Preliminary Ecological Appraisal 14 - 15 Yeosfield, Riseley On behalf of Ridge and Partners LLP April 2019 - Wokingham Borough Council
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal 14 – 15 Yeosfield, Riseley On behalf of Ridge and Partners LLP April 2019 Ecology by Design Ltd, Hampden House, Monument Park, Chalgrove, Oxon OX44 7RW. Tel 01865 893346 www.ecologybydesign.co.uk
Project Code Title Date of Issue EBD00830 14 – 15 Yeosfield, Riseley 11th April 2019 Name Date Prepared by Emily Power BSc (Hons) MSc Grad CIEEM 10th April 2019 Checked by Ben Gardner BSc (Hons) MCIEEM CEnv 10th April 2019 Copyright Ecology by Design Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written consent from Ecology by Design Ltd. If you have received this report in error please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Ecology by Design Ltd. This report has been commissioned for the exclusive use of the commissioning party unless otherwise agreed in writing by Ecology by Design Ltd; no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of the report. No liability is accepted by Ecology by Design Ltd for any of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Opinions and information provided in this report are on basis of Ecology by Design Ltd using due skill, care and diligence in the preparation of this report and no explicit warranty is provided as to its accuracy. It should be noted that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Ecology by Design Ltd has been made.
Contents 1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Background and Survey Objectives ............................................................................................ 4 1.3 Site Description ........................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Proposed Works ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Limitations/ Constraints ............................................................................................................. 5 2 Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Desk Study .................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal ................................................................................................ 5 3 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Desk Study .................................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 Phase 1 Habitat Survey............................................................................................................. 12 3.3 Protected Species Survey Results.............................................................................................. 13 4 Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 15 4.1 Evaluation and Impacts ............................................................................................................ 15 5 Recommendations and Mitigation strategy ............................................................................... 16 6 Relevant Legislation and Policy .................................................................................................. 18 6.1 European Protected Sites ......................................................................................................... 18 6.2 Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 .............................................................. 18 6.3 National Planning Policy Framework ....................................................................................... 18 6.4 Local Planning Policy ................................................................................................................ 19 6.5 Hedgerows ............................................................................................................................... 20 6.6 Protected Species ..................................................................................................................... 20 7 References ................................................................................................................................. 22 Appendix 1 - Photographs .................................................................................................................. 23 Appendix 2 – Site Plan ....................................................................................................................... 25 Appendix 3 – Species List ................................................................................................................... 26 Appendix 4 – Definitions of the level of Habitat Value ....................................................................... 28 Appendix 5 – Definitions of the level of Species Value........................................................................ 29 Appendix 6 – Enhancements .............................................................................................................. 30
1 Executive Summary Ecology by Design Ltd was commissioned by Ridge and Partners LLP to undertake a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal of land known as 14 – 15 Yeosfield, in Riseley, Reading, RG7 1SG (SU 71993 63133). The client seeks planning permission for the construction of a residential dwelling. • The site was formed of amenity grassland, hard-standing, building and species-poor hedgerow. Scattered trees overhung the site on the northern boundary; • The site was adjacent to the St Leger’s Copse local wildlife site; • The scattered trees had the potential to provide foraging and commuting opportunities for bats; and • The scattered trees and species-poor hedgerow had the potential to support nesting birds. 1.1 Recommendations • An arborist should be contacted to devise a strategy to protect the trees along the northern boundary from any impacts of the development; • If any works are required to the trees along the northern boundary, an assessment for bats must be undertaken, which may comprise an initial aerial survey and potentially further surveys to determine the type of roost present; • A lighting strategy should be devised to ensure that there is no light spill on the trees on the northern boundary of the site; • All vegetation clearance of trees and hedgerows should be undertaken outside the breeding bird season, which is considered to be March – August inclusive; • Brash piles should be dismantled by hand to avoid injury to reptiles; • Any trenches should be closed overnight, or a ramp installed to allow hedgehogs the opportunity to escape; • Recommendations for ecological enhancements are included within Chapter 6 of this report, including incorporation of a planting scheme using native plants, construction of log piles and installation of bat boxes on mature trees around the site; and • Should potential development not commence within 2 years of this report a resurvey is recommended due to the potential for the ecological interest of the site to change. Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 3 Reference: EBD00830
Introduction 1.2 Background and Survey Objectives Ecology by Design Ltd was commissioned by Ridge and Partners LLP to undertake a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal of land known as 14 – 15 Yeosfield, in Riseley, Reading, RG7 1SG (SU 71993 63133). The client seeks planning permission for the construction of a residential dwelling. The aim of the survey and supporting desk study was to satisfy the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and relevant legislation and to identify ecological features within or near the site that could potentially pose a constraint to the proposed works and highlight any opportunities for incorporating biodiversity enhancements into the proposals. The objectives of this report are: • To identify designated nature conservation sites within the vicinity of the site; • To identify any records and/or populations of protected, notable or scarce species in the vicinity of the site; • To record habitats or features of ecological interest within or in immediate proximity of the site; • To record the presence of, or potential for, protected or notable species; • To make an ecological assessment and highlight potential ecological constraints; • To outline any further survey work and potential protected species requirements if relevant; and • To make suggestions for mitigation and compensation where appropriate. 1.3 Site Description The site extends to approximately 0.07 hectares and comprises fenced areas of amenity grassland. There are mature trees outside the site boundary along the northern boundary of the site. The site is situated on the western side of the town of Riseley, between residential properties on a residential cul-de-sac, immediately south of St Leger’s Copse local wildlife site. The wider landscape comprises the residential area of Riseley to the south and east, and woodlands and agricultural fields to the west and north, interlinked by hedgerows. 1.4 Proposed Works The proposal is for a two storey detached residential dwelling with associated gardens and car parking. The building is to be situated to the south of the site and therefore should be clear of the trees along the northern boundary. Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 4 Reference: EBD00830
1.5 Limitations/ Constraints The wildlife and wider ecological interest of a site can change. The report presented here is a statement of the findings of a survey carried out during April 2019. Any appreciable delay in making reference to this report may necessitate a re-survey. Weather conditions were considered suitable to conduct the survey. 2 Methods 2.1 Desk Study A desk study was carried out to identify statutory and non-statutory designated sites within 7km (Internationally designated sites) and 5km (Nationally designated sites) and records of protected or notable species within 2km of the site. Sources consulted include: • Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre (http://www.tverc.org) • Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (https://www.hants.gov.uk/landplanningandenvironment/environment/biodiversity/informatio ncentre) • MAGIC (www.magic.gov.uk) • Habitats and Species of Principal Importance • Local Planning Policy documents 2.2 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal A preliminary ecological appraisal was conducted on 3rd April 2019 by Ecology by Design ecologist Emily Power and assistant ecologist Beth England using standard techniques and methodologies and the nomenclature of Stace (2010). The PEA includes a survey of the habitats utilising the standard phase 1 habitat survey methodology (JNCC, 2007) as well as a scoping assessment of the presence of, or potential for protected and notable species. Where potential impacts are identified the PEA is extended to include an assessment of impact and mitigation required. 3 Results 3.1 Desk Study There was one internationally designated site within 7km of the search area, three nationally designated sites within 5km and eleven locally designated sites within 2km. Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 5 Reference: EBD00830
There are three statutory designated sites within the search area and fifteen non-statutory sites. Table 1. Statutory designated sites Site Name Designations Distance (km) Direction Thames Basin Heaths SPA 2.4 E Stanford End Mill and River Loddon SSSI 1.3 W Bramshill SSSI 2.3 E Hazeley Heath SSSI 4.1 SE Swallowfield Meadow LNR 1.6 NE SPA- Special Protection Area SSSI - Site of Special Scientific Interest Table 2. Non-statutory designated sites Site Name Designations Distance (km) Direction River Loddon and Lower Mill Fen SINC 1.8 SW Stratfield Saye Lake SINC 1.4 W The Plantation, Heckfield SINC 1.5 S New Inn Copse, Heckfield SINC 0.6 S Coldharbour Wood SINC 0.2 S South of Birchen Copse SINC 1.3 SE Birchen Copse and Mill Wood SINC 0.9 E Wellington Country Park Lakes SINC 1 E River Whitewater SINC 1.9 E St Leger’s Copse, Collin’s Copse LWS 0.01 N Highgrove Copse LWS 0.7 NW Wood and Ditch/Moat LWS 1.7 NW Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 6 Reference: EBD00830
The Marshes, Riseley LWS 1.4 E LWS – Local Wildlife Site SINC – Site of Importance for Nature Conservation Thames Basin Heaths SPA is a complex of heathlands in southern England and was designated for supporting the following Annex 1 species: Dartford warbler (Sylvia undata), nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus) and woodlark (Lullula arborea). Stanford End Mill and River Loddon SSSI was designated for its waterlogged hay meadows and stretch of the River Loddon, which support nationally important populations of fritillary (Fritillary meleagris) and the Loddon pondweed (Potamogeton nodosus). Bramshill SSSI was designated for its series of shallow acid ponds and mire, and a conifer plantation which supports nightjar, woodlark and Dartford warbler. Hazeley Heath SSSI was designated for its range of heathland plant communities. The site falls within the Impact Risk Zones of the surrounding SSSIs and the SPA. Swallowfield Meadow LNR was designated for its meadows which are rich in plant and wildlife diversity, including supporting water vole. The Local Wildlife Sites were largely designated for supporting hedgerows, woodlands and ponds. The most relevant local wildlife site to this site is St Leger’s Copse which is an area of ancient woodland located on the other side of Bull Lane from the site. The SINCs were designated for supporting species including water speedwell (Veronica anagalis-aquatica), gadwall (Anas strepera), Eurasian hobby (Falco subbuteo) and tawny sedge (Carex hostiana). Table 2. Records of selected protected or notable species within 2km of the site from Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre: Distance Species Type Designation Date Direction Location (km) Barn Owl HBIC WCA1 2010 1.9 SW Stratfield Saye Park Brambling HBIC WCA1 2008 0.5 E Riseley Cuckoo HBIC BOCC Red 2017
Fieldfare HBIC BOCC Red 2017 1.9 SW Stratfield Saye Park WCA1 Firecrest HBIC WCA1 2016 1.9 SW Stratfield Saye Park HBAP Grey Wagtail HBIC BOCC Red 2004 1.9 SW Stratfield Saye Park House Sparrow HBIC BOCC Red 2011
S41 Eurasian Badger HBIC PBA 2014 N/A N/A N/A Brown Long-eared HBIC EPS 2010 0.9 S N/A Bat S41 WCA5 Myotis spp HBIC EPS 2010 0.9 S N/A S41 WCA5 HBAP Noctule Bat HBIC EPS 2010 0.9 S N/A S41 WCA5 Pipistrelle HBIC EPS 2010 0.9 S N/A WCA5 HBAP Serotine HBIC EPS 2010 0.9 S N/A WCA5 HBAP Soprano Pipistrelle HBIC EPS 2010 0.9 S N/A S41 WCA5 EPS = European Protected Species (Annex 4) EPS2 = European Protected Species (Annex 2) PBA = Protection of Badgers Act WCA5 = Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 5 Species WCA1 = Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 1 Species BOCC: amber/red = Birds of Conservation Concern S41 = Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act section 41 species HBAP = Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 9 Reference: EBD00830
Table 3. Records of selected protected or notable species within 2km of the site from Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre: Distance Species Type Designation Date Direction Location (km) Great Crested TVERC EPS 2015 1.5 N Basingstoke Road, Newt Swallowfield WCA5 S41 Palmate Newt TVERC WCA5 2008 1.4 E School lane, Swallowfield Smooth Newt TVERC WCA5 2008 1.4 E School lane, Swallowfield Grass Snake TVERC WCA5 2010 1.3 W River Loddon Stanford End SSSI S41 Barn Owl TVERC WCA1 2007 1.6 N Wyvols Court Farm, Swallowfied Bullfinch TVERC S41 2005 1.6 N Swallowfield BOCC Amber Fieldfare TVERC WCA1 2004 1.6 N Swallowfield BOCC Red House Martin TVERC BOCC Amber 2005 1.6 N Swallowfield House Sparrow TVERC S41 2005 1.6 N Swallowfield area BOCC Red Linnet TVERC S41 2005 1.6 N Swallowfield BOCC Red Red Kite TVERC WCA1 2005 1.6 N Swallowfield Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 10 Reference: EBD00830
Song Thrush TVERC S41 2004 1.6 N Swallowfield BOCC Red Spotted TVERC S41 2005 1.6 N Swallowfield Flycatcher BOCC Red Yellowhammer TVERC S41 2005 1.6 N Swallowfield BOCC Red Eurasian Badger TVERC PBA 2013
S41 Noctule spp TVERC EPS 2017
3.2.2 Amenity grassland The majority of the site was formed of amenity grassland, characterised by managed perennial rye-grass (Lolium perenne) and Yorkshire-fog (Holcus lanatus), with forbs throughout the sward including cleavers (Galium aparine), nettles (Urtica dioica) and thistle (Cirsium sp.). There were patches particularly around the site boundaries where forbs were more common, which included red dead-nettle (Lamium purpureum), lesser celandine (Ficaria verna), lord’s-and-ladies (Arum maculatum) and garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata). 3.2.3 Building There a single shed at the site, which was wooden and used for storage purposes. 3.2.4 Hard-standing There was an area of hard-standing at the south of the site which comprised gravel for car parking purposes. 3.2.5 Species-poor hedgerow There was one species-poor hedgerow on the south-eastern boundary of the site which comprised cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.) and ornamental shrubs. 3.2.6 Fence Bisecting the centre of the site and surrounding the western and northern site boundaries was a wooden fence. 3.2.7 Target Notes Target Note 1 refers to a bonfire heap which was present on site, and Target Note 2 refers to a brash pile. 3.3 Protected Species Survey Results 3.3.1 White-clawed crayfish There was no suitable habitat for white-clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes) and there were also no records within 2km of the site. 3.3.2 Great crested newts The amenity grassland on site was of low suitability for great crested newts, as the grassland was managed, with very few potential resting opportunities. The closest ponds were located over 700m to the east, on the other side of the residential area of Riseley. There were records of great crested newts, however the closest of these was located 1.5km to the north. Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 13 Reference: EBD00830
3.3.3 Reptiles The grassland on site was of low suitability for reptiles due to the close management of the grassland. There were records for grass snake within 2km of the site, however these were from the Stanford End Mill and River Loddon SSSI. 3.3.4 Birds There were opportunities for nesting birds within the scattered trees and the species-poor hedgerow. House sparrows (Passer domesticus) were observed within the hedgerow during the site visit. There were records of a variety of birds in the vicinity including song thrush (Turdus philomelos) and starling (Sturnus vulgaris), as well as records of Schedule 1 species including barn owl (Tyto alba) and red kite (Milvus milvus). 3.3.5 Bats There were records of common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus), myotis (Myotis sp.), serotine (Eptesicus serotinus) and noctule (Nyctalus noctula) within 2km of the site. There were mature trees along the northern boundary of the site with the potential to support bats due to the presence of potential roost features. The shed on site did not have any potential for bats as there were no roosting features externally, and the only access feature was the open window, however this was blocked by stored materials within the shed. The scattered trees along the northern boundary offered suitable foraging and commuting habitat for bats. 3.3.6 Hazel dormouse There were no records of hazel dormice (Muscardinius avellanarius) within 2km of the site. There is potential for dormice to be present within the woodland to the north of the site across the road, however there is no suitable habitat on the site itself. 3.3.7 Water vole There were records of water vole (Arvicola amphibius) within 2km of the site associated with the River Loddon, however there were no waterbodies suitable for water vole on the site itself. 3.3.8 Badger There were no signs of badger (Meles meles) noted during the survey such as setts, runs or latrines, however there were records within 2km of the site. Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 14 Reference: EBD00830
3.3.9 Otter There were no records of otter (Lutra lutra) within 2km of the site and no suitable habitat for otter at the site. 3.3.10 Other species There were records for hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) and brown hare (Lepus europaeus) within 2km. There is suitable habitat for hedgehog on the site but not brown hare. No other notable species are likely to occur. 4 Discussion There was one internationally designated site, three nationally designated sites and one locally designed site within the search area, and the site falls within the Impact Risk Zones of the SPA and the SSSIs. Additionally, there were thirteen non-statutory designated sites, with nine SINCs and four LWSs. The site does not contain any of the species or habitats for which these statutory and non-statutory sites were designated, and the proposals comprise a small residential development within a similarly residential area. The closest LWS is St Leger’s Copse, which is an area of ancient woodland, however the site is separated from the LWS by Bull Lane, and the trees along the site boundary are due to be retained and protected during works. Therefore, the development is unlikely to impact the nearby designated sites. The amenity grassland at the site was of low suitability for great crested newts, however, due to the lack of waterbodies and nearby records, it is highly unlikely that the site supports great crested newts. There were records for six bat species within 2km of the site. The mature trees around the site have features that could potentially be used by bats for roosting, and the trees offer suitable commuting and foraging opportunities for bats. The brash piles offered low suitability foraging and sheltering opportunities for reptiles. The trees and hedgerows are likely to be utilised by nesting birds. In the absence of any change to the management regime or the implementation of enhancements, the ecological value of the site would be unlikely to significantly change. 4.1 Evaluation and Impacts Using the criteria in the table (appendix 4), the habitats on the site are considered to be of negligible value due to the habitats found on site being of low grade and widespread. Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 15 Reference: EBD00830
The species value (appendix 5) of the site is considered to be of negligible value due to the species found on site being common and widespread. 5 Recommendations and Mitigation strategy In order to ensure that the development does not impact St Leger’s Copse LWS, it is advised that an arborist is consulted to ensure that the trees along the northern boundary are sufficiently protected during works. Bats may roost in the trees and using the tree line as a commuting and foraging route. Therefore, no works should be undertaken to the trees. If works are necessary, a survey for the potential of the trees to support a bat roost should be undertaken, to comprise an aerial survey of any potential roost features that may be impacted. Following this survey, further surveys may be recommended in order to determine the type of roost and species present. A sensitive lighting scheme should be designed to ensure that there is no light spill on the tree line, and that any necessary lighting is motion-activated and set to a sensitivity that will not be triggered by small mammals. Reptiles may be present within the brash piles, and therefore the brash piles should be dismantled by hand. Any vegetation clearance of trees or hedgerows should be undertaken outside the breeding bird season, which is considered to be March – August. If this is not possible, a check should be undertaken by an ecologist and any active nests must be left in situ until the chicks have fledged and the nest has been abandoned. Any trenches should be closed overnight, or a ramp should be installed so that any animals such as hedgehogs that fall inside have the opportunity to escape. To enhance the site for biodiversity, various optional enhancements to the site are recommended below: • Planting plans for the site should include a wide variety of native plants of local provenance to increase the foraging opportunities for bats as well as for moths. Native nectar-rich plants should be planted in the soft landscaped areas. These may include trees, shrubs and climbers such as hawthorn, field maple, honeysuckle (Lonicera periclymenum), dog-rose (Rosa canina agg.) and bramble, and flowers such as common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), black knapweed (Centaura nigra), ox-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), primrose (Primula vulgaris) and yarrow (Achillea millefolium); Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 16 Reference: EBD00830
• Log piles may be created which will benefit amphibians, invertebrates, reptiles and hedgehogs; • Bird boxes and bat boxes may be placed on mature trees to provide nesting and roosting opportunities (see examples in Appendix 6). Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 17 Reference: EBD00830
6 Relevant Legislation and Policy 6.1 European Protected Sites Habitats of European-wide importance (other than for birds) are listed under Annex I of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (EC Habitats Directive) (Ref. 8.5). Habitats designated under this Directive are Special Areas of Conservation (SAC’s). Habitats of European-wide importance for birds are listed under the EC Wild Birds Directive (1982) (Ref.8.6). Habitats designated under this Directive are Special Protection Areas (SPA’s). 6.2 Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 Section 40 of the NERC Act, 2006 places a duty upon all local authorities in England to promote and enhance biodiversity in all of their functions. Section 41 lists habitats and species of principal importance to the conservation of biodiversity. These are all the habitats and species in England that have been identified as requiring action in the UK. These species and habitats are a material consideration in the planning process. 6.3 National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was updated in July 2018 thereby replacing the older version of March 2012. The new framework sets out in section 15 that to protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should: • Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity; wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them; and areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration or creation and • promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species; and identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles: • if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 18 Reference: EBD00830
• development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest; • development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and • development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity. The following should be given the same protection as habitats sites: • potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation; • listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and • sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on habitats sites, potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment because of its potential impact on a habitats site is being planned or determined. 6.4 Local Planning Policy The Wokingham Local Plan comprises a Core Strategy which sets out the Council’s vision for development in the borough. Policy CP7 – Biodiversity This policy states that ‘Development: A) Which may harm county designated sites (Local Wildlife Site in Berkshire), whether directly or indirectly, or B) Which may harm habitats or, species of principle importance in England for nature conservation, veteran trees or features of the landscape that are of major importance for wild flora and fauna (including wildlife and river corridors), whether directly or indirectly, or Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 19 Reference: EBD00830
C) That compromises the implementation of the national, regional, county and local biodiversity action plans Will only be permitted if it has been clearly demonstrated that the need for the proposal outweighs the need to safeguard the nature conservation importance, that no alternative site that would result in less or no harm is available which will meet the need, and: i) Mitigation measures can be put in place to prevent damaging impacts; or ii) Appropriate compensation measure to offset the scale and kind of losses are provided. 6.5 Hedgerows Hedgerows are protected by the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, under which it is an offence to remove or destroy certain hedgerows without permission from the Local Planning Authority. These regulations do not apply to any hedgerow within the curtilage of, or marking the boundary of the curtilage of, a dwelling house. 6.6 Protected Species 6.6.1 Great crested newt Great Crested Newts are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the EC Habitats Directive, implemented in the UK by the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994 (as amended). It is illegal to kill, injure or disturb Great Crested Newts and to damage or destroy their breeding and resting places. 6.6.2 Reptiles Slow-worm, adder, grass snake and common lizard are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). It is illegal to kill or injure them. It is not illegal to capture, disturb or to damage their habitats. However, the reptiles themselves are protected so any works to damage their habitat could risk causing harm to reptiles and hence could be illegal. In addition, smooth snake and sand lizard receive additional legal protection making it an offence to disturb them or to cause damage to their habitat. 6.6.3 Bats Bats and their roost sites are protected by UK and European legislation. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) makes it an offence to: Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 20 Reference: EBD00830
• Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose. Additionally, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 make it an offence to: • Deliberately capture or kill a bat; • Deliberately disturb a bat; • Damage or destroy a breeding site or a resting place of a bat; and • Keep, transport, sell or exchange or offer for sale or exchange alive or dead bat or any part of a bat. 6.6.4 Birds Wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). It is illegal to take or harm them, their nests (whilst in use or being built) or their eggs. Additionally, for some species it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb the adults while they are in and around their nest or intentionally or recklessly disturb their dependent young (schedule 1 species). Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 21 Reference: EBD00830
7 References Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). The Bat Conservation Trust, London JNCC, (2007). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey. A technique for environmental audit (reprint). Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Oldham R.S., et al. (2000). Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal 10 (4), 143-155 Stace, C. (2010) New British Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press. Wokingham Borough Council (2010). Wokingham Borough Core Strategy (adopted 29 January 2010) Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 22 Reference: EBD00830
Appendix 1 - Photographs Photo 1: Site showing amenity grassland Photo 2: Species-poor hedgerow Photo 3: Hard-standing Photo 4: Brash pile Photo 5: Wooden shed Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 23 Reference: EBD00830
Photo 6: Extent of trees overhanging the site Photo 7: Bull Lane separating the site from St Leger’s Copse LWS Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 24 Reference: EBD00830
Appendix 2 – Site Plan Next page. Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 25 Reference: EBD00830
Appendix 3 – Species List Common Name Latin Trees and Shrubs Ash Fraxinus excelsior Bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. Butterfly-bush Buddleia davidii Cotoneaster Cotoneaster sp. Elm Ulmus procera Rhododendron Rhododendron ponticum Oak Quercus robur Forbs Bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta Cat’s-ear Hypochaeris radicata Cleavers Galium aparine Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens Common nettle Urtica dioica Daisy Bellis perennis Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. Dock Rumex sp. Dove’s-foot crane’s-bill Geranium molle Garlic mustard Alliaria petiola Herb-Robert Geranium robertianum Lesser celandine Ficaria verna Lord’s-and-ladies Arum maculatum Mouse-ear Cerastium sp. Red dead-nettle Lamium purpureum Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata Speedwell Veronica sp. White clover Trifolium repens Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 26 Reference: EBD00830
Grasses, Rushes and Sedges Perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne Yorkshire-fog Holcus lanatus Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 27 Reference: EBD00830
Appendix 4 – Definitions of the level of Habitat Value Geographic level Examples of Value International Ramsar Sites, Special Protection Areas, Biosphere Reserves, Special Areas of value Conservation. Sites supporting populations of internationally important species. National value SSSIs or non-designated Sites meeting SSSI selection criteria, NNRs, Marine Nature Reserves, NCR Grade 1 Sites. Sites containing viable areas of key habitats identified in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Regional value Sites containing viable areas of threatened habitats listed in a Regional BAP (or some Natural Areas), comfortably exceeding SINC criteria, but not exceeding SSSI criteria. County / Sites meeting the criteria for county or metropolitan designation (SINC, CWS, Metropolitan etc.). Ancient semi-natural woodland, LNRs or viable areas of key habitat types listed in county BAPs/Natural Areas. District / Undesignated Sites or features considered to appreciably enrich the habitat Borough resource in the District or Borough. Parish / Undesignated Sites or features which appreciably enrich the habitat resource Neighbourhood within the Parish or Neighbourhood. Negligible value Low grade and widespread habitats. Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 28 Reference: EBD00830
Appendix 5 – Definitions of the level of Species Value Geographic level Examples of Value International Any regularly occurring population of an internationally important species, which is threatened or rare in the UK. i.e. it is a UK Red Data Book species or listed as occurring in 15 or fewer 10km squares in the UK (categories 1 and 2 in the UK BAP) or of uncertain conservation status or of global conservation concern in the UK BAP. A regularly occurring, nationally significant population/number of any internationally important species. National Any regularly occurring population of a nationally important species which is threatened or rare in the region or county (see local BAP). A regularly occurring, regionally or county significant population/number of any nationally important species. Regional Any regularly occurring, locally significant population of a species listed as being nationally scarce which occurs in 16-100 10km squares in the UK or in a Regional BAP or relevant Natural Area on account of its regional rarity or localisation; A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a regionally important species. County/ Any regularly occurring, locally significant population of a species which is listed Metropolitan in a County/Metropolitan “red data book” or BAP on account of its regional rarity or localisation; A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a County/Metropolitan important species. District / A population of a species that is listed in a District/Borough BAP because of its Borough rarity in the locality or in the relevant Natural Area profile because of its regional rarity or localisation; A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a District / Borough important species during a critical phase of its life cycle. Parish / Species that are not threatened but are valued at a local level on intrinsic Neighbourhood appeal. Negligible Common or widespread species. Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 29 Reference: EBD00830
Appendix 6 – Enhancements Products Description 1B Schwegler Nest Box A box that provides a home for a range of species from a durable wood-concrete mix which is breathable and long lasting. It can be fitted onto a suitable wall on all types of housing. There are two entrance hole sizes to suit different sized birds. https://www.nhbs.com/1b-schwegler-nest-box 2F Schwegler Bat Box (General Purpose) A box that provides a home for summer roosting bats, made of durable wood-concrete mix which will last for 20 – 25 years. This bat box is best sited 3 – 6m high in an open, sunny position. https://www.nhbs.com/2f-schwegler-bat-box-general- purpose Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 30 Reference: EBD00830
You can also read