocarbons from all four wells for a 20 year period.
Case Officer: Natalie Chillcott

This is an objection to the proposal, on behalf of a local group of residents called“Markwells Wood Watch”. It is a detailed objection on ecological grounds.

CONTENTS.

PAGE

Incremental destruction of an important habitat.1

The Ancient Woodlands3

Species within the habitat.6

Bats7

Birds15

Badgers17

Appendix19

1.

Incremental destruction of an important habitat.

The members of Markwells Wood Watch are concerned that the proposed oil development is part of a process that will incrementally undermine and damage a precious area of ancient woodland, its biodiversity and the habitats of a number of rare species.

In 2010/11 an area of land was cleared to establish a well pad and one well was drilled. This development included the removal of a section of ancient woodland.

This would have added further fragmentation to the already fragmented ancient forest in the area.

In 2006, when Northern Petroleum first applied for planning permission to drill, the West Sussex County Council (WSCC) ecology officer at the time of the application objected to the development. We believe this was on the grounds that the Environmental Statement that was submitted wasinadequate. Natural England objected on the same grounds. The objection referred to the irreplaceable nature of the ancient woodland and challenged the conclusion that the effect of the development would be minimal. They also objected because of the lack of data on protected species.

In August 2007 the Woodland trust submitted a further objection to the original development. This identified some of the complexities of the ecology of ancient woodlands, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to recover. Their conclusion was that this would be an irreplaceable loss.

This current proposal is for a total of four horizontal wells as well as a reinjection well. These would be drilled within the previous well pad. Although the area of the well pad would not increase, the erection and dismantling of the drill rigs, and the drilling process itself would cause considerable disturbance to adjacent wildlife. We think these wells wouldbe drilled consecutively over a period of time, in which case there would be repeated disturbance as each rig would be erected and thendismantled.Any opportunities for local wildlife populations to recover from this disturbance would most probably be hindered by this repetition.

The Competent Persons report considers the possibility of two further stages in this development, with a final total of fifteen wells. Presumably this would require an extension of the well pad, which in turn could require cutting down more trees and further incursions into ancient woodland.

This planning application provides an ecological baseline for 2016, not 2010. The Markwells Wood site is already degraded because of the previous development. Consequently this should be considered to be the baseline of a degraded habitat. Moreover, the application justifies the choice of this site in part because the well area supports only a limited biodiversity! It is our contention that any future applications for further development would try to develop this argument further, using a new baseline of an ever-degraded habitat.

Photo of the site October 2016. Supplied by the author

Pictures of the 2010 development Donated by a resident of Forestside.

Presumably a baseline for 2010, the year of the initial development, exists. The site was due to be restored by the end of September 2016.

It is our belief that this site should now be restored to its 2010 status as much as can be.

2.

The Ancient Woodlands

The Ecology and Nature Conservation, section 6.55 report identifies “ Nine Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SINCs), which have been designated for their habitats, within 2km of the Site. The Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre identifies Markwells Wood as the largest of these, an area of 22.19 hectares. Three of these includes areas of ancient woodland, including the woodland adjacent to the well pad. Seven of thesesites are connected directly to the well site through woodland and hedgerows. We believe that these provide important wildlife corridors within this fragmented woodland habitat.

Markwells Wood connects with other patches of woodland though hedgerows. Photo October 2016, supplied by the author.

Ancient woodlands are a precious and disappearing habitat.Paragraph 5.15 of the South Downs Local Plan states “ Some wildlife habitats are considered irreplaceable as they are very difficult or impossible to re-create. Examples include ancient woodland…” The Local plan makes frequent references to the importance of the “ need to create more, bigger, better-managed and connected areas of habitat in and around the National Park, “ (SD12. Policy 4)

We believe that this development would increase the fragmentation of this habitat and that this would conflict directly with the “need to create better-managed and connected areas of habitat”.

Our thanks to the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre for permission to use this map.

Ancient woodland is characterized by the richness and complexity of its biodiversity. Once it is gone it would take a very long time, if ever, to recover completely. The mitigation measures proposed would restore some soil and a number of trees, but not the complex ecosystem that the development destroyed.

Fragmented habitats are particularly vulnerable. This development would be an additional stress to an ecosystem that already faces stresses such as climate change, invasive species and a growing number of pests and disease strains. The Local Plan policy of creating “bigger” habitats is a response to the knowledge that the larger a habitat is, the more robust it is to such stresses.“Wildlife habitats are often degraded and fragmented, so a landscape-scale approach is needed to conserve, restore and reconnect habitats across the National Park. By restoring an interconnected network of wildlife sites, species will be more resilient to adapt to pressures such as climate change.” (SDNP Local Plan 5.109)

It is our contention that this development presents an unacceptable risk to this habitat and would hinder attempts to increase its resilience.

In Strategic Policy SD12: Biodiversity and Geodiversity it states

7. Development proposals that have an adverse impact on biodiversity or geodiversity, which cannot be adequately avoided, mitigated or compensated for, or which harm the special qualities will be refused.

3.

Species within the habitat.

The Preliminary Ecological Report (PER) that is part of the planning application acknowledges that

“The habitats that surround the site may also support other rare, notable and protected species including bats, dormouse, birds, great crested newts and reptiles. Furthermore, the ancient woodland habitat itself is of high ecological value. Impacts on adjacent habitats and the species which inhabit them need to be considered within the scheme.” (Section 5.0)

Woodland adjacent to the well pad, October 2016. Supplied by the author.

While the SDNP advocates a landscape-scale approach it is also concerned for the preservation of species. Many species have been recorded living in the areas adjacent to the well pad. This includes a number of rare and endangered species. It is our contention that the scheme would further endanger their numbers and that they need more than consideration, they need protection from the scheme. We believe that the SDNP Local Plan commits to providing such protection.

Paragraph 5.122 of the SDNP Local Plan states”….Development proposals will not be permitted unless they are necessary for biodiversity or geodiversity management work or can demonstrate no adverse impact to the biodiversity or geodiversity interest.”

It is our contention that the planning application cannot “demonstrate no adverse impact to biodiversity”.

Bats

Conservation status of bats.

All species of British bat are listed as European Protected Species (EPS) on Schedule 2 of the Conservation Regulations (Annex IV (a) to the Habitats Directive). This affords bats protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, making it an offence to:

• Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a wild individual of an EPS;
• Deliberately capture, injure or kill a wild individual of an EPS;
• Deliberately disturb a wild individual of an EPS wherever they occur, in particular any disturbance which is likely to impair their ability to survive, to breed or reproduce or, in the case of hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or
• Affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong. (our emphasis)

Additional protection for bats is also afforded under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000, making it an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb bats whilst they are occupying a structure or place that is used for shelter or protection, or to obstruct access to this structure or place. As bats tend to re-use the same roosts, legal opinion is that roosts are protected whether or not bats are currently occupying these resting places/places of shelter. (Our emphasis)

Habitat for bats around the proposed development.

A number of areas adjacent to the site were recognized as potential roosting sites, but access to them was not possible, so these could not be confirmed.

• Northwood farm. Barn 1 had crevices that would be suitable for roosting sites, but could not be accessed to confirm this. It was considered to have moderate potential for roosting. Surrounding hedgerows were considered suitable for foraging and commuting.
• Barn 2 also had gaps and was considered to have moderate potential for roosting. Again there was no access to confirm this.
• Appendix 6.2: Markwells Wood Protected Species Survey Report states that six trees, adjacent to the access track, had moderate potential to support roosting bats. A further eleven trees, next to the access track, were considered to have low potential to support roosting bats. There were two trees near to the well pad that had low potential to support roosting bats.
• The woods hedgerows and fields adjacent to the site were considered to provide “good foraging for a number of bat species”. They were considered a moderate to high habitat for bats

All the trees listed considered to have low potential to support roosting bats also had “dense ivy that could conceal features or provide temporary roosting opportunities “. (Appendix Protected Species Report)

Some species of bats roost in such ivy covered trees, and such roosts are likely to be hidden by the ivy. It is our contention that the Planning Application understates the potential for bat roosting sites.

Moreover, by listing numbers of trees the report implies that tree cover around the site is quite sparse. This is not the case. We consider that it is unlikely that all the trees will have been thoroughly checked for roosting sites.

View towards N.E. October 2016. Supplied by the author

View towards N.W.October 2016. Supplied by the author

View towards the West October 2016. Supplied by the author

View along the S.W side, facing South. October 2016. Supplied by the author

Bat Population

In Appendix 6.1. the Protected Species Survey Report showed that twelve species of bats were detected in areas adjacent to the proposed site, included three rare bats.

a. Bechsteins bat,Myotis bechsteinii

Bechsteins bat, Myotis bechsteinii is listed inAnnex II of the EU Habitats DirectiveThe Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) lists itas one of the rarest bats in Western Europe, and states that its numbers are probably declining. Its status on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List is “near threatened” It is one of the rarest mammals in the U.K. and listed in the U.K. Biodiversity plan.

The Hampshire Biodiversity partnership describes the Bechstein bat as “particularly vulnerable” partly because it has low rates of reproduction. This means the loss of even one season’s young can have a significant impact on the survival of the species in the area. Another factor is the fragmentation of their woodland habitat. The industrial activity in part of what is already a fragmented landscape, is likely to increase the vulnerability of this species.

Bechstein bats usually live in mature woodlands and often breed in holes in trees, such as old woodpecker holes. The woodlands around the proposed oil development provide just such a habitat.

b. Barbastelles bat, Barbastella barbastellus

Barbastelles bats, Barbastella barbastellus is also listed inAnnex II of the EU Habitats Directive and it is also listed in the U.K. Biodiversity Plan. It is considered one of the rarest bats in Europe and again its numbers are considered to be declining. Its status on the IUCN Red List is “near threatened”

The JNCC website states that they use “ cracks and crevices in wood for breeding, mostly in old or damaged trees, but cracks and crevices in the timbers of old buildings may also be used.” The woods and farm buildings around the proposed oil development provide just such a habitat.

3. Leisler’s bat,Nyctalus leisleri

Leisler’s bat is rare in the United Kingdom. (Bat Conservation Trust) They roost in wooded areas and buildings.

4. Other bats.

In addition 9 other species of bats were found within four km of the proposed site.

common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus,

soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus,

noctule Nyctalus noctula,

brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus,

Natterer’s bat Myotis nattereri,

whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus,

Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii,

Brant’s bat Myotis brandtii,

serotine Eptesicus serotinus

The ECR report in the Planning Application concludes

“6.111 The effects on bats of Phase 1 are Minor (non-significant) on a receptor of Local value. “

6.128 The effects on bats of Phase 2 are Minor (non-significant) on a receptor of Local value. “

It is incomprehensible to us that three species, so rare at a national and European level, can be dismissed so lightly.

Markwells Wood is clearly a habitat that supports a large number of species of bats. We believe this supports our contention that it is a habitat with a rich biodiversity and it should be protected.

Local ecology and habitat that support endangered bat species.

Nine to ten km East of Markwells Wood are the Singleton and Cocking Tunnels. This is a Special Area of Conservation, chosen specifically because both Barbastelle’s and Bechstein’s bats are found there. (JNCC)

It is known that bats species change foraging and roosting sites throughout the seasons and that some bats, such as the Barbastelle’s bat, do forage over a wide area. It is not unreasonable to speculate that these rare bats may include the Markswells Wood area as one of their seasonal foraging areas. Bechsteins bat has been recorded in Stansted Woods, South of Markwells Wood and South of Singleton and Cocking. It may also be that the range of this rare bat is growing.

It is important that all wildlife corridors remain open to the movement of these bats, and that the noise and light from drilling rigs does not fragment a vulnerable population.Highly vulnerable species, such as the three threatened species of bat will be particularly affected by further fragmentation. Such populations are in danger of collapsing completely when just one extra hindrance is introduced into their habitat. Further fragmentation will keep populations more isolated, which is a danger to the genetic resilience of a species. All species need a wide gene pool to ensure the variation they need to adapt to changes such as climate change. This is especially true of endangered species.

It is understood by bat specialists that bats are generally under recorded. Although a number of surveys have been undertaken none of these has been a bat trapping survey. Moreover, We have been told that Bechstein’s bat’s calls are particularly difficult to isolate in recordings. Consequently it is likely that their presence in this area is under recorded and underestimated.

It is our contention that the recording of such rare bat species is an indication of the richness and importance of the habitats adjacent to, and including, Markwells Wood.

Noise and vibration

The Noise and Vibration report 7.0. considers the effect of noise and vibration on the nearby houses and on the nearby badger sets. It barely considers the effect on bats that clearly use the area adjacent to the well pad for foraging, and possibly for roosting.

As bats are dependent on echolocation this seems to us an extraordinary omission. We find it difficult to believe such an omission is accidental.

The report describes the proposed drilling schedule as “temporary in nature” Nevertheless, Phase 2 of the drilling programme may last 132 days in all. In section 7.62 the drilling operations are described as “significantly in excess of the ambient sound levels measured”. In section 7.79 it states “drilling may continue 24 hours a day, seven days a week”

In section 7.81 it states

“The noise levels during steady drilling were also calculated for an arbitrary location 100m from the Site: this is the approximate distance from the well pad to the nearest known badger setts……… The predicted noise level is 60dB LAeq. This level of noise is temporary in nature and of moderate adverse significance. This level will be in excess of the pre- existing minimum background sound level, and noise from the drilling site will cause a temporary increase of up to 14dB in night-time noise.”