Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2660018 - F.I. Received Doc. - EIAR - Appendix 11.1 Arboricultural Survey Report
AUGUST 2026 VOLUME III APPENDICES TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX 11.1 ARBORICULTURAL SURVEY REPORT Stream BioEnergy Ireland Limited RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n - 1 Leopardstown Business Centre, Ballyogan Road, Dublin 18 - (01) 284 1777 ARBORICULTURAL REPORT Location: - Lands at Maghernakelly, Drum, Co. Monaghan Prepared for: - Stream BioEnergy Prepared by: - Ethan Gannon ‘Dip Arb L4 (ABC), ISA Cert Arb, Cert Hort L6 (QQI), TechArborA’ James Griffin ‘Cert Arb (ABC), Cert Arb (City & Guilds), Cert Hort (QQI)’ November 2025 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 Contents 0.0 Executive Summary.............................................................................................................0 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Site Assessment & Methodology ........................................................................................ 2 3.0 Limitations of Survey .......................................................................................................... 3 4.0 Summary of Tree Survey Findings ...................................................................................... 4 5.0 Tree Management Recommendations ............................................................................. 13 6.0 Arboricultural Impact Assessment ................................................................................... 15 7.0 Arboricultural Method Statement .................................................................................... 18 8.0 References ........................................................................................................................ 24 Appendix 1 Tree Survey and Key ............................................................................................. 25 Appendix 2 Tree Protection and Removal Plan ....................................................................... 37RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 0 | P a g e 0.0 Executive Summary An assessment of tree and hedge vegetation within and adjacent to the proposed development was undertaken in accordance with BS 5837:2012 ‘Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction – Recommendations’. The tree survey area (Figure 3) consists of three fields separated from each other and the surrounding pub- lic road network by eight hedgerows, some of which are more dominated by trees than others. As shown on Figure 3, the red line area affects part of the two larger fields, where the fewest trees are located. The tree and hedge survey was undertaken on 25th October 2024, recording 47 individual trees, one tree line and eight hedgerows within or in close proximity to the red line area. The vast majority of these trees are classi- fied according to BS 5837:2012 as Category U (poor quality unsuitable for retention). The remaining trees are classified as being retainable and range between Category A (high quality), Category B (moderate quality) and Category C (low quality). The majority of Category U trees (20) suffer from ash dieback disease, with three of these located within the red line area. To facilitate the proposed development, the following tree and hedgerow vegetation will be removed: 0 no. Category A Trees; 2 no. Category B Trees (sycamore and beech); 5 no. Category C Trees (goat willow); 1 no. Category U Trees (ash); and 3 no. hedgerows (1 entirely and the other 2 partially) All Category A trees within the survey area are located outside of the red line, however, may require protective measures to be implemented to ensure indirect adverse impacts are avoided during the works. All Category B and C trees are located within Hedge H5, which transects the red line area in a south-west to north-east orientation and will largely be removed in its entirety to accommodate the proposed development. The two Category B trees are located close to the R189 and are still young and of a relatively small size, so their loss is not expected to have a major impact on the amenity value of the area. The five Category C trees (all goat willow) would also be lost from within Hedge H5. These too are still young and of a relatively small size. The loss of all trees shall be mitigated as part of the landscape planting associated with the proposed development. The Category U tree that would be lost to the proposed development suffers from ash dieback disease and is located within Hedge 5. Numerous other trees within the survey area are also suffering from this disease. In terms of Hedgerow loss, H5 would be removed in its entirety to accommodate the proposed development, as it transects through the red line area. The majority of hedgerow from H7 would be lost to accommodate visibility splays for the site access and would also be affected by road construction. H4 would also be subject to partial loss to accommodate the visibility splay associated with the R189 junction. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 1 | P a g e 1.0 Introduction 1.1 In support of a planning application for the proposed development of a Renewable Biogas Plant on lands at Maghernakelly (hereby known as the ‘tree survey area’ – Figures 1 & 2), Stream BioEnergy instructed Veon to assess the tree and hedge vegetation proximal to the proposed development and provide the following information in accordance with BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction – Recommendations. 1. Tree Survey 2. Arboricultural Impact Assessment 3. Arboricultural Method Statement 4. Tree Protection and Removal Plan Figure 1: Approximate outline of tree survey area within the wider locality Figure 2: Approximate outline of tree survey area N N RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 2 | P a g e 2.0 Site Assessment & Methodology 2.1 The trees were surveyed on the 25th October 2024, on an overcast day. The findings from this assessment are within the Tree Survey (Appendix 1), along with the supporting tree survey key. The arboricultural data presented in the Tree Survey has been recorded in line with BS 5837:2012. The tree survey was conducted by collecting and assessing the following information on all significant trees located on and proximal to the site. - Tree number - Tree species (both common and scientific) - Age class - Dimensions (height, trunk diameter, crown spread, crown clearance, Root Protection Area (RPA) (see the Tree Survey Form Key in Appendix 1 for more detail) - Physiological condition - Structural condition - Management recommendations (in line with sound arboricultural practices, irrespective of any proposed development) - Estimated remaining contribution within their present environment - Retention category grade (see Section 2.3 and Table 4 in Appendix 1 for more details on category grades) 2.2 For reference, aluminium tags were stapled to the tree’s main stem at a height of c.1.5m. Trees and hedges growing as one coherent structure were numbered numerically e.g., Tree Line 1 = TL1, Hedge 1 = H1 etc. 2.3 Tree positions have been plotted using ArcGIS software accurate to <10cm. Aerial maps in Section 3 show tree positions colour-coded to match their retention category grade. The tree retention category has been assessed based on quality and value within the existing context, independent of any proposed development plans. This assessment considers: 1. Arboricultural Value – Health, structure, lifespan, species, and physical impact on the site. 2. Landscape Value – Contribution to the site and surrounding area. 3. Cultural Value – Conservation, historical, and commemorative significance. Trees are classified according to BS 5837:2012, starting with Category U (poor quality unsuitable for retention). Retainable trees are first assessed against the criteria for Category A (high quality). If they do not qualify, they are considered for Catego ry B (moderate quality). Trees that do not meet B criteria are assigned to Category C (low quality). 2.4 The Arboricultural Impact Assessment details the specific impacts this development could have on the existing trees, as well as providing generic information on how trees can be impacted during construction. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 3 | P a g e 2.5 The Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) outlines appropriate control measures to protect trees and hedgerows during construction. This includes site investigation, preparation, demolition, clearance, construction and post-development. Construction activities will proceed according to the AMS to safeguard retained trees, tree groups and hedgerows on and adjacent to the site. 2.6 The Tree Protection and Removal Plan (Appendix 2) shows tree positions, tag numbers, crown spreads, category grades, trees for removal, location of tree protective fencing, Construction Exclusion Zones (CEZs) and Root Protection Areas (RPAs). The RPA is the minimum area around individual trees to be protected from disturbance during construction works; RPA is usually expressed as a radius in metres measured from the centre of the tree’s stem. Any deviation in the RPA from the original circular plot takes account of the following factors whilst still providing adequate protection for the root system: - The morphology and disposition of the roots, when influenced by past or existing site conditions (e.g. the presence of roads, structures, drainage ditches and underground apparatuses). - Topography and drainage. - The soil type and structure. - The likely tolerance of the tree to root disturbance or damage, based on factors such as species, age, condition and past management. 3.0 Limitations of Survey 3.1 The tree survey was conducted from ground level, using a monocular, pocketknife, slash hook, nylon sounding mallet, diameter tape, camera phone and GPS unit. Observations and recommendations are based on the knowledge and experience of the surveyor. Some defects, such as internal decay or root damage, may not be visible from a ground- level inspection. 3.2 The conclusions and recommendations in this report reflect the condition of the trees at the time of assessment and are valid for one year from the date of issuance. However, environmental factors, such as storms, drought, or nearby construction, may affect the validity of these recommendations. Regular inspections are recommended, especially after severe weather events. 3.3 The surveyor assessed the trees and their growing environment to identify any perceived risks and provide management recommendations accordingly. If the assessment was obstructed due to dense vegetation, buildings, or other factors, this will be noted in the report so that further inspection arrangements can be considered if necessary RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 4 | P a g e 4.0 Summary of Tree Survey Findings 4.1 In total, 47 individual trees, 1 Tree line and 8 Hedges were surveyed with the category grades provided in Table 1. Their location is shown on Figure 3. Table 1: Category grades of those surveyed Reference No. Category Grade Tree Nos: 1005, 1008, 1011, 1012, 1012a, 1015, 1018, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1029, 1037, 1038, 1040, 1041, 1043, 1045, 1046, 1047 Tree Line Nos: TL1 U 20 Trees 1 Tree Line Tree Nos: 1001, 1004, 1006, 1010, 1023, 1044 A 6 Trees Tree Nos: 1007, 1009, 1013, 1016, 1020, 1021, 1030, 1033, 1042 B 9 Trees Tree Nos: 1002, 1003, 1014, 1017, 1019, 1022, 1028, 1031, 1032, 1034, 1036, 1039 Hedge Nos: H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, H8 C 12 Trees 6 Hedges Figure 3: Tree and hedge category grade map Red Line AreaRECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 5 | P a g e 4.2 The tree survey area (Figure 3) consists of three fields separated from each other and the surrounding public road network by several hedgerows, some of which are more dominated by trees than others. The existing planting throughout the survey area and beyond is of an agricultural nature. In terms of land cover, the majority of the site is improved grassland, forming part of an active pastoral farm unit used for livestock grazing, which is characteristic of the pastoral farming systems in this part of County Monaghan. The survey area is bordered to the north by the L2280 Drumcall Road, to the east by the R189 Road, to the south by Newpark House and farm, with another private residence and large lawn area to the east of this boundary, and along the western boundary is Maghernakelly Road. 4.3 Tree Line No. 1 forms a partial boundary with Newpark House in the southwestern corner of the tree survey area. It consists of seven, early-mature, poor quality (Category U) ash trees that are in decline from ash dieback disease (causal agent: Hymenoscyphus fraxineus). Tag No. 1001 (Figure 4) is growing centrally within this tree line, and it is a mature, high quality (Category A) oak (Quercus robur). Figure 4: Looking south at Tag No. 1001 4.4 Hedge No. 1 extends east to west in a C shape along the southern boundary of the survey area (Figure 5), forming part of the boundary with Newpark House farm, and has value as screening. It is growing from an embankment with a c.3m deep, dry, drainage ditch on the tree survey side of the hedge. It is a mature, low quality (Category C), RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 6 | P a g e unmaintained hedgerow with gaps along its length (Figure 6). It is comprised of hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), oak (Quercus robur) and elder (Sambucus nigra). Figure 5: Southern end of tree survey area Figure 6: Looking north at Tag No. 1007 (to the right), growing from Hedge No. 1 – Tag Nos. 1003 and 1004 can be seen in the left background, with Tag Nos. 1005 and 1006 in the middle background RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 7 | P a g e 4.5 The high quality (Category A) trees within Hedge No. 1 are Tag No. 1004 (Figure 7), an early mature oak (Quercus robur), Tag No. 1006 (Figure 8), a mature beech (Fagus sylvatica), and a mature sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) Tag No. 1010 (Figure 9). Figure 7: Looking north at Tag Nos. 1003 (left) and 1004 (right) Figure 8: Tag No. 1006 to the middle-right (in leaf), with Tag Nos. 1005 beside it (not in leaf) and Tag Nos. 1003 and 1004 in the middle-left background RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 8 | P a g e Figure 9: Looking north, from right to left, at Tag Nos. 1008 to 1013. The high quality sycamore (Tag No. 1010) is to the middle-left, forming an integral part of the canopy formation 4.6 Hedge No. 2 extends northeasterly from Hedge No. 1 along the southern boundary (Figures 10 and 11) with the adjoining residences, and has value as screening. It is growing from a c.2m deep, dry, drainage ditch. It is a mature, low quality (Category C), stockproof hedge with a native mix of species: hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), elder (Sambucus nigra), holly (Ilex aquifolium). Figure 10: Looking east, with Hedge No. 2 extending northeast from the right (south), Hedge No. 6 running laterally (east to west) from this hedge in the background, and the sideview of Hedge No. 6 to the left (west) RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 9 | P a g e Figure 11: Looking east, from left to right, at Tag Nos. 1008 to 1013, with Hedge No. 2 and its smaller sized trees extending north in the left foreground 4.7 Growing from Hedge No. 2 are semi mature cherry (Prunus avium), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and beech (Fagus sylvatica) (Figure 12). The ash are suffering from ash dieback and are poor quality (Category U) but in a low risk area, while the remaining trees range from low quality (Category C) to moderate quality (Category B). Figure 12: Looking south at Tag Nos. 1020-1014 (from left to right) forming a tree line from Hedge No. 2 in the adjoining field, with the smaller sized Hedge No. 6 seen spreading east to west in the right foreground 4.8 Hedge No. 3 (Figures 13 and 14) is essentially a continuation of Hedge No. 2 – vegetation growing from the drainage ditch embankment and extending northeast from the southern boundary with the adjoining residence - only Hedge No. 3 is comparatively smaller due to regular flail cutting. The species composition of this hedge include hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), gorse (Ulex europaeus), elder (Sambucus nigra) and holly (Ilex aquifolium), with a semi mature beech (Fagus sylvatica) (Tag No. 1022) beginning to develop into the upper canopy. The more significant trees growing from RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 10 | P a g e Hedge No. 3 include Tag No. 1021 (Figure 13) - a moderate quality (Category B), semi mature oak (Quercus robur) and Tag No. 1023 (Figure 14) – another oak, but early mature and higher quality (Category A). Figure 13: Looking south at Hedge No. 3, with Tag No. 1021 in the centre Figure 13: Looking southwest along Hedge No. 3, with Tag No. 1023 to the left, in leaf, and a poor quality (Category U) ash (Tag No. 1024) in view beside it 4.9 Hedge No. 4 (Figures 14 and 15) is a mature, low quality (category C) hedge that runs north-westerly along the eastern boundary with the public road (R189). It is regularly flail cut on the tree survey side and the public road side. It comprised of species such as, goat willow (Salix caprea), elder (Sambucus nigra) and hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna). Additionally, there are two ash trees (Tag Nos. 1026 and 1027) (Figure 15) in decline from ash dieback that have been recommended for removal to address risk towards the public road. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 11 | P a g e Figure 14: Eastern boundary of tree survey area Figure 15: Looking northeast at Hedge No. 4, with Tag Nos. 1026 to the right and 1027 to the left – both poor quality (Category U) 4.10 Hedge No. 5 extends north to south and forms the boundary between two large fields. this hedge is neglected and overgrown and contains a mixture of species such as hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), holly (Ilex aquifolium), goat willow (Salix caprea), gorse (Ulex europaeus), ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and beech (Fagus sylvatica) (Figure 16). Tag No. 1044 (Figure 17) is growing at the southern end of this hedge, and it is a mature, high quality (Category A) sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus). RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 12 | P a g e Figure 16: Looking north at Hedge No. 5, with the tree line of Tag Nos. 1028-1032 in the background forming an upper canopy in the hedge Figure 17: Looking north at Tag No. 1044, just behind Tag No. 1043 which is more to the fore 4.11 Hedge No. 6 (Figure 12) runs east to west across the southeastern section of the tree survey area, forming a boundary between the larger field to the north and the smaller field to the south. It is a mature, poorly structured, low quality (Category C) hedge made up of hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), elder (Sambucus nigra), gorse (Ulex europaeus) and bramble (Rubus fruticosus). 4.12 Hedge Nos. 7 and 8 are both mature, low quality (category C) hedges that are cyclically flail cut on the tree survey side and the public road side. Hedge No. 7 (Figure 18) forms the northern boundary with the public road (L2280). Hedge No. 8 (Figure 19) forms the western boundary with the Maghernakelly Road. Both are comprised of goat willow (Salix caprea), elder (Sambucus nigra) and hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna). Tag No. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 13 | P a g e 1047, at the southern end of Hedge No. 8, is in decline from ash dieback and has been recommend for removal to address risk towards the public road. Figure 18: Looking north at Hedge No. 7, with Hedge No. 8 to the left (west) and Hedge No. 5 to the right (east) Figure 19: Looking west at Hedge No. 8, with Tag No. 1047 seen to the left behind the utility pole 5.0 Tree Management Recommendations 5.1 The Tree Survey (Appendix 1) identified twenty poor quality (Category U) trees, all of which are ash trees in decline from ash dieback. Although these trees are not expected to have a life expectancy greater than ten years, the majority of them are situated in low-use, low-risk areas. The trees within falling distance of public roads have been recommended for removal or to be cut into the hedges they grow from, where they can be retained as hedge bulking. These trees are Tag Nos. 1025, 1026, 1027, 1047, and the most western tree, closest to the road, from Tree Line No. 1. Note that only Tag Nos.1026, 1027, 1047 are within the red line boundary (Appendix 2), but these other trees should be brought to the attention of their owners so they can fulfil their duty of care. 5.2 Other trees recommended for remedial works, though located outside the red line boundary, include Tag Nos. 1002 (Figures 20 and 21) and 1003 (Figure 22). These are both mature, low-quality (Category C) sycamores (Acer pseudoplatanus) situated along the southern boundary with Newpark House. Decay is evident within their main stems, and as such, crown reductions have been recommended. For further details, refer to the Tree Survey in Appendix 1. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 14 | P a g e Figure 20: Tag No. 1002 with dead wood developing Figure 21: Tag No. 1002 with extensive decay cavity RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 15 | P a g e Figure 22: Tag No. 1002 with extensive decay cavity 6.0 Arboricultural Impact Assessment 6.1 To facilitate the proposed development, the following tree and hedge vegetation will need to be removed: Table 2: Tree / Hedge removals and Category Grades Reference No. Category Grade Tree Nos: 1029 U 1 Tree Tree Nos: No Trees A 0 Trees Tree Nos: 1030, 1033 B 2 Trees Tree Nos: 1028, 1031, 1032, 1034, 1036 Hedge Nos: H4, H5, H7 C 5 Trees H4 (approx. 92 m) H5 (approx. 167 m) H7 (approx. 167 m) 6.2 The high quality (Category A) trees are situated in the southern section of the tree survey area, and this area will be cordoned off with tree protective fencing for the RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 16 | P a g e duration of the works (see Section 7.5 of the Arboricultural Method Statement for more detail on tree protective fencing). 6.3 The two Category B trees of moderate quality will require removal. These are located within Hedge H5, close to the R189. These trees are still young and of a relatively small size, so their loss is not expected to be a major impact on the amenity value of the tree survey area and their loss can be mitigated as part of the landscaping associated with the proposed development. Five Category C trees from within Hedge H5 would also require removal to accommodate the proposed development. These are deemed to be of a low overall quality. 6.4 Trees and hedges for removal have been shown in ‘Red Hatching’ on the Tree Protection and Removal Plan (Appendix 2). Whilst it is anticipated that H5 would be removed in its entirety to accommodate the proposed development, H4 and H7 would only be subject to partial loss. The extent of losses are estimated at this stage and will only be established once the earthworks and boundary treatment associated with the proposed development has been confirmed on site during the works. 6.5 The above impacts can either be prevented or reduced by protection or mitigation measures outlined in the Arboricultural Method Statement below and by supplementary planting (see landscape architect’s plans for detail on supplementary planting). 6.6 Outside of these specific impacts, there are many indirect ways in which trees can be impacted by the proposed development: ▪ Any branch removal, whether planned or accidental, can reduce a tree’s ability to photosynthesise, remove stored energy, and create possible entry points for decay causing pathogens; all of which may compromise the condition and longevity of the tree. For the trees that remain, these will be set back from the site boundary, limiting the need for any branch removal. ▪ Root severance during the construction process, or for the installation of underground services, can reduce the tree’s ability to absorb water and nutrients, is likely to initiate decay and, if severe enough, could compromise stability. As set out above, for the trees that remain, these will be set back from the site boundary, limiting the potential for root severance. The installation of services will take place within the confines of the site, so all vegetation will already have been cleared in this area thus no risk of root severance exists. ▪ Ground compaction around trees can reduce the ingress of water and oxygen to the roots, which may adversely affect the tree’s processes. Considering the existing topography (trees being upgradient of the site) and proposed earthworks set back from the remaining trees, there is little potential to affect water ingress or oxygen to roots. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 17 | P a g e ▪ The changing of soil levels over a tree’s root system can have adverse effects: soil stripping can physically remove roots, and the addition of soil can reduce the amount of water and oxygen reaching the roots; all the tree’s processes could be compromised as a result. Again, as set out above, with the remaining trees being upgradient of the site and set back from the proposed earthworks, there is minimal risk of adverse impact upon the tree root system. ▪ The installation of impermeable surfaces around trees can also affect water infiltration and gaseous exchange; surface water may be directed towards the tree, causing waterlogging and root asphyxiation; or it may be directed away from the tree, leading to drought like conditions for the roots beneath. Again, as the remaining trees are up- gradient of the site, there is potential to change surface water conditions. The cutting along the southern boundary may cause some degree of drawdown, however, it is anticipated to be regrading of the slope only (rather than exposed earthworks). ▪ Any significant change in drainage patterns could have similar effects to those identified above. Note comments above. ▪ Toxic spillages of substances like cement, diesel fuel etc. proximal to the trees can have a detrimental effect on root health and function, compromising all the tree’s processes. The use or storage of road salt around trees can bring about serious root malfunction and death. Again, the remaining trees are up-gradient of the site, with no pathway available to cause adverse impacts associated with the above. ▪ Changes to the tree’s immediate environment above ground can have adverse effects: any significant increase in exposure to wind may cause a previously sheltered tree to sustain physical damage, and a significant increase in shade may adversely affect the tree’s ability to photosynthesise. The remaining trees are largely located at the top of the slope and are already exposed. They also have a sizable separation distance between those that would be lost to the proposed development, thus these would not provide sheltering role for those trees that remain. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 18 | P a g e 7.0 Arboricultural Method Statement 7.1 Overview This Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) outlines the measures to protect trees throughout the construction phase. A copy of the AMS and attached Tree Protection & Removal Plan (TPR-SB-02) will be retained in the site offices for reference. Tree protection is divided into three stages: • Pre-Construction; • Construction Works; and • Post-Construction. 7.2 Pre-Construction ▪ The project arboriculturist (or someone with similar responsibilities) will collaborate with the project team to minimise tree impacts where possible and ensure trees have minimal impact on the proposed development. The project team will adjust the layout where practicable to reduce these impacts. ▪ Any issues in relation to the trees on site will be discussed with the project arboriculturist and local authority (if required) prior to works being carried out, though this is unlikely to be necessary in light of the affected environment. ▪ All tree works will likely be carried out prior to construction activity on site, though this would be subject to appropriate seasonal timing (i.e. bird nesting season). ▪ A qualified, insured tree surgery contractor will carry out works according to BS:3998 2010, unless the appointed EPC Contractor has the competency to do the works. ▪ Tree removal will be conducted carefully to avoid damage to surrounding trees. ▪ If stump grinding is necessary, protective measures (e.g., ground guards, plywood sheets) will safeguard adjacent trees' Root Protection Areas (RPAs). ▪ Once tree works are completed, protective fencing will be erected in the position indicated by a solid pink line on TPR-SB-02 as required. ▪ The fenced-off area, known as the Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ), protects trees, their RPAs, and supplementary planting areas. ▪ Fencing will be 2.3m high, using scaffold bars well-braced for impact resistance. Heras fence panels will be securely fixed with scaffold clamps (Figure 23). Where applicable, RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 19 | P a g e site hoarding or palisade fencing may serve as protective fencing (subject to approval). Stabiliser struts on a block tray will be used if more practical (Figure 24). Figure 23: Tree Protective Fencing example using uprights driven into the ground RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 20 | P a g e Figure 24: Tree Protective Fencing example using above ground stabilising units ▪ All weather ‘Keep Out’ signs will be secured to the fences (Figure 25). Figure 25: ‘Keep Out’ sign examples for tree protective fencing. ▪ Where fencing is impractical, protective boxes (timber frames & plywood) and ground protection will be used (see Section 7.7). RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 21 | P a g e Site access, storage, and parking ▪ These areas will be a minimum of 10 m away from trees and slopes. Clearly signposted storage areas will prevent unauthorised material placement. Materials will be stored in containers/on pallets with plastic coverings to avoid soil compaction or contamination. Ground Protection ▪ Where traffic is expected within in a CEZ, approved ground protection will be used to dissipate vertical loads and prevent soil contamination. This is unlikely to be necessary considering the site and terrain encountered. Installation Steps: ▪ Prepare Ground: Remove loose organic matter manually; level surface with non- compacted, no-fines stone. ▪ Lay Geotextile: Place non-woven geotextile fleece with 300mm overlapping dry joints. ▪ Edge Containment: Install treated timber/railway sleepers along edges. ▪ Deploy Cellular System: Place Cell Web (150-200mm) over geotextile, pin/anchor open. ▪ Fill and Compact: Gradually fill with 20-40mm clean sharp stone using a roll-out method. ▪ Final Surcharge: Add 25mm of 40-20mm clean angular stone. 7.3 Construction Works ▪ The project arboriculturist (or someone with similar responsibilities) will be informed of any planned works in the CEZ. Tree monitoring will be conducted, with health and safety recommendations made as needed. Tree Protective Fencing Maintenance ▪ Fencing must remain upright, rigid, and intact throughout construction. The EPC contractor is responsible for daily inspections and repairs. No materials or equipment shall be stored behind protective fencing. Working within the CEZ ▪ Any work in the CEZ requires project arboriculturist (or someone with similar responsibilities) consultation. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 22 | P a g e ▪ Ground protection (e.g., ground guards, heavy-duty plywood over woodchip) will be used for temporary access. ▪ Tree protective fencing, if removed temporarily, will be securely stored and reinstated post-works. ▪ Work will be manual-only—no heavy machinery allowed. ▪ Where permanent surfaces are to be installed within the CEZ, No-Dig methods will be implemented. Finished surfaces will be porous to allow gas and water movement. (Figure 26) Figure 26: No-Dig, cellular confinement surface with examples of finishing options Use of Cranes ▪ If the use of cranes is expected to interfere with trees, then working space will be provided by facilitation pruning or temporary branch tying. Considering the site layout, terrain and points of access (i.e. from the R189), there is little potential for interference by cranes. In the unlikely event that there is an issue, a specification shall be prepared by the project arboriculturist (or someone with similar responsibilities). Excavations ▪ Excavations within RPAs is avoided where possible and unlikely to be an issue considering the terrain, site layout and proximity of remaining trees to the working area. If unavoidable, solutions such as piles or pads with above-ground beams will be used. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 23 | P a g e Trial holes (600mm deep) will be dug using Air-Spade/hand tools. Roots under 25mm may be pruned; larger roots require arboriculturist approval. Roots left exposed overnight will be covered with soil or moist hessian. Piling near trees will use smallest practicable diameter piles. Sleeved bored pile/screw piles will be used to protect the soil and roots from toxic effects of uncured concrete. 7.4 Services ▪ Considering the location of services in proximity to and through the site, there is minimal risk of conflict with a RPA. If unavoidable, trenchless insertion methods will be used, with entry/exit pits outside RPAs (Table 3). To avoid damage to roots when using trenchless insertion methods, the depth of the pit will be 750mm. Table 3: Trenchless solutions for differing utility apparatus installation requirements ▪ If the service route must pass through the RPA, it will be routed under the centre of the tree, where there are less roots. External lubrication of equipment with materials other than water or vegetable oil (e.g. mineral oil, bentonite, etc.) will not be used when working within the RPA. Shallow service runs may be excavated manually, avoiding roots. Roots under 25mm may be pruned; larger roots require arboriculturist approval. Roots left exposed overnight will be covered with soil or moist hessian. No heavy machinery excavation within RPAs. Finished Ground Levels & Landscaping ▪ Existing RPA ground levels will remain unchanged and may be incorporated into the finished development through adjacent tree planting. The new ground level of the site outside of the RPA will be lower, thus creating no potential for water pooling around the tree. No heavy machinery within RPAs. Landscaping will be done manually. Herbicide use near retained trees will be minimised, with only direct, systemic applications allowed if necessary. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 24 | P a g e Prohibited Activities in CEZ ▪ Stockpiling of soil or rubble. ▪ Washing of machinery. ▪ Attaching notice, cables, or other services to trees. ▪ Using neighbouring trees as anchor points. ▪ Fires or burning. ▪ Any action likely to cause waterlogging. 7.5 Post Construction ▪ The project arboriculturist (or someone with similar responsibilities) will inspect all retained trees before project completion. ▪ This report is for the named client’s sole use and applies only to the trees/hedgerows identified herein. 8.0 References • BSI (2010) BS3998: Tree Work: Recommendations; London: British Standard Institute. • BSI (2012) BS5837: Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction: Recommendations; London: British Standard Institute. • National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) (2007) Guidelines for the Planning, Installation, and Maintenance of Utility Apparatus in Proximity to Trees (Volume 4). London: NJUG. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 25 | P a g e Appendix 1 Tree Survey and Key RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 26 | P a g e BS 5837 – Survey Form Key Tag No: Tag stapled to tree for reference Species: Both scientific and common name are provided Stem diam: Stem diameter - diameter of the main stem in millimetres measured at 1.5m. This measurement forms the basis of the Root Protection Area calculation – that being the equivalent to a circle with a radius of 12 x the stem diameter Crown spread: The radial spread of the crown from the centre of the tree, indicated at four cardinal points, North, South, East and West. C.Ht: The height of the first significant branch, measured in metres C. Circa A: Average T: Tree, TL: Tree Line, TB: Tree Belt, TG : Tree Group, H: Hedge, SB: Shrub Border LE: Life Expectancy of the tree in years Age classes: Young: In the first fifth of its life expectancy Semi-Mature: In the second fifth of its life expectancy Early-Mature: In the third fifth of its life expectancy Mature: In the penultimate fifth of its life expectancy, reached maximum height Over-Mature: In the final fifth of its life expectancy, in natural decline Dead wood diameter sizes: Small: <50mm Medium: Between 50 – 100mm Large: >100mm Phys Cond: Physiological condition, an assessment of the tree’s overall health – Good: Good vitality e.g., healthy foliage or buds, crown density is consistent with that of the species Fair: Low vitality e.g., sparseness of foliage or buds Poor: Poor vitality e.g., dieback of foliage or shoot development, disease affecting growth. Dead: The tree is dead Struc Cond: Structural condition, noting any structural defects – Good: No major structural defects observed (possibly some minor defects) Fair: Minor defects present, such as bark wounds and isolated decay pockets, structure affected due to overcrowding and is dependent on group structure Poor: Major structural defects present such as extensive dead wood, decay cavities affecting stability, splitting or cracking at unions Management Recommendations: Any initial work requirements in terms of sound arboricultural practice, irrespective of any proposed development Cat.: Category grade in terms of quality and value RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 27 | P a g e Table 4: RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 28 | P a g e Tree Survey Tag No. Species Age Class Ht. m Stem Diam mm N m E m S m W m C. Ht m RPA m Phys Cond Struc Cond Comments Management Recommendations LE years Cat. TL1 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Early Mature 5 400 4 1 2 3 2 4.8 Poor Fair Tree line of 7 trees with symptoms of ash dieback Located outside the red line area, but they could be cut into the hedge to address risk towards the Newpark House, particularly the tree closest to the public road. <10 U 1001 oak (Quercus robur) Mature 12 970 8 7 9 6 1 11.6 Good Good It is suppressed by ivy and has some small dead wood in crown. Sever ivy. 40+ A1 1002 sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) Mature 9 700 3 5 5 5 3 8.5 Fair Poor Cavity at 1 metre, 80% decay into main stem. Large size dead wood in crown. Located outside the red line area, but to address towards Newpark House property we recommend: Reduce overall height by approx. 8m, terminating at ~8m. Rebalance crown, particularly reducing the SW quadrant to 3m and removing overhang on the NE and track side. All cuts to terminate at appropriate growing points. Implement a biannual inspection schedule 20+ C1 1003 sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) Mature 9 700 3 5 5 5 3 8.5 Fair Poor Twin stem, decay column at 2 metres Located outside the red line area, but to address towards Newpark House its crown 10+ C1 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 29 | P a g e Tree Survey Tag No. Species Age Class Ht. m Stem Diam mm N m E m S m W m C. Ht m RPA m Phys Cond Struc Cond Comments Management Recommendations LE years Cat. height and spread could be reduced by 2m. 1004 oak (Quercus robur) Early Mature 9 600 4 5 4 2 1 7.2 Good Good Forms part of the upper canopy of the hedgerow No works presently 40+ A1 1005 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Mature 9 1010 5 4 5 5 2 12.1 Poor Good Twin stem. Located outside the red line area, but to address towards Newpark House, it could be reduced to snag at 5 metres <10 U 1006 beech (Fagus sylvatica) Mature 10 750 4 5 5 5 2 9 Good Good Forms part of the upper canopy of the hedgerow No works presently 40+ A1 1007 sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) Mature 13 750 4 4 4 4 3 9 Good Fair Co dominant stems and damaged bark No works presently 40+ B1 1008 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Semi Mature 10 250 2 1 3 3 2 3 Dead Poor Dead Located outside the red line area, but to address towards Newpark House, it could be reduced to snag at 2 metres <10 U 1009 sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) Early Mature 13 800 5 4 4 4 3 9.6 Good Fair Twin stem. No works presently 40+ B1 1010 sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) Mature 10 550 4 4 4 4 3 6.6 Good Fair Minor decay cavity at base No works presently 40+ A2 1011 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Mature 15 700 4 4 3 4 4 8.4 Good Good Symptoms of ash dieback No works presently <10 U 1012 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Mature 15 750 2 3 4 4 3 9 Fair Good Symptoms of ash dieback No works presently <10 U 1012a ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Mature 15 750 2 3 4 4 3 9 Fair Good Symptoms of ash dieback No works presently <10 U RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 30 | P a g e Tree Survey Tag No. Species Age Class Ht. m Stem Diam mm N m E m S m W m C. Ht m RPA m Phys Cond Struc Cond Comments Management Recommendations LE years Cat. 1013 sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) Mature 14 750 5 5 4 4 2 9 Good Good 5 degree lean north No works presently 40+ B1 1014 wild cherry (Prunus avium) Early Mature 5 200 3 3 3 3 3 2.4 Fair Fair Twin stem at 2 metres. No works presently 20+ C1 1015 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Early Mature 5 400 1 1 1 1 3 4.8 Fair Good Symptoms of ash dieback No works presently <10 U 1016 beech (Fagus sylvatica) Early Mature 6 350 2 3 4 2 2 4.2 Fair Fair Forms part of the upper canopy of the hedgerow No works presently 40+ B1 1017 beech (Fagus sylvatica) Early Mature 5 600 4 3 2 3 2 7.2 Fair Fair Multi stem (4) No works presently 20+ C1 1018 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Early Mature 5 200 2 2 2 2 4 2.4 Poor Fair Symptoms of ash dieback Reduce to a snag 3 metres <10 U 1019 wild cherry (Prunus avium) Early Mature 5 300 3 3 3 3 4 3.6 Good Good Forms part of the upper canopy of the hedgerow Located outside the red line area, but it could be pruned clear of the overhead utility wire 20+ C1 1020 beech (Fagus sylvatica) Early Mature 5 350 3 4 4 3 2 4.2 Good Good It will interfere with overhead cable as it grows Located outside the red line area, but it will likely need pruning in the future to provide clearance cable 40+ B1 1021 oak (Quercus robur) Early Mature 5 350 4 4 4 4 2 4.2 Good Good It will interfere with overhead cable as it grows Located outside the red line area, but it will likely need pruning in the future to provide clearance cable 40+ B1 1022 beech (Fagus sylvatica) Early Mature 5 250 4 4 4 3 2 3 Good Good It will interfere with overhead cable as it grows Located outside the red line area, but it will likely need pruning in the future to provide clearance cable 40+ C1 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 31 | P a g e Tree Survey Tag No. Species Age Class Ht. m Stem Diam mm N m E m S m W m C. Ht m RPA m Phys Cond Struc Cond Comments Management Recommendations LE years Cat. 1023 oak (Quercus robur) Early Mature 8 550 4 4 4 3 4 6.6 Good Good It will interfere with overhead cable as it grows Located outside the red line area, but it will likely need pruning in the future to provide clearance cable 40+ A1 1024 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Semi Mature 5 300 4 3 4 2 3 3.6 Poor Poor Symptoms of ash dieback Located outside the red line area, but it will likely need pruning in the future to provide clearance cable <10 U 1025 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Semi Mature 5 300 4 3 2 2 4 3.6 Poor Poor Symptoms of ash dieback Located outside the red line area, but it should be cut into the hedge to address risk towards the public road <10 U 1026 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Semi Mature 5 200 1 2 1 2 3 2.4 Poor Poor Symptoms of ash dieback Cut into the hedge to address risk towards the public road <10 U 1027 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Semi Mature 5 800 2 3 2 2 3 9.6 Poor Poor Symptoms of ash dieback Cut into the hedge to address risk towards the public road <10 U 1028 goat willow (Salix caprea) Early Mature 4 200 3 1 1 2 1 2.4 Good Fair Co-dominant stems. No works presently 20+ C1 1029 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Early Mature 5 500 2 1 1 2 2 6 Poor Poor Multi stem (4) No works presently <10 U 1030 sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) Early Mature 5 350 2 3 1 2 1 4.2 Good Fair Co-dominant stems. No works presently 20+ B1 1031 goat willow (Salix caprea) Semi Mature 6 290 4 3 1 3 1 3.5 Good Fair Co-dominant stems. No works presently 20+ C1 1032 goat willow (Salix caprea) Semi Mature 6 450 1 3 4 3 1 5.4 Good Fair Co-dominant stems. No works presently 20+ C1 1033 beech (Fagus sylvatica) Semi Mature 5 350 3 4 4 3 2 4.2 Good Good Forms part of the upper canopy of the hedgerow No works presently 40+ B1 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 32 | P a g e Tree Survey Tag No. Species Age Class Ht. m Stem Diam mm N m E m S m W m C. Ht m RPA m Phys Cond Struc Cond Comments Management Recommendations LE years Cat. 1034 goat willow (Salix caprea) Mature 5 600 4 4 4 4 1 10.8 Good Fair Multi stem (8) No works presently 20+ C1 1036 goat willow (Salix caprea) Semi Mature 6 600 4 4 4 4 2 7.2 Fair Fair Co-dominant stems. No works presently 20+ C1 1037 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Semi Mature 5 150 2 2 2 2 4 1.8 Poor Poor Symptoms of ash dieback No works presently <10 U 1038 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Semi Mature 5 150 2 2 2 2 4 1.8 Poor Poor Symptoms of ash dieback No works presently <10 U 1039 sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) Semi Mature 4 150 2 2 2 2 4 1.8 Good Good Forms part of the upper canopy of the hedgerow No works presently 20+ C1 1040 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Semi Mature 6 150 2 2 2 2 4 1.8 Poor Poor Symptoms of ash dieback No works presently <10 U 1041 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Early Mature 8 400 4 4 3 3 4 4.8 Poor Poor Symptoms of ash dieback No works presently <10 U 1042 sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) Mature 6 800 3 3 3 3 3 9.6 Good Good Forms part of the upper canopy of the hedgerow No works presently 40+ B1 1043 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Semi Mature 8 250 3 3 3 3 3 3 Poor Poor Symptoms of ash dieback No works presently <10 U 1044 sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) Mature 8 800 3 3 3 3 3 9.6 Good Good Forms part of the upper canopy of the hedgerow No works presently 40+ A1 1045 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Semi Mature 6 250 1 1 1 2 3 3 Poor Poor Co-dominant stems. No works presently <10 U 1046 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Semi Mature 6 250 1 2 2 1 3 3 Poor Poor Co-dominant stems. No works presently <10 U 1047 ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Semi Mature 5 290 3 3 3 3 3 2 Poor Poor Symptoms of ash dieback Cut into hedge <10 U H1 hawthorn (Crataegus Mature 5 200 1 1 1 1.8 Fair Fair It extends east to west along the southern Located outside the red line area but Infill and reduce 40+ C2 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 33 | P a g e Tree Survey Tag No. Species Age Class Ht. m Stem Diam mm N m E m S m W m C. Ht m RPA m Phys Cond Struc Cond Comments Management Recommendations LE years Cat. monogyna), oak (Quercus robur), elder (Sambucus nigra) boundary. Overgrown hedgerow planting with gaps along its length. Adjacent farm’s ground level is c.3.5m higher than the survey area. H2 hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), cherry (Prunus avium), oak (Quercus robur), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), gorse (Ulex europaeus), elder (Sambucus nigra), holly (Ilex aquifolium) Mature 3 200 2 2 0 2.4 Fair Fair It extends northeast to west along the southern boundary. Maintained as a low hedge between tree survey area and neighbouring property. No works presently 40+ C2 H3 hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), wild cherry (Prunus avium), oak (Quercus robur), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), gorse Mature 1 200 1 1 0 2.4 Fair Fair It extends northeast to west along the southern boundary. Maintained as a low hedge between tree survey area and neighbouring property. No works presently 40+ C2 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 34 | P a g e Tree Survey Tag No. Species Age Class Ht. m Stem Diam mm N m E m S m W m C. Ht m RPA m Phys Cond Struc Cond Comments Management Recommendations LE years Cat. (Ulex europaeus), holly (Ilex aquifolium), elder (Sambucus nigra) H4 hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), wild cherry (Prunus avium), oak (Quercus robur), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), gorse (Ulex europaeus), elder (Sambucus nigra), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), goat willow (Salix caprea) Mature 2 200 2 2 0 2.4 Fair Fair It extends northwest along the eastern boundary with the public road. Maintained as stock proof hedge No works presently 40+ C2 H5 hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), holly (Ilex aquifolium), goat willow (Salix caprea) gorse (Ulex europaeus), Mature 4 200 2 2 0 2.4 Fair Fair It extends north to south and forms the boundary between two fields. Overgrown hedge. No works presently 40+ C2 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 35 | P a g e Tree Survey Tag No. Species Age Class Ht. m Stem Diam mm N m E m S m W m C. Ht m RPA m Phys Cond Struc Cond Comments Management Recommendations LE years Cat. beech (Fagus sylvatica) H6 bramble (Rubus fruticosus) hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), gorse (Ulex europaeus), elder (Sambucus nigra) Mature 1 200 1 1 0 2.4 Fair Poor It extends southeast to northwest and forms the boundary between two fields. Trim to promote better structure 40+ C2 H7 hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), wild cherry (Prunus avium), oak (Quercus robur), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), gorse (Ulex europaeus), elder (Sambucus nigra), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), goat willow (Salix caprea) Mature 2 200 2 2 0 2.4 Fair Fair It extends southwest along the northern boundary with the public road. Maintained as stock proof hedge No works presently 40+ C2 H8 hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), Mature 2 200 2 2 0 2.4 Fair Fair It extends north to south along the western boundary with the public No works presently 40+ C2 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 36 | P a g e Tree Survey Tag No. Species Age Class Ht. m Stem Diam mm N m E m S m W m C. Ht m RPA m Phys Cond Struc Cond Comments Management Recommendations LE years Cat. wild cherry (Prunus avium), oak (Quercus robur), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), gorse (Ulex europaeus), elder (Sambucus nigra), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), goat willow (Salix caprea) road. Maintained as stock proof hedge RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 V e o n BS 5837 Report – Maghernakelly – November 2025 37 | P a g e Appendix 2 Tree Protection and Removal Plan RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 100110021003100410051006100710081009101010111012101310141015101610171018101910201021 1007 TL1 H1 H2 H3 H4 H7 H7 H8 H5 H6 1009 1010 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1038 1039 1040 1027 1037 1034 1036 1002 1003 1004 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1001 1005 1006 1008 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1041 1042 1045 1047 1012A 1043 1044 1046 1026 Tree Layers Provided by: Project name and address Sheet Date Annotated by Scale 1 Leopardstown, Business Centre, Ballyogan Road, Dublin 18, D18 DK64 1:800 A1 18/04/2025 EG Maghernakelly Drum Legend Tree Protection & Removal Plan For Discussion Purposes Only Drawing No. TPR-SB-02 Revision No. 2 Category U Category A Category B Category C RPA Crown Spread Tree Protection Detail Tree protection fencing must be erected around the Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ) to protect retained trees and any areas marked for supplementary planting. In some areas, site hoarding may be sufficient to act as protective fencing if the tree and its Root Protection Area (RPA) are positioned outside of the hoarding where there will be no construction activity. This must be discussed and agreed upon with the project arboriculturist before construction activity begins on site. Where tree protection fencing is needed, it must be 2.3 metres high and constructed in accordance with figure 2 of BS 5837 2012 (see detail above), using vertical and horizontal scaffold bars, or similar, well-braced together with the verticals spaced out at a maximum of 3 metre centres. Onto this, weld mesh panels (herris fence panels) must be securely fixed with wire or scaffold clamps. Signs must be attached to these fences warning people that this is a protective area and that the fencing must be maintained in good condition in accordance with the approved plans and drawings for this development. Once the protective fence line is erected, then the main construction works can commence on site. During the construction works the following is required: 1.The main contractor or site manager must brief all people working on site about the tree protection measures and the procedure if works must be carried out within the CEZ. 2.Storage of material, work yards and staff car parking must be identified on the the work drawings prior to the construction works starting, these will be positioned outside the CEZ as indicated. 3.The main contractor or site manager must check the tree protective fencing daily and carry out any repairs required to ensure they stay upright and secure. 4.The main contractor or site manager must liase with the project arboriculturist if works are to be carried out within the CEZ or near retained trees. 5.Any works that are to occur within the CEZ, such as landscaping, must be carried out manually, with no machinery allowed within the CEZ. Soil levels must not be lowered or raised with the CEZ as this affects rooting conditions. Recommendations in section 8 of BS 5837:2012 must be adhered to in relation to site works, landscape operations and management. 6.The protective fencing around the CEZ must stay in position until all the construction works are complete and are only to be removed following discussions and agreement with the project arboriculturist. The following must be adhered to in order to protect retained trees and CEZ's: 1.Protect tree root systems from damage caused by runoff or spillage of noxious materials while mixing, moving, or storing construction materials. 2.Protect root systems from ponding, eroding, or excessive wetting caused during construction operations.. 3.Do not store construction materials, debris, or excavated material near trees or inside the CEZ. When excavating, place excavated material on opposite side of trench away from the tree or CEZ. 4.Do not permit vehicles or foot traffic within the CEZ; prevent soil compaction over root systems. 5.Do not allow fires near the CEZ or retained trees. 6.Do not attach notice boards, cables or other services to any part of a tree. 7.Do not use neighbouring trees as anchor points. 8.Do not use high machinery such as Tele-porters, cranes, or other equipment close to trees, to avoid damage to the crown or any other part of the tree. Signage Detail Co. Monoghan Protective Fencing CEZ Tree Nos. 1947 Tree/Hedge For RemovalRECEIVED: 28/08/2026 AUGUST 2026 VOLUME III APPENDICES TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX 11.2 ADDITIONAL WALKOVER SURVEY Stream BioEnergy Ireland Limited RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Drum, Co. Monaghan Compiled by Veon Ecology Completion date: June 2025 Gas Pipeline RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Report 2 | P a g e Details of Author(s) Name: Ilan Farrell Address: Office 17, Oran House, Oran Town Centre, Station Road, Oranmore, Co. Galway Company name: Veon Ltd. Veon Ecology Tel. no: M: +353 87 1127182 E-mail: ifarrell@veon.ie Details of relevant qualifications/ affiliations/years of experience BSc (Hons) in Wildlife Biology, Munster Technological University Kerry Qualifying Member of Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) BSc earned in 2023 from Munster Technological University Kerry. Plentiful experience in ornithology, undertaking various survey types. Knowledge of environmental legislation and ecological assessments. Describe scope of contribution in preparing this report Field survey, and completion of final report. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Report 3 | P a g e Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Field study ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 3. 'as Pipeline - Habitats .............................................................................................................................................. 4 4. 'as Pipeline - Invasive Species .................................................................................................................................. 5 5. Hedgerow Habitats.................................................................................................................................................. 8 6. Photographs .............................................................................................................. ............................................. 1Ϭ 7. References ............................................................................................................................................................... 2ϬRECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Report 4 | P a g e 1. Introduction An additional walkover survey was carried out by Ilan Farrell, an ecologist with Veon, on the 11th of June 2025. The survey focussed on mapping the habitats within the road verge of part of the R188 and R189. Any ecological constraints observed were recorded and mapped. The road verge on the eastern side was noted to be wider across the survey area varying approximately between 1 and 2 metres. The western road verge was narrow, approximately half the width of the eastern road verge, and had a steep bank for a significant length of the road verge. Several stop valves were recorded, primarily along the eastern road verge. Few ecological constraints were recorded and are explained below, with their approximate locations recorded on the attached habitat maps 2. Field study Resources and literature used onsite include: Habitats • Fossitt, J. A. (2000) A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council, Kilkenny. Flora • Parnell, J. & Curtis, T. (2012) Webb’s An Irish Flora. Cork University Press • Hubbard, C. E. (1992) Grasses: A Guide to their Structure, Identification, Uses and Distribution in the British Isles. Penguin Books, Middlesex. • Smith, A. J. E. (2004) The Moss Flora of Britain & Ireland. 2nd Ed. Cambridge • Jermy, A. C., Chater, A. O. & David. R. W. (1982) Sedges of the British Isles: BSBI Handbook No. 1. BSBI, London. Fauna • Hayden, T., Harrington, R. (2000) Exploring Irish Mammals. Town House & Country House Ltd. Dublin. • Olsen, L. (2013) Tracks and Signs of the Animals and Birds of Britian and Ireland. Princeton University Press, Oxfordshire, UK. • Svensson, L., Mullarney, K., & Zetterstorm, D. (2022) Collins Bird Guide to the Birds of Britian and Europe. Harper Collins Publishers, London. 3. 'as Pipeline - Habitats GS2 – Dry meadows and grassy verges This was the dominant habitat within the survey area and made up the majority of the road verge on both sides of the road. Common grass species recorded within the habitat included Orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), Perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), Yorkshire- fog (Holcus lanatus), and Sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum). Sward height varied throughout the habitat due to some sections of the road verge having been mowed, however, the spe- cies composition remained similar throughout. Bramble (Rubus spp.), Bush vetch (Vicia sepium), Meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria),Buttercup (Ranunculus spp.), Dock (Rumex spp.), and Common hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium) were dominant species in this habitat. This habitat was species rich and had the following species scattered throughout; Sedge (Carex spp.), Fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), Heath groundsel (Senecio sylvaticus), Hedge woundwort (Stachys sylvatica), Coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara), Welted thistle (Carduus acanthoides), Wild morning-glory (Calystegia sepium), Great bindweed RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Report 5 | P a g e (Calystegia sylvatica), Zig-Zag clover (Trifolium medium), Meadow vetchling (Lathyrus pratensis), Cleavers (Galium aparine), Small-flower sweetbriar (Rosa micrantha), and Common horsetail (Equisetum arvense). Tree saplings recorded within this habitat include Hazel (Corylus avellana), Oak (Quercus spp), Willow (Salix spp.), Ash (Fraxinus spp.), and Common hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna). GA2 – Amenity grassland (improved) This habitat was scarce and only recorded in areas near residential buildings and a factory. It was well maintained and included species such as Meadow-grasses (Poa spp.), White clover (Trifolium repens), Ragworts (Senecio spp.), Ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and Common daisy (Bellis perennis). ED3 – Recolonising bare ground This habitat was recorded in a small area on the road verge. It is evident that this part of the road verge has had some ground works carried out on it in recent years. Species included Colt’s Foot (Tussilago farfara), Dandelion (Taraxacum spp.), Willow-herbs (Epilobium spp.) and Ragworts (Senecio spp.). BL3 – Buildings and artificial surfaces This habitat consisted primarily of tarmacadam driveways and artificial entrances to agricultural fields. BL1 – Stone walls and other stonework This habitat made up the border of a significant section of the road verge. It was examined during the survey for potential bird nests, none were observed. However, much of it is covered with Ivy (Hedera helix) which made this observation difficult. This habitat also supported abundant mosses and lichens. FS1 – Reed and large sedge swamps This habitat was located outside of the road verge; however, it is approximately 4-5 metres from the road verge. This is a wet habitat and was dominated by Water horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile), followed by Yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus), which is characteristic of this habitat type. FW4 – Drainage ditch Drainage ditches were recorded both inside and outside the road verge. The drainage ditch outside the road verge had significantly more water than the drainage ditch recorded within the road verge. There was no frog spawn observed in either drainage ditch, however, some sections were difficult to observe due to obstructions. The drainage ditch recorded within the road verge had a low level of water flowing. 4. 'as Pipeline - Invasive Species Cherry laurel (Prunus laurocerasus) and Rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum) were recorded in the survey area. Both of which are high impact invasive species. Rhododendron was recorded and their locations highlighted in the habitat map below. One occurrence was on the road verge, and the other occurrence was observed further back from the road verge, approximately 6 metres. This was still recorded due the potential for the root system to reach the road verge. Cherry laurel was recorded in two areas; one area was a planted hedgerow at the entrance of Carleton cakes that is well maintained. The other area is on the T-junction where the R189 meets the R188. In relation to the size of the survey area, neither species were abundant. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Report 6 | P a g e Figure 1. Additional Walkover Survey - Southern Section RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Report 7 | P a g e Figure 2. Additional Walkover Survey - Northern Section RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Report 8 | P a g e 5. Hedgerow - Habitats The hedgerow “C” outlined below was inspected during these additional works. The hedgerow was relatively full in its structure, with few gaps scattered throughout. Common hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) was the dominant woody species, with common ivy (Hedera helix) and bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) also recorded. The hedgerow was inspected for bird nesting activity.Although no bird nests were observed during the initial survey, this hedgerow has potential for species such as Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) to be nesting here. It is recommended that if this hedgerow is being cleared that it is cleared outside of the breeding bird season. Alternatively, if this opera- tion is time sensitive and needs to be cleared during the bird breeding season, it is advised that a qualified ecologist undertakes a specific survey on the hedgerow to inspect for any bird nesting activity. Figure 3. Hedgerow Inspected RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Report 9 |P a g e 7. Photographs Photograph 1. GA2 – Amenity grassland (improved) RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Report 10 |P a g e Photograph 2. GS2 – Dry meadows and grassy verges RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Report 11 |P a g e Photograph 3. BL1 – Stone walls and other stonework RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Report 12 |P a g e Photograph 4. Old stone walls with thick ivy growth RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Report 13 |P a g e Photograph 5. FS1 – Reed and large sedge swamp RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Report 14 |P a g e Photograph 6. Planted cherry laurel hedgerow at entrance to Carleton Cakes factory RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Report 15 |P a g e Photograph 7. Cherry laurel encroaching on road verge where R189 meets R188 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Report 16 |P a g e Photograph 8. Example of stop valves recorded on road verge RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Report 17 |P a g e Photograph 9. BL3 - Buildings and artificial surfaces RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Report 18 |P a g e Photograph 10. Hedegrow "C" inspected RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Additional Walkover Survey Report 19 |P a g e 7. References Ellenberg, H. (1988) Vegetation Ecology of Central Europe. 4th Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. UK. Fossitt, J. A. (2000) A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council, Kilkenny. Hayden, T., Harrington, R. (2000) Exploring Irish Mammals. Town House & Country House Ltd. Dublin. Hill, M.O., Mountford, J.O., Roy, D.B. & Bunce, R.G.H. (1999) Ellenberg’s indicator values for British plants. ECOFACT Volume 2 Technical Annex. Huntingdon, Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. 46 pp. Hill, M.O., Roy, D.B., Mountford, J.O. and Bunce, R.G., (2000) Extending Ellenberg's indicator values to a new area: an algorithmic approach. Journal of applied Ecology, 37(1), pp.3-15. Hubbard, C. E. (1992) Grasses: A Guide to their Structure, Identification, Uses and Distribution in the British Isles. Penguin Books, Middlesex. Jermy, A. C., Chater, A. O. & David. R. W. (1982) Sedges of the British Isles: BSBI Handbook No. 1. BSBI, London. Martin, J.R., O’Neill, F.H. & Daly, O.H. (2018) The monitoring and assessment of three EU Habitats Directive Annex I grassland habitats. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 102. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Ireland. O’Neill, F.H., Martin, J.R., Devaney, F.M. & Perrin, P.M. (2013) The Irish semi-natural grasslands survey 2007-2012. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 78. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Ireland. Olsen, L. (2013) Tracks and Signs of the Animals and Birds of Britian and Ireland. Princeton University Press, Oxfordshire, UK. Parnell, J. & Curtis, T. (2012) Webb’s An Irish Flora. Cork University Press Smith, A. J. E. (2004) The Moss Flora of Britain & Ireland. 2nd Ed. Cambridge Svensson, L., Mullarney, K., & Zetterstorm, D. (2022) Collins Bird Guide to the Birds of Britian and Europe. Harper Collins Publishers, London.RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 AUGUST 2026 VOLUME III APPENDICES TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX 11.3 MAMMAL REPORT Stream BioEnergy Ireland Limited RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Mammal Report Nov 2025 Biogas Plant, Drum 1 |Page Mammal Report (Non-Volant) Proposed development of a Biogas Plant at Maghernakelly, Drum, County Monaghan Compiled by: Veon Ecology, Amy Haigh BSc (Hons), PhD Prepared for: Stream BioEnergy Completion Date: November 2025 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Mammal Report Nov 2025 Biogas Plant, Drum 2 |Page Table of Contents Section 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 5 Section 2: Legislative Background ...................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidelines .............................................................................. 8 Section 3: Methodology ................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Zone of influence ................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Field Study ............................................................................................................................. 13 3.3.1 Walkover surveys ............................................................................................................ 13 3.3.2 Habitat ............................................................................................................................ 13 3.3.3 Mammal Tracks and Signs Survey..................................................................................... 16 3.3.4 Camera Trapping ............................................................................................................. 16 Section 4: Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 17 Section 5: References ...................................................................................................................... 18 Table of Figures Figure 1.1: The location of the proposed development. ..................................................................... 4 Figure 1.2: Proposed development provided by Stream Bioenergy ................................................... 5 Figure 3.1: 10km2 hectad (H51) around the proposed site from which previous mammal records were accessed from the National Biodiversity Centre site. ................................................................. 9 Figure 3.2: Phase 1 habitat map. ...................................................................................................... 13 Table of Tables Table of Photographs Table 3.1: Mammal species recorded in 10km2 grid (H51) surrounding the site since 2000 (NBDC, 2024)............................................................................................................................................ 12 Photograph 3.1: Gorse (Ulex europeaus), Bramble (Rubus fructicosus) and Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) along the hedgerow. ................................................................................................. 14 Photograph 3.2: Treeline (WL2) at the proposed development...................................................... 15 Photograph 3.3: Fox captured at 5am at the proposed. ................................................................ 16RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Mammal Report Nov 2025 Biogas Plant, Drum 3 |Page General Details Details of Author(s) Name:Amy Haigh Address:Veon, CO:WORX, 5 Main Street Edgeworthstown N39 AH64 Company name:Veon Ltd. Veon Ecology Tel. no:M: +353 87 6082065 E-mail:ahaigh@veon.ie Details of relevant qualifications/ affiliations/years of experience Describe scope of contribution in preparing this report: Amy Haigh B.Sc. (Hons) in Zoology NUIG, PhD in Mammal Ecology, UCC, QCIEEM National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG), University College Cork (UCC) Over 15 years’ experience conducting research and working in the field of ecology, with extensive stakeholder engagement and survey skills. Desktop Survey, Mammal suitability assessment, Writing of report Name: Aine O’Sullivan Address: Oran Town Centre, Station Road, Oranmore, Co. Galway Company name: Veon Ltd. Veon Ecology Tel. no: M: +353 87 361 5024 E-mail:aosullivan@veon.ie Details of relevant qualifications: Aine O’Sullivan B.Sc. (Hons) in Ecology and environmental Biology UCC, CIEEM. Describe scope of contribution in preparing this report: Habitat Survey, Ecological walkover. Veon Ltd. Veon Ecology Revision Description Author:Date Reviewed By:Date Authorised by:Doc. Ref. 1 Draft Report AH 09/10/2024 -14362 2 Final Report ----RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Mammal Report Nov 2025 Biogas Plant, Drum 4 |Page Section 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Veon Ltd. (Veon Ecology) has been appointed by Stream Bioenergy to carry out a mammal survey in relation to the development of a biogas plant and associated infrastructure works, hereafter referred to as “the proposed development.” The project is located at Maghernakelly, Drum, County Monaghan, centred at 54.109851, -7.098526 (Figure 1.1). It is located 4.2 km northwest from Cootehill, 11.2 km southeast of Clones and 17.5km south of Monaghan Town. The site is locally connected through the R189 regional road which connects to the national N54 road. Figure 1.1: The location of the proposed development.RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Mammal Report Nov 2025 Biogas Plant, Drum 5 |Page 1.2 Project Description The proposed development will utilise AD technology to generate renewable energy in the form of biomethane from up to 99,000 tonnes of feedstock per annum consisting of poultry manure, cattle manure, and agri-food organic waste feedstock, sourced from the surrounding area. This will be achieved through a state-of-the-art, highly regulated facility incorporating advanced technologies and abatement systems to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts on the environment and human health. Key features in this regard will include enclosed handling of all materials within sealed buildings / tanks, multi-stage odour treatment, noise containment, and engineered site drainage. The process is illustrated and described below The AD process can be broadly divided into the following four main stages: Feedstock Reception and Pre-Treatment: Organic waste feedstocks are delivered to the site, stored in enclosed reception areas, and pre-treated to optimise digestion. AD Treatment: Pre-treated feedstocks are fed into anaerobic digesters, where micro- organisms break down the material over several weeks, producing biogas (primarily methane and CO₂). Post-Treatment (following Digestion): The resulting digestate is separated into solid and liquid fractions, with solids processed into fertiliser pellets and liquids recirculated. Energy Generation and Use: Biogas is upgraded on-site to biomethane and injected into the national gas grid via a nearby connection, replacing fossil fuel-derived natural gas and contributing to Ireland’s renewable energy targets under the Climate Action Plan 2025. Combined Heat and Power (CHP) units utilise a portion of the biogas to generate electricity and heat for on-site use. The AD process primarily produces:RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Mammal Report Nov 2025 Biogas Plant, Drum 6 |Page Nutrient-Rich Digestate: A biofertiliser suitable for use in agriculture and horticulture as a sustainable alternative to synthetic fertilisers, reducing reliance on chemical inputs. Biogenic Carbon Dioxide (CO₂): Captured during biogas upgrading for industrial applications, such as food processing or greenhouse cultivation, replacing CO₂ derived from fossil fuel- intensive processes and supporting decarbonisation efforts. Figure 1.2: Proposed Development Site Layout The site layout of the proposed development is provided on Figure 1.2, comprises a number of integrated elements including: 1 - Administration Building (with associated surface level car parking); 2 - Main Process Building (with associated vehicle service areas); 3 - Odour Control System (with associated emission stack); 4 - Bunded Tank Farm (accommodating the vast majority of tanks that require containment and other plant); 5 - Digestate Treatment Plant (Evaporator); 6 - Digestate Drying Plant; 7 - Pellet Hall (for fertiliser storage); 8 - Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Building (accommodating two CHP engines); 9 - Boiler Unit; 10 - Shared Emission Stack (for exhaust connection to the Digestate Drying Plant, CHP engines and Boiler); 11 - CO2 Liquefaction Plant;RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Mammal Report Nov 2025 Biogas Plant, Drum 7 |Page 12 - Biogas Upgrade Plant (BUP); 13 - Biogas Treatment Plant (Biological De-sulphurisation Units); 14 - Gas (Holder) Buffer Dome; 15 - Weighbridges and Wheel Washes; 16 - Liquid Feedstock Storage Tanks (silos); 17 - Backup Gas Flare; 18 - Fuel Storage Tank; 19 - Gas Grid Entry Unit; 20 - Fire Water Storage Tank; 21 - Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Storage Tanks (Propane); 22 - Freshwater Storage Tank (Underground); 23 - Staff and Visitor Parking; 24 - Control Building; 25 - Plant Room; and 26 - Back-Up generator. Other integrated elements, though not numbered on Figure 1 include: Internal road and footway provision; Engineered stormwater drainage system; Landscaping and Earthworks; Lighting; Fencing and security gates; and Site entrance/exit off the L2280 Drumcall Road with gated frontage. This shall include localised widening and realignment of this road and reconfiguration of the junction with the R189. The plant will operate under an Industrial Emissions Licence (IEL) issued by the EPA under the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 (as amended). The IEL will impose stringent regulatory controls, including emission limits, environmental performance reporting requirements, and regular EPA inspections, ensuring compliance with national and EU environmental standards (e.g., Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU). Stream BioEnergy is committed to proactive monitoring and collaboration with regulatory authorities to maintain the highest operational and environmental standards.RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Mammal Report Nov 2025 Biogas Plant, Drum 8 |Page Section 2: Legislative Background 2.1 Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidelines This report takes into account the following policy documents and legislation in relation to mammals: National and International Policy and Legislation • Wildlife Acts 1976 - 2012 (as amended); hereafter collectively referred to as the ‘Wildlife Acts’ • European Communities (EC) (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 477/2011 (as amended) hereafter referred to as the Birds and Habitats Regulations • EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (as amended) In Ireland, most native mammals are protected under the Wildlife Acts. These Acts help to ensure that the species listed cannot be wilfully killed or injured without first obtaining a licence from the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). The legislation protects their breeding places from wilful interference or destruction, and the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 extends this protection to include resting places also. Such resting places are protected even where no animal is currently present. The species included under this protection are: • Otter Lutra lutra • Badger Meles meles • Irish Hare Lepus timidus hibernicus • Red Squirrel Sciurus vulgaris • Red deer Cervus elaphus • Fallow deer Dama dama • Sika deer Cervus nippon • Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus • Pygmy shrew Sorex minutus • Pine Marten Martes martes • Irish stoat Mustela erminea hibernica Otters are also afforded additional protection under the EU Habitats Directive [92/43/EEC] Annex II and IV. Other mammals that are referred to in this report, but which are not protected under the above legislation include: • Fox Vulpes vulpes • Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus • Wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus • House mouse Mus musculus domesticus Invasive mammals which are listed on the Third Schedule Part 2A of Section 49 of the European Communities (Birds and Habitats) Regulations 2010, for which assisting their spread constitutes committing an offence under this legislation include: • Grey Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Mammal Report Nov 2025 Biogas Plant, Drum 9 |Page • Mink Mustela vison Irish Red Data Lists The NPWS and Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) work together with national experts and with the National Biological Data Centres to produce regional Red Lists for the island of Ireland. This is in compliance with an action under the National Biodiversity Plan. The Red lists present data on rare and threatened species in Ireland, although they do not offer legal protection, they encourage the conservation of these species here. A number of the species of flora and fauna listed on Red Lists may be afforded legal protection under domestic and European law. Mammals Red Lists in Ireland refer to the whole island, i.e. including Northern Ireland, and so follow the guidelines for regional assessments (IUCN, 2012, 2019). The abbreviations used are as follows: - RE Regionally Extinct - CR Critically Endangered - EN Endangered - VU Vulnerable - NT Near Threatened - DD Data Deficient - LC Least Concern - NA Not Assessed - NE Not Evaluated. The terrestrial mammal list for Ireland consists of all terrestrial species native to Ireland or naturalised in Ireland before 1500 (Marnel et al., 2019). There are 27 terrestrial mammal species in Ireland, which includes the nine resident bat species listed. The IUCN Red List categories and criteria are used to assess that status of wildlife. This was recently completed for the terrestrial mammals of Ireland. With the exception of the grey wolf (Canis lupus) (regionally extinct) and black rat (Rattus rattus) (Vulnerable), the remaining 25 species were assessed as least concern in the most recent IUCN Red List publication by NPWS (Marnell et al., 2019). General Survey Guidance The mammal surveys have also taken note of the following guidelines: •CIEEM (2024). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland, Version 1.3, September 2024, Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. •Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes (TII, 2009). •Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements (EPA, 2022) •Advice Notes on Current Practice (in preparation of Environmental Impact Statements (EPA, 2003 and Update 2015). •Guidelines for the Protection and Preservation of Trees, Hedgerows and Scrub Prior to, During and Post Construction of National Road Schemes. TII (2006b). •Environmental Impact Assessment of National Road Schemes – A Practical Guide. National Roads Authority (2008b). •Ecological Surveying Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna during the Planning of National Road Schemes. National Roads Authority. National Roads Authority (2009a). •Guidelines for assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes (Revision 2, 1st June, 2009). National Roads Authority (2009b). Mammal The following species-specific guidelines were referred to for the mammal surveys: •Guidelines for the Treatment of Badgers prior to the Construction of National Road Schemes. TII (2006a). •Guidelines for the Treatment of Otters prior to the Construction of National Road Schemes. TII (2008a).RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Mammal Report Nov 2025 Biogas Plant, Drum 10 |Page •TII (2009): Guidelines Ecological Surveying Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna during the Planning of National Road Schemes. •Bang & Dahlstrom 2004: Animal tracks and signs Section 3: Methodology 3.1 Zone of influence According to the CIEEM Guidelines, the Zone of Influence (ZoI) for a project is ‘the area over which ecological features may be subject to significant effects as a result of the proposed project and associated activities. This is likely to extend beyond the project site, for example, where there are ecological or hydrological links beyond the site boundaries.’The habitats that may undergo potential direct or indirect impacts as part of the proposed scheme were considered. To ensure that the entire potential Zone of Influence upon the local mammal population was covered, Veon Ecology carried out the terrestrial mammal survey, throughout the proposed development footprint. The habitats were mapped and their suitability for mammal species considered (See Section 3.3.2). Considering the proposed works, this area was deemed sufficient to cover the potential zone of influence for these mammal species.Ad hoc mammal data was also recorded within this area. 3.2 Desk Study Prior to the field study, an ecological desktop study was undertaken to inform this mammal report. The desk study involved a comprehensive review of information and data available for the existing environment. The principal sources of information referred to during the desk review included: •Ordnance Survey Ireland (OSI) aerial photography and 1:50000 mapping •National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) online datasets and literature •Review of available online information from the National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) A number of protected native mammal species have been recorded within in the 10km2 hectad (H51) overlapping the project (Figure 3.1).Table 3.1 lists the mammal species recorded for the NBDC documented records.RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Mammal Report Nov 2025 Biogas Plant, Drum 11 |Page Figure 3.1: 10km2 hectad (H51) around the proposed site from which previous mammal records were accessed from the National Biodiversity Centre site.RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Mammal Report Nov 2025 Biogas Plant, Drum 12 |Page Table 3.1: Mammal species recorded in 10km2 grid (H51) surrounding the site since 2000 (NBDC, 2024). Mammal species recorded in 10km2 Common Name/Scientific Name Designations/Conservation Status Brown Long-eared Bat (Plecotus auritus)Protected Species: EU Habitats Directive || Protected Species: EU Habitats Directive >> Annex IV || Protected Species: Wildlife Acts Common Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus sensu stricto) Daubenton's Bat (Myotis daubentonii)Protected Species: EU Habitats Directive || Protected Species: EU Habitats Directive >> Annex IV || Protected species: Wildlife Acts Eastern Grey Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)Invasive Species: Invasive Species || Invasive Species: Invasive Species >> High Impact Invasive Species || Invasive Species: Invasive Species >> EU Regulation No. 1143/2014 || Invasive Species: Invasive Species >> Regulation S.I. 477 (Ireland) Eurasian Badger (Meles meles)Protected Species: Wildlife Acts European Otter (Lutra lutra)Protected Species: EU Habitats Directive || Protected Species: EU Habitats Directive >> Annex II || Protected Species: EU Habitats Directive >> Annex IV || Protected Species: Wildlife Acts European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)Invasive Species: Invasive Species || Invasive Species: Invasive Species >> Medium Impact Invasive Species Fallow Deer (Dama dama)Invasive Species: Invasive Species || Invasive Species: Invasive Species >> High Impact Invasive Species || Invasive Species: Invasive Species >> Regulation S.I. 477 (Ireland) || Protected Species: Wildlife Acts Irish Hare (Lepus timidus subsp. hibernicus) Irish Stoat (Mustela erminea subsp. hibernica) Lesser Noctule (Nyctalus leisleri)Protected Species: EU Habitats Directive || Protected Species: EU Habitats Directive >> Annex IV || Protected Species: Wildlife Acts Pine Marten (Martes martes)Protected Species: EU Habitats Directive || Protected Species: EU Habitats Directive >> Annex V || Protected Species: Wildlife Acts Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) Soprano Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus)Protected Species: EU Habitats Directive || Protected Species: EU Habitats Directive >> Annex IV || Protected Species: Wildlife Acts West European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus)Protected Species: Wildlife Acts RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Mammal Report Nov 2025 Biogas Plant, Drum 13 |Page 3.3 Field Study 3.3.1 Walkover surveys Ecological field surveys were undertaken by Aine Sullivan of Veon Ecology in July 2024, following best practice guidance methodologies for multi-disciplinary walkover surveys. During the ecology surveys, habitat suitability for protected species was noted. This along with knowledge previously obtained through the desk-based studies, informed the scope of the mammal surveys to be undertaken. The presence of non-volant mammal species were determined through the detection of field signs such as tracks, trails, markings, feeding signs, burrows, dens, resting places, droppings, as well as by direct observation. Two camera traps were also placed at the site for the month of August to record mammal activity at the site. A separate bat survey was conducted at the site and showed no signs of bat activity (See separate Bat Report, Veon Ecology). 3.3.2 Habitat The study area had been previously mapped in detail by Veon Ecology following a phase 1 habitat survey and was cross referenced with 'A Guide to Habitats in Ireland' (Fossitt, 2000) (Figure 3.2). Figure 3.2: Phase 1 habitat map. The proposed site consists predominantly of improved agricultural grassland (GA1). The vegetation is dominated by common grass species, mainly Rye Grass (Lolium sp.) and Yorkshire Fog (Holcus lanatus), with common agricultural weeds, such as Nettle (Urtica dioica), Dock (Rumex obtusifolius) and Creeping Buttercup (Ranunculus repens) frequent throughout. The fields are bordered by highly managed hedgerow (WL1) of Gorse (Ulex europaeus) (Photograph 3.1), Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), Holly (Ilex aquifolium), BrambleRECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Mammal Report Nov 2025 Biogas Plant, Drum 14 |Page (Rubus fructicosus), Ivy (Hedera helix), Bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), Common Knapweed (Centaurea nigra), and Bind Weed (Calystegia sepium). There are small sections of treeline (WL2) Photograph3.2) consisting of Ash (Fraxinus excelsior), Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) and Hazel (Corylus avellana). Photograph 3.1: Gorse (Ulex europeaus), Bramble (Rubus fructicosus) and Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) along the hedgerow.RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Mammal Report Nov 2025 Biogas Plant, Drum 15 |Page Photograph 3.2: Treeline (WL2) at the proposed development. At the road edge there are also deep drainage ditches (FW4). Species present here include Great Hairy Willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum L.),Snowberry (Symphoricarpos Albus),Rye Grass (Lolium sp.), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus),Nettle (Urtica dioica), Dock (Rumex obtusifolius) and Bracken (Pteridium aquilinum).RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Mammal Report Nov 2025 Biogas Plant, Drum 16 |Page To the north, south and west the proposed development site is bordered by a farm track and local road. The east borders further building and artificial surfaces (BL3) in the form of a farmyard and residential property. In the wider area the main habitat type in the region in which the site is located is improved agricultural grassland interspaced with lakes, smaller patches of woodland and larger patches of forestry to the east. There are no rivers or any other prominent hydrological feature within the site with the closest water body being the Coolkill Lough Stream (EPA code: 36C12) which is located approximately 230 m from the proposed development. Other river bodies located in the surrounding area include Rockcorry Stream (EPA code: 36R03), Crosslea (EPA code: 36C81) and Dromgarkin (EPA code: 36D53) all of which are >500m from the site. The site is in the river Erne catchment and Dromore_SC_020 sub catchment. 3.3.3 Mammal Tracks and Signs Survey A full walkover of the proposed development site was conducted to search for evidence of scats, trails, prints or dwellings. Badger (Meles meles) and Otter (Lutra lutra) have previously been recorded within 2km of the site but there was no evidence of either species during the walkover survey. With the nearest hydrological feature being the Coolkill Lough Stream (EPA code: 36C12) approximately 230 metres from the site, it would not be expected that this site would be utilised by Otter. In the case of badger, no setts, latrines or defined trails were recorded at the site. Therefore, any use of this site by this species would be likely to be confined to times of range expansion such as the dispersal period. No tracks, sightings or signs of these or any other mammal species were recorded during the walkover survey indicating that this site is of low value to mammal species. 3.3.4 Camera Trapping Two cameras were deployed at the site for the month of August 2024. In this time a fox (Vulpes vulpes) was the sole species captured (Photograph 3.3). This was on just one occasion indicating sporadic, irregular use of this site by foxes. Photograph 3.3: Fox captured at 5am at the proposed development.RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Mammal Report Nov 2025 Biogas Plant, Drum 17 |Page Section 4: Conclusions Fox (Vulpes vulpes) were the only mammal positively identified at the proposed development. However, as this species was only recorded once, despite the cameras being deployed for a month, it would appear that this site is only occasionally used by this species and does not make up a significant part of their home range. This is further evidenced by the lack of scats, dens and other signs recorded at the proposed development site. The majority of the site and surrounding area is improved agricultural grassland which is highly modified which reduces its value for mammal species. The proposed development is also bordered by roads on three sides and a residential property and farmyard on the other. This may act as a further deterrent to mammals utilising the site. While there is a hedgerow bordering the site with bramble understory which would benefit potential prey and act as a movement corridor, there is reduced connectivity to the wider area, isolating the site. This field in isolation would not be a sufficient size to support the needs of the majority of mammal species, as for instance the home range of a hare (Lepus timidus hibernicus) can be between 10-30 hectares. This combined with the sites lack connectivity with the wider area would further limit its use. However, it cannot be ruled out that some more elusive mammal species may have remained undetected. For instance, it is difficult to determine the presence of species such as hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) in an area as they have no permanent dwelling and are nocturnal. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that other species may occasionally use the site for transversing the wider area or foraging, particularly during times of range expansion such as the breeding season and dispersal periods.RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Mammal Report Nov 2025 Biogas Plant, Drum 18 |Page Section 5: References Byrne, A.W., Sleeman, D.P., O'Keeffe, J. and Davenport, J., 2012. The ecology of the European badger (Meles meles) in Ireland: a review. In Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy (Vol. 112, No. 1, pp. 105-132). Royal Irish Academy. Flora Protection Order 2022, S.I. No. 235 of 2022. Fossitt, J. A. 2000. A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council, Kilkenny. Jermy, A. C., Chater, A. O. & R. W. David. 1982. Sedges of the British Isles: BSBI Handbook No. 1. BSBI, London. Hayden, T and Harrington, R (2001) Exploring Irish Mammals, Town House, Dublin. Hubbard, C. E. 1992. Grasses: A Guide to their Structure, Identification, Uses and Distribution in the British Isles. Penguin Books, Middlesex. Marnell, F., Looney, D. & Lawton, C. (2019) Ireland Red List No. 12: Terrestrial Mammals. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland. Marnell, F., Néill, L.Ó. and Lynn, D., 2011. How to calculate range and population size for the otter? The Irish approach as a case study.IUCN Otter Specialist Group Bulletin,28(8), pp.15-22. O’Mahony, D., O’Reilly, C. and Turner, P., 2006. National pine marten survey of Ireland 2005.COFORD Connects Environment,8. Ó Néill, L., Veldhuizen, T., de Jongh, A. and Rochford, J., 2009. Ranging behaviour and socio-biology of Eurasian otters (Lutra lutra) on lowland mesotrophic river systems.European Journal of Wildlife Research,55(4), pp.363-370. Reid, N., Etherington, T.R, Wilson, G., Mc Donald, R.A. & Montgomery W.I. (2008) Badger survey of Northern Ireland 2007/08. Report prepared by Quercus and Central Science Laboratory for the department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), Northern Ireland, UK. Reid, N., Harrison, A.T. & Robb, G.N. (2009) Northern Ireland Irish hare survey 2009. Report prepared by the Natural Heritage Research Partnership, Quercus for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. Northern Ireland Environment Agency Research and Development Series No. 09/04 Reid, N., Hayden, B., Lundy, M.G., Pietravalle, S., McDonald, R.A. & Montgomery, W.I. (2013) National Otter Survey of Ireland 2010/12. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 76. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland Smal, C. (1995) The Badger and Habitat Survey of Ireland. Unpublished Report to National Parks & Wildlife Service and Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. Webb, D. A., Parnell, J. and Doogue, D.1996. An Irish Flora. Dundalgan Press, Dundalk. Whilde, A. (1993) Threatened mammals, birds, amphibians and fish in Ireland. Irish Red Data Book 2: Vertebrates. HMSO, Belfast.RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 AUGUST 2026 VOLUME III APPENDICES TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX 11.4 BAT SURVEY REPORT Stream BioEnergy Ireland Limited RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Bat Survey Report Proposed development of a Biogas Plant at Maghernakelly, Drum, County Monaghan Compiled by Veon Ecology, Anna Paula Moreira B.Sc. (Hons) in Environmental Science. Prepared for: Stream Bioenergy Completion Date: 6th of November 2024 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Table of Contents Table of Figures .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Tables...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................3 Site Description ................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Irish Bat Species .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Conservation Status………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 6 Survey Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................6 Daytime Inspections ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Tree Potential Bat Roost (PBRs) Inspection ........................................................................................................................ 8 Dusk/Emergence Survey ..............................................................................................................................................9 Bat Detector Survey ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Bat Registrations ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 Results ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Tree Surveys ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Dusk/Emergence Survey .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Desktop Research ............................................................................................................................................................... 11 National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) .................................................................................................................. 12 NDBC 10km2 Record .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 13 References .......................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Appendix 1. PHOTOGRAPHS .............................................................................................................................................. 15 Table of Figures Figure 1: Survey Area outlined in red. ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Bat Suitability Index (NBDC 2024). ......................................................................................................................... 12 Table of Tables Table 1: Conservation Status of Irish Bat Species ................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Bat Roost Types ( Collins 2016). ................................................................................................................................ 6 Table 3: Roost Classification, features, suitability descriptions, and survey effort (complied from Collins (2016) and Kelleher & Marnell (2006). ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 4: Tree Bat Roost Category Classification System (Collins 2016). ................................................................................ 9 Table 5: Mean/Average Dusk and Dawn Emergence/Re-entry times by species ............................................................... 10 Table 6: Results of PRA roost Survey after Day Inspection and Dusk Emergence Survey. ................................................. 11 Table 7: NBDC Bat Records within H51 10kmx10km Grid Square. ...................................................................................... 12RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Introduction Veon Ecology was commissioned by Stream BioEnergy to undertake a bat survey including a preliminary roost assessment (PRA) of the proposed development site located at Maghernakelly, Drum, County Monaghan. This survey aimed to identify any potential roost features (PRFs) and assess the presence or likely absence of roosting bat species at the site, in compliance with condition no. 6 from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, as outlined below: 6. The following requirements of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage shall be complied with: a) Prior to commencement of development on site a bat survey shall be carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist during the active season for bats. b) If bat species are identified at the site, information relating to mitigation measures to be employed shall be submitted by the developer to the Department. Reason: As the proposal has the potential to disturb the roosting habitat of a species listed under Annex IV of the EU Habitats Directive. A PRA is a detailed inspection of the exterior and interior of a structure or tree in order to identify features that bats could use for entry/exit and roosting and to search for signs of bats. The absence of bats and/or bat signs during this survey does not equate to evidence that the feature in question is inactive. To meet the requirements of the brief, the scope of the assessment included the following: •Detailed inspection and assessment of buildings/structures/trees for evidence of bat activity carried out by suitably qualified ecologist to best practice guidelines. •A dusk/emergence survey to confirm the presence/absence of roosting bats and characterise bat activity within site area.RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Figure 1: Survey AreaRECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Site description The project is located at Maghernakelly, Drum, County Monaghan, centred at 54.109851, -7.098526. It is located 4.2 km northwest from Cootehill, 11.2 km southeast of Clones and 17.5km south of Monaghan Town. The site is locally connected through the R189 regional road which connects to the national N54 road. The sites consist of pastoral grassland (GA1) with highly maintained hedges (WL1) and a small section of treeline (WL2). There were also deep dry drainage ditches around the fields borders (FW4). It is surrounded on the north, east and west side by farm track and local road. The south is bordered by the built land of building and artificial surfaces (BL3) with the farmyard and residential property. A tree lined hedgerow transects the centre of the site. The main habitat type in the region in which the site is located is improved grassland interspaced with lakes, smaller patches of woodland and larger patches of forestry to the east. Irish Bat Species All Irish bat species are protected under the Wildlife Act (1976) and Wildlife Amendment Acts (2000 and 2010). Also, the EC Directive on The Conservation of Natural habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Habitats Directive 1992), seeks to protect rare species, including bats, and their habitats and requires that appropriate monitoring of populations be undertaken. All Irish bats are listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive and the Lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros)is further listed under Annex II. Across Europe, they are further protected under the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention 1982), which, in relation to bats, exists to conserve all species and their habitats. The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention 1979, enacted 1983)was instigated to protect migrant species across all European boundaries. The Irish government has ratified both these conventions. Also, under existing legislation, the destruction, alteration, or evacuation of a known bat roost is a notifiable action, and a derogation licence must be obtained from the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) before works can commence. Any works interfering with bats and especially their roosts, may only be carried out under a licence to derogate from Regulation 23 of the Habitats Regulations 1997 and Regulation 54 of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (which transposed the EU Habitats Directive into Irish law), issued by NPWS. The details with regards to appropriate assessments, the strict parameters within which derogation licences may be issued and the procedures by which and the order in relation to the planning and development regulations such licences should be obtained, are set out in Circular Letter NPWS 2/07 "Guidance on Compliance with Regulation 23 of the Habitats Regulations 1997 - strict protection of certain species/applications for derogation licences"issued on behalf of the Minister of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the 16th of May 2007. There are eleven recorded bat species in Ireland, nine of which are considered resident, two as Vagrant, namely: 1. Common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) 2. Soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) 3. Nathusius’ pipistrelle (Pipistrellus nathusii) 4. Leisler’s bat (Nyctalus leisleri) 5. Brown long-eared bat (Plecutus auratus) 6. Natterer’s bat (Myotis nattereri) 7. Whiskered bat (Myotis mystacinus) 8. Daubenton’s bat (Myotis daubentonii) 9. Lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros) 10. Brandt’s bat (Myotis brandtii) (Vagrant) 11. Greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumerquinum) (Vagrant)RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Eight resident bat species and one of the vagrant bat species are vesper bats and all ‘vespertilionid bats’ have a tragus (cartilaginous structure inside the pinna of the ear). Vesper bats are distributed throughout the island. Nathusius’ pipistrelle (Pipistrellus nathusii)is a recent addition while the Brandt’s bat has only been recorded once to-date (Only record confirmed by DNA testing, all other records has not been genetically confirmed). The ninth resident species is the lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros), which belongs to the Rhinolophidea and has a complex nose leaf structure on the face, distinguishing it from the vesper bats. This species’ current distribution is confined to the western seaboard counties of Mayo, Galway, Clare, Limerick, Kerry, and Cork. The eleventh bat species, the greater horseshoe bat, was only recorded for the first time in February 2013 in County Wexford and is therefore considered to be a vagrant species. A bat detector record for this species was confirmed for Co. Wicklow in 2020. A total of 41 SACs have been designated for the Annex II species lesser horseshoe bat (1303), of which nine have also been selected for the Annex I habitat ‘Caves do not open to the public’ (8310). Irish bat species list is presented in Table 1 below, along with their current conservation status. Conservation status Table 1: Conservation Status of Irish Bat Species Species Irish Status European Status Global Status Resident Bat Species Daubenton's Bat Myotis daubentoniiL Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Whiskered Bat Myotis mystacinus Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Natterer's Bat Myotis nattereri Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Leisler's Bat Nyctalus leisleri Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Nathusius' Pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Brown Long-eared Bat Plecotus auritus Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Lesser Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus hipposideros Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Possible Vagrants Brandt's Bat Myotis brandtii Data Deficient Least Concern Least Concern Greater Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum Data Deficient Near Threatened Near Threatened Survey Methodology Daytime Inspections Daytime inspections were carried out to determine the potential presence of bat roosts within the survey area. Due to the transient nature of bats and their seasonal life cycle, there are different types of bat roosts. Where possible, one of the objectives of the surveys was to be able to identify the types of roosts present, if any. However, the determination of the type of roost present depends on the timing of the survey and the number of bat surveys completed. Consequently, the definition of any roost types, in this report, is based on the following in Table 2 below:RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Table 2: Bat Roost Types (Collins 2016). Roost Type Definition Time of Survey Day Roost A place where individual bats or small groups of males, rest or shelter in the daytime but are rarely found by night in the summer. Anytime of the year Night Roost A place where bats rest or shelter in the night but are rarely found in the day. May be used by a single bat on occasion or it could be used regularly by the whole colony. Anytime of the year Feeding Roost A place where individual bats or a few bats rest or feed during the night but are rarely present by day. Anytime of the year Transitional Roost A place used by a few individuals or occasionally small groups for generally short periods of time on waking from hibernation or in the period prior to hibernation. Outside the main maternity and hibernation periods Swarming Site Where large numbers of males and females gather. Appear to be important mating sites. Late summer and autumn Mating Site Where mating takes place.Late summer and autumn Maternity Site Where female bats give birth and raise their young to independence. Summer months Hibernation Site Satellite Roost Where bats are found, either individually or in groups in the winter months. They have a constant cool temperature and humidity. Winter months in cold weather conditions Satellite Roost An alternative roost found in close proximity to the main nursery colony and is used by a few individuals throughout the breeding season. Summer months Tree Potential Bat Roost (PBRs) Inspection Trees that may provide potential roosting space for bats were classified using the Bat Tree Habitat Key (BTHK, 2018) and the classification system used is from Collins (2016). The PRFs listed in this guide are used to determine the Potential Bat Roost (PBR) value of trees. Trees identified as PBRs were inspected during the daytime, where possible, for evidence of bat usage. Evidence of bat usage is in the form of actual bats (visible or audible), bat droppings, urine staining, grease marks (oily secretions from glands present on stonework) and claw marks. As described above, the presence of bat fly pupae (bat parasite) can also indicate current or historic bat presence. •Inspections of trees within the proposed development site that may be suitable as roosting sites for bats are closer examined visually with the aid of a strong torch beam (High-powered Maglite©) and endoscope (Model: Explorer Premium Wireless inspection camera) during the daytime searching for PRFs, if visible. If a tree is deemed to be a roost site, then further surveying involving dusk and dawn surveys of the actual trees may be recommended to determine what bat species are present, etc.RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Table 4: Tree Bat Roost Category Classification System (Collins 2016) Tree Category Description 1 (High) Trees with multiple, highly suitable features (PRFs) capable of supporting larger roosts 2 (Moderate) Trees with definite bat potential but supporting features (PRFs) suitable for use by individual bats. 3 (Low) Trees have no obvious potential although the tree is of a size and age that elevated surveys may result in cracks or crevices being found or the tree supports some features (PRFs) which may have limited potential to support bats. 4 (Negligible) Trees have no potential. Dusk/Emergence Survey Bat Detector Surveys This was carried out by a bat surveyor with the aid of handheld Anabat Walkabout omnidirectional Heterodyne bat detectors. As bats are nocturnal, it is difficult to observe bats visually. As bats use echolocation to hunt and navigate in their environs, echolocation calls are used to identify bat species and therefore bat detectors are the principal tool to aid bat surveys. Dusk emergence times vary by species, see Table 5 below, therefore any survey should aim to start around 30 minutes before sunset to ensure time for the surveyors to get into position, and continue for up to 2 hours after sunset. Our surveyor positioned themselves adjacent to the treelines to be surveyed to determine if bats were roosting within, location of roost, number of bats, bat species, etc. As standard, surveyors must not stand more than 50m from potential roost sites to ensure they can see the area in sufficient detail, to ensure all aspects of the tree, building, or structure are viewable at all times during the survey period, in particular those areas of potential exit/re-entry. As a rule of thumb if there has been no emergence of one species for around 20 minutes all the bats of that species will have emerged. However, if more than one species is predicted at the roost, the survey must continue beyond this time. The surveyor used a bat detector to alert him to the presence of bats and a torch assisted with locating the bat(s) and where possible to record specific roosting areas.RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Table 5: Mean/Average Dusk and Dawn Emergence/Re-entry times by species. Species Emergence (Dusk) Timings Re-Entry (Dawn) Timings Daubenton's (Myotis daubentonii)30-40 minutes after sunset 2hrs-40 minutes before sunrise Leisler’s (Nyctalus leisleri)Usually around 5 minutes after sunset but can be 0 At sunrise Soprano Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) 10 minutes before to 30 minutes after sunset 30 minutes before to 30 minutes after sunrise Common Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus Usually, 20 minutes after sunset but can be 10 minutes before to 30 minutes after sunset. 30 minutes before to 30 minutes after sunrise Whiskered (Myotis mystacinus)30 minutes after sunset 30 minutes before sunrise Nathusius’ Pipistrelle (Pipistrelle nathusii)10 minutes before to 30minutes after sunset 30 minutes before to 30 minutes after sunrise Brown Long-eared (Plecotus auratus)1 hour after sunset 1 hour prior to sunrise Lesser horseshoe (Rhinolophus hipposideros) 30-40 minutes after sunset 30 minutes before sunrise Natterer’s (Myotis nattereri)75 minutes after sunset 1-2 hours prior to sunrise Walking transects involved the surveyor(s) walking the survey area and surrounding areas, noting the time, location and bat species encountered. Surveys were completed, during mild and dry weather conditions with air temperature 8°C or greater. All bat encounters were noted during surveys. Prior to mapping, validation of bat records was completed by the bat surveyor. Bat Registrations A bat registration is defined in this report as a recording of bat echolocation, social or distress calls. Recordings are saved in segments up to 15 seconds long. A single bat can be attributed to several registrations if this bat is producing calls close to the bat surveyor for a period greater than 15 seconds. Results A day survey and a dusk survey were carried out on the property. Day Survey Dusk Survey Date 14th of August 2024 14th of August 2024 Start time 17:00 19:00 Finish Time 18:20 22:00 Weather conditions Good Good RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Dusk/Emergence Survey The survey area had no bat activity recorded on the bat detector during the dusk survey. There were no social calls or “feeding buzz” echolocation calls detected, indicating the site holds low value to local bat populations. Desktop Research National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) The National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) has a Bat Suitability Index (BSI) for the nine resident species of Bats in Ireland within the property boundaries (Lundy et al. 2011). The overall suitability of the area for bat activity was moderate (34.33). The habitat suitability index for ‘All bats’ and for each individual species of bat is presented below (See Figure 6 below).The index ranges from 0 to 100, with 100 being most suitable for bats. Bat Suitability Index Bat Species Scientific name Suitability Score All Bats 34.33 Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus 48 Brown Long-eared Bat Plecotus auritus 42 Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus 51 Lesser Horseshoe Rhinolophus hipposideros 3 Leisler’s Bat Nyctalus leisleri 47 Whiskered Bat Myotis mystacinus 26 Daubenton’s Bat Myotis daubentonii 39 Nathusius Pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii 5 Natterer’s Bat Myotis nattereri 48 Figure 2: Bat Suitability Index (NBDC 2024) NDBC 10km2 Record RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 The study area is situated within the NBDC 10km Grid Square H51. The NBDC records for bat species recorded within the 10km grid square are as follows: Table 7: NBDC Bat Records within H51 10kmx10km Grid Square Bat Species Scientific name Date of last record All Bats Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus 13/09/2016 Brown Long-eared Bat Plecotus auritus 22/08/2020 Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus 13/09/2016 Lesser Horseshoe Rhinolophus hipposideros Leisler’s Bat Nyctalus leisleri 29/08/2016 Whiskered Bat Myotis mystacinus Daubenton’s Bat Myotis daubentonii 14/08/2021 Nathusius Pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii Natterer’s Bat Myotis nattereri Potential Impacts Bat fauna within the survey area can be affected by both the construction phase and operational phase of the proposed development. The additional artificial lighting introduced to an area that already experiences lighting disturbances are the most significant impacts predicted for local bat ecology. The proposed works may cause temporary disturbance to commuting and foraging bats near the site of proposed works. No bat roosts were present on site or within the project area, so roost impact is predicted as negligible. Mitigation Lighting Lighting plans should be designed for the site to ensure that there will minimum impact on local bat populations, post works. It is important that this is implemented and complimented with the lighting plans for the current proposed development. This element of the proposed planning application is an extremely important aspect in relation to local bat populations. All European bat species, including Irish bat species, are nocturnal. They usually hide in roosts during the daytime, while fly to feeding areas or drinking sites using commuting routes during the night. Annually bats will hibernate in the winter, swarm in the autumn, and give birth in the summer months. In all aspects of the bat lifestyle, Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) may significantly change their natural behaviour in relation to roosting, commuting, and feeding. While bats are naturally exposed only to very low lighting levels produced by moonlight, starlight and low intensity twilight, light levels greater than natural light levels can impact on the lifestyle of bats.RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Construction Phase Lighting Where construction lighting is required, lighting should be directed towards the project site to reduce light spillage outside of the project area. This can be achieved using directional lighting (i.e. lighting which only shines on the proposed works and not nearby countryside) to prevent overspill. This should be achieved by the design of the luminaire and by using accessories such as hoods, cowls, louvres, and shields to direct the light to the intended area only. Lighting should be minimised in known foraging and commuting areas (closer to the park), and the times during which the lighting is on should be limited to provide some dark periods. Lights should be positioned to avoid sensitive areas and restricted so that there are dark areas. The timing of lights should be restricted to avoid bat activity (i.e. from dusk until dawn). Carrying out works during the hibernation period (i.e. winter months) will further reduce potential impacts on the local bat populations. Conclusions Overall, no bat activity was recorded within the study area, and no bat species were found roosting on the site. The site assessment indicated that the grassland habitat is characterised by low biodiversity and lacks ecological features, providing minimal suitability for bat activity or roosting. The existing hedgerows are in poor condition, lacking the structural diversity required to support a healthy bat population. The survey also focused on a specific tree area (shown in the picture below) identified as a potential roost site; however, thorough inspection found no evidence of bat presence.RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 References Altringham, J. D. (2013) British Bats. Collins New Naturalist Library, Volume 93. Harper Collins, London. Bat Conservation Ireland (2015) BATLAS 2020 Pilot Project 2015: Volunteer Survey Manual. Version 01. www.batconservationireland.org. BTHK (2018) Bat Roosts in Trees – A Guide to Identification and Assessment for Tree-Care and Ecology Professionals. Exeter: Pelagic Publishing. CIEEM (2016) Guidelines for Ecological impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal (2nd Edition). CIEEM, Winchester. Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) 1982. EC Directive on The Conservation of Natural habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Habitats Directive) 1992. Fossit, J. A. 2000. A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council, Kilkenny. https://www.batconservationireland.org/irish-bats/bat-roosts https://www.bats.org.uk/about-bats/where-do-bats-live/bat-roosts/roosts-in-trees https://gis.epa.ie/EPAMaps/AAGeoTool Hundt, L. (2012) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines (2nd Edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London Kelleher, C. & Marnell, F. (2006) Bat Mitigation Guidelines for Ireland. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 25. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland. Lundy MG, Aughney T, Montgomery WI, Roche N (2011) Landscape conservation for Irish bats & species-specific roosting characteristics. Bat Conservation Ireland. Marnell, F., Kingston, N. & Looney, D. (2009) Ireland Red List No. 3: Terrestrial Mammals, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland. National Biodiversity Data Centre - https://maps.biodiversityireland.ie/Map Wildlife Act 1976 and Wildlife [Amendment] Act 2000. Government of Ireland RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Appendix 1: PHOTOGRAPHS A potential roost tree was analysed during the survey; however, no evidence of bat presence was found RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 The site is predominantly GA1 (Improved Agricultural Grassland). The hedgerows (WL1) on-site are in very poor condition, offering limited ecological value.RECEIVED: 28/08/2026 Low biodiversity value Improved Agricultural Grassland (GA1)RECEIVED: 28/08/2026