Ecological Survey & Assessment · Great crested newt (WML CL08 Level 1) and bats (WML CL18 - Bat...

Land North of Bowness Bungalow, Shaw Clough Road, Rawtenstall, BB4 9JB

Ecological Survey & Assessment Oct - Nov 2014 Ribble Ecology ref: RB-14-173 Prepared by: Mr Martyn Barnes BSc (Hons) & Ms L Bousfield BSc (Hons) MCIEEM

Date checked & released: rev.1_05/11/2014

Ribble Ecology Ltd 20 Hall Road

Fulwood Preston

PR2 9QD www.ribbleecology.co.uk

http://www.ribbleecology.co.uk/

Ecological Survey & Assessment. Ribble Ecology Ltd. (Oct – Nov 2014) 1

Land North of Bowness Bungalow, Shaw Clough Road, Rawtenstall, BB4 9JB

Ecological Survey & Assessment

Oct - Nov 2014 Ref. RB-14-173 rev.1_05/11/2014

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 METHODOLOGIES ................................................................................................................... 2

3.0 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 7

4.0 SUMMARY, ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 15

5.0 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 18

6.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 18

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 20

SUMMARY

This report presents the results of an ecological survey and assessment, undertaken at land and features associated with Land North of Bowness Bungalow, Shaw Clough Road, BB4 9JB.

The scope of survey and assessment has included consideration of: a) designated sites; b) vegetation and plant species; c) protected species of fauna; and d) species and habitats of principal importance,

as listed in Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006.

This work has been requested in connection with a proposed planning application for solar panel installation on the land.

As summarised in Section 4.1 of this report, the results have shown that there are only minor ecological considerations, with no requirement for wildlife licensing. In brief the ecological

considerations are: a) likely occurrence of nesting birds in shrubs and trees along the proposed access road/track b) a localised risk of sheltering Common toad and/or Hedgehog amongst vegetation along

the proposed access road.

Practical and achievable protection measures are presented in Section 4.2.1 of this report and it is respectfully recommended that their implementation is enforced by means of one or more suitably

worded planning conditions. This will ensure that the planning authority demonstrates due consideration of wildlife legislation and policy when determining the application and it will ensure that

the work is compliant with wildlife legislation and policy at all times during its implementation.

Further, Section 4.2.2 describes additional considerations, opportunities and measures of best

practice to help retain and protect long-term biodiversity value. Implementation of such measures

would demonstrate accordance with paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF 2012), hence should be regarded favourably if such recommendations are applied.

20 Hall Road, Fulwood, Preston, PR2 9QD 07887 532666 [email protected]


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview In October 2014, Ribble Ecology Limited was commissioned to undertake an ecological survey and assessment at Land North of Bowness Bungalow, Shaw Clough Road, Rawtenstall, BB4 9JB with Bowness bungalow’s central grid reference being SD 83706 23243. The request for an ecological survey and assessment was made in connection with a proposed planning application for solar panel installation, with an associated access road. A plan showing the red-line boundary of the survey area was supplied with the commission, along with a plan showing the proposed layout of the redeveloped site. Hereafter, the land within the red-line boundary is termed ‘the Site’ or ‘the Application Site’ throughout the rest of this report.

1.2 Objectives

Ribble Ecology identified the objectives of the survey and assessment to be as follows:-

Investigate all vegetation and habitat types, in accord with the JNNC guidelines1 and compile one or more plant species lists where appropriate.

Identify any occurrences of rare and/or protected plant species at the Site and also any non-native invasive plant species as listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981).

Using aforementioned plant species lists, identify National Vegetation Classification (NVC) communities and ‘habitats of principal importance’ under the NERC Act 2006.

Undertake habitat appraisal for protected species such as: roosting, commuting & foraging bats; Badger; Water vole; Great crested newt and Schedule 1 birds.

Where appropriate conduct additional surveys to conclusively determine the presence or absence of protected species (e.g. undertake daylight and nocturnal bat work), with such work also determining information about abundance and locations of occurrence.

Similarly, undertake habitat appraisal and survey work in relation to other wildlife, such as breeding birds and ‘species of principal importance’ listed in the NERC Act 2006.

From the survey results, identify any ecological concerns or constraints and provide feedback on appropriate mitigation and compensation measures to avoid impacts on protected species and other local wildlife.

2.0 METHODOLOGIES

2.1 Personnel The survey and assessment has been led by Ms Lorna Bousfield BSc (Hons) MCIEEM and undertaken with the assistance of Mr Martyn Barnes BSc (Hons). Ms Bousfield is Principal Ecologist at Ribble Ecology Limited and holds Natural England class survey licenses (class licence registration number CLS001700) in respect of

1 Ref: Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a technique for Environmental Audit” published by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC 2003).


Great crested newt (WML CL08 Level 1) and bats (WML CL18 - Bat Survey Level 2). She is an experienced consultant with a wide skill base in respect of ecological surveying and assessment.

Mr Martyn Barnes is an Assistant Ecologist at Ribble Ecology, with a degree in Conservation and Land management. He is an active member of local wildlife groups and has a range of field skills relevant to several protected species.

2.2 Desk Study

A range of desk and internet based resources were used to obtain background information prior to attending the Site, with the internet resources being as follows:

Bing Maps (www.bing.com/maps) and Google Earth 5 (http://earth.google.co.uk) for aerial photographs, including historic photographs in the case of Google Earth.

Bing Maps (www.bing.com/maps) for a 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey map extract.

Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) collaborative database website (http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx), for information on key environmental schemes and statutory designations.

National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway (www.nbn.org.uk), for collated low-resolution records of protected species and species of principal importance.

Maps & Related Information Online (MARIO) – Lancashire County Council’s interactive mapping website to assist with identifying ponds (http://mario.lancashire.gov.uk/agsmario/).

The current Local Plan Proposals Map for the Borough/District, to identify land-use designations (Rossendale District Local Plan Proposals Map (Adopted 1995))

2.3 Date, Weather Conditions & Any Limitations

The survey work was undertaken on 29th October 2014, at which time no access or visibility limitations were encountered. The seasonal timing and weather conditions were appropriate for completing all aspects of the survey, being dry with sunny spells and with gentle breeze (Beaufort 3). The air

temperature ranged from 8-11 Celsius throughout the survey.

The seasonal timing of the survey was inappropriate for recording breeding birds and many flying invertebrates (butterflies, bees and dragonflies) but habitat appraisal was used as a means of determining suitability and potential for such wildlife. Similarly, although the seasonal timing of the survey was inappropriate for undertaking nocturnal bat activity surveys, habitat appraisal was applied to determine the Site’s suitability and potential for the support of bats. Notwithstanding the survey limitations that were encountered, it is judged that the collated data and survey results are of sufficient scope and accuracy that they have provided a firm basis for the provision of an impact assessment and recommendations, as presented in the latter sections of this report.

2.4 Vegetation & Habitats

An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was carried out throughout the Application Site. The Phase 1 Habitat Survey is a standardised method used to record habitat types and characteristic vegetation, as set out in the “Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a technique for Environmental Audit” published by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee

http://www.bing.com/maps

http://earth.google.co.uk/

http://www.bing.com/maps

http://www.magic.defra.co.uk/

http://www.nbn.org.uk/

http://mario.lancashire.gov.uk/agsmario/


(JNCC 2003). The methodology is ‘Extended’ through the additional recording of specific features indicating the presence, or likely presence, of protected species or other species of nature conservation significance. Plant species lists were compiled where appropriate and the Site and survey area was searched for uncommon plant species, plant species listed as protected in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981), plants listed as ‘Priority Species’ in the former UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) and comparably ‘species of principal importance’, as listed under Section 41 of the extant NERC Act.

All higher plant nomenclature within this report is written in accord with Stace's New Flora of the British Isles (Stace, C. A. 1997). A search was carried out for the presence of invasive species, as covered by Section 14 and listed on Schedule 9 in the WCA 1981 (as amended) (Schedule 9 as updated April 2010). Any occurrences of ‘Priority Habitat’ (as listed in the former UK BAP) and comparably ‘habitats of principal importance’ (as listed under Section 41 of the extant NERC Act) were noted. Where possible, the plant species lists were also used to identify National Vegetation Classification (NVC) communities (Rodwell, J. S. Volumes 1 – 5, 1991 – 2000), as the NVC provides a systematic and comprehensive analysis of British vegetation.

2.5 Fauna

2.5.1 Bat Species Overview: UK bat species are provided full legal protection under Schedule 5 (Section 9) of the WCA 1981 (as amended) and under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the Regulations 2010), making them European Protected Species. In combination this legislation makes it illegal to intentionally kill, injure, harm or disturb bats and illegal to damage, disturb or obstruct access to bat roosts.

Daylight survey: During the Extended Phase 1 Survey, all features were assessed for their habitat suitability and potential to support roosting, hibernating, foraging and commuting bats. There are no buildings present within the Application Site, but all trees were inspected from the ground, using close-focus binoculars, ladders and a high powered torch where necessary, to identify potential roost habitats such as rot holes, crevices and lifting bark. All were categorised in accord with the ‘protocol for visual inspection of trees’, presented in Table 8.4 (page 60) in the Bat Surveys. Good Practice Guidelines – 2nd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust. 2012, which is summarised as follows:

Tree Assessment categories - as summarised from Table 8.4 in the Guidelines

Known or

confirmed roost

As determined from current or historic evidence.

Category 1* trees

Trees with multiple highly suitable features, feasibly capable of supporting larger roosts.

Continued overleaf…


Tree Assessment categories - as summarised from Table 8.4 in the Guidelines

Category 1 trees

Trees with definite potential for the support of bats, but either with fewer suitable

features than Category 1* trees or with potential for use by single bats, rather than groups.

Category 2 trees

These have no obvious / clear potential for bat use, but either the size and age is

such that cracks or crevices may be present at elevation, or there is visible occurrence of features which may have limited potential to support bats, particularly

lone bats.

Category 3

trees This accounts for trees that have no potential to support bats.

All features of interest were searched for field signs indicative of the current or former presence of bats, including droppings, remains of invertebrate prey, grease marks from repeated contact or passage through narrow roost accesses and/or bats themselves. A nocturnal bat survey was not undertaken.

2.5.2 Badger

Badgers (Meles meles) and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. This legislation makes it illegal to kill, injure or take Badgers or to interfere with a Badger sett, with the Act defining ‘a sett’ as being “any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use by a Badger”. The land of the Application Site and at least a 30m radius around it was searched for evidence of Badger, with the aim of identifying any combination of the following field signs:

Sett holes, wider than high, often with spoil heaps in front, sometimes also with discarded bedding;

Disturbed ground and small holes from foraging activity;

Trampled dispersal pathways and breach points under boundary fences;

Distinctive hairs, snagged on fences etc. or found at sett entrances;

Dung pits/ latrines;

Characteristically shaped footprints;

Scratching at the base of trees and other features.

2.5.3 Birds Wild birds, their nests and their eggs are protected under Part 1 of the WCA 1981, which makes it illegal to kill or injure a bird and to destroy its eggs or its nest whilst it is in use or being built. Game birds are an exception and are protected under the separate Game Acts, which fully protect them during the close season. In addition, certain bird species (such as Barn owl and Kingfisher) are specially protected under Schedule 1 of the WCA 1981 (as amended), making it illegal to disturb these birds and their young at the nest. All visible and audible birds were recorded during the survey and habitats at the Application Site were assessed for their potential value for nesting, roosting, feeding, and wintering birds, as indicated by the amount of shelter and species diversity amongst the shrubs, trees and grassland habitats in the Site.


2.5.4 Great Crested Newt & Other Amphibians The Great Crested Newt (GCN) (Triturus cristatus) is provided full legal protection under Schedule 5 (section 9) of the WCA 1981 (as amended) and under the Regulations 2010, making it a European Protected Species. The legislation makes it illegal to intentionally kill, injure, harm or disturb Great Crested Newts (GCNs) and illegal to damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place used by sheltering or breeding GCNs. Whilst the species breeds in water it forages, shelters and hibernates on land, typically within 250m of its breeding pond but sometimes up to 500m from the pond. Where planning proposals entail disturbance of land within range of GCN breeding ponds there is therefore a risk of killing, injury and/or habitat loss, which would contravene the legislation that protects them. This makes it a legal requirement to consider GCNs in relation to planning proposals, both in terms of aquatic habitat and terrestrial habitat. However, no ponds were identified lying within the 250m/500m radius, and therefore GCN may hereafter be discounted from consideration in relation to the proposal. Also, although the Common toad (Bufo bufo) is not afforded comparable legal protection to the GCN, it is regarded as a material consideration for planning applications because it is listed as a ‘priority species’ in the former UK BAP and a ‘species of principal importance’ in Section 41 of NERC Act 2006. Prior to attending the Application Site, a 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey map and aerial photographs from Google Earth and Bing Maps were reviewed, to check for any occurrences of ponds within an unobstructed 250m radius of the red-line boundary. No ponds were identified during this process. From this it was ascertained that no further survey work and no further consideration of GCN or other amphibians was necessary.

2.5.5 Water Vole & Otter Water voles (Arvicola amphibious) and their habitat are provided full legal protection under Schedule 5 (Section 9) of the WCA 1981 (as amended), which makes it illegal to intentionally kill, injure or take Water voles and to damage, disturb or destroy their ‘place of shelter’, i.e. their habitat. In England and Wales Otters (Lutra lutra) are protected under Section 9(4)(b) and (c) and (5) of the WCA 1981 and they are fully protected under the Regulations 2010. Collectively, this makes it illegal to deliberately or intentionally capture, injure, kill, harm or disturb Otter and illegal to damage, destroy or obstruct access to an Otter holt. Both species will utilise a wide range of aquatic habitat types, including large ponds, drainage channels, reservoirs, wetlands and rivers. Prior to attending the Application Site an Ordnance Survey map and Google Earth aerial photographs were checked for evidence of water courses and water bodies within or adjoining the Site. As there was no evidence of such features, this was checked and verified on Site and then no further survey work for either species was required.

2.5.7 Reptiles All native British reptiles are provided partial legal protection against intentional killing and injury under Schedule 5 (Section 9) of the WCA 1981 (as amended). In addition, Sand lizard (Lacerta agilis) and Smooth snake (Coronella austriaca) are fully protected under the WCA 1981 (as amended) and under the Regulations 2010. There is only sparse occurrence of reptile species in north-west England and there are no


records of known occurrence within 10km of the Application Site (with reference to NBN Gateway records). Nonetheless, on a precautionary basis habitats throughout the Application Site were assessed for their suitability and potential to support reptiles.

2.5.8 Other Wildlife Any evidence of other wildlife occurrences was to be noted during the survey. Habitat appraisal was also applied in respect of Brown hare (Lepus europaeus) and Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus), which are both UK BAP priority species and NERC Act ‘species of principal importance’.

2.6 Evaluation Methods Although the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) was succeeded by ‘The Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework’ in July 2012, evaluation of habitats and fauna with reference to the old UK BAP lists of ‘priority habitats’ and ‘priority species’ still proves helpful in qualifying their ‘value’. The lists of priority habitats and species presented in the former UK BAP also form the basis of list of ‘habitats and species of principal importance’ presented in Section 41 (S41) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act, which came into force on 1st Oct 2006. This requires the Secretary of State to regard such habitats and species as conservation priorities under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. Furthermore, local BAP lists are important for identifying species and habitats that are notable on a countywide basis (rather than nationally). Resultantly, throughout this report there remains reference to UK and Lancashire BAP priority species and habitats. There is also reference to habitats of principal importance and species of principal importance, in accord with Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006.

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Desk Study

3.1.1 Designated Sites Bowness Bungalow is centred at grid reference SD 8370 2324.

The desk study has demonstrated that at this location there is no statutory internationally or nationally designated site of ecological interest, such as a Special Protection Area (SPA), a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), a Ramsar wetlands or a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Furthermore, there are no internationally or nationally designated statutory sites within a 1.0km radius around the red-line boundary. The nearest statutory site is located 3.11km south-west and is Lee Quarry SSSI, which is beyond the zone of influence of the planning proposal and does not require further consideration. In relation to non-statutory sites of local biodiversity interest, these are known as Biological Heritage Sites (BHS) in Lancashire and all BHS designations in the Borough/District are shown in the Rossendale District Local Plan Proposals Map (Adopted 1995), an extract of which is presented as Fig. 1 (Appendix 1). This shows that there is no non-statutory site designation, i.e. no BHS designation at the Application Site or in the nearby surrounding area.


The nearest BHS is located approximately 1.0km to the north and is beyond the zone of influence of the planning proposal. The Local Plan map also illustrates other land-use designations of ecological interest, such as ‘Greenbelt’, ‘Greenlands, and ‘Environmental Improvement Areas, plus it shows land-use designations such as housing and industry. Reference to Fig. 1 (Appendix 1) therefore shows that the land to the north of Bowness Bungalow may be classified under a ‘Countryside Area’ designation, but there are no significant ecological implications.

3.1.2 Protected & Priority Species The desk study reveals evidence of the known presence of a range of protected species within 10.0km radius of the Application Site. This is by no means likely to be a conclusive or exhaustive list, but the species accounted for in the search are summarised in the list below (distances shown in brackets indicate their closest recorded occurrences from the red-line boundary):

Amphibians: none.

Birds (Schedule 1 and BOCC red-list species2):

[Schedule 1] = Peregrine (2km), Common crossbill (3km), Barn owl (5km), Brambling, Fieldfare, Redwing, (all 10km)

[BOCC red-list] = Cuckoo, , Grasshopper warbler, Grey partridge, House sparrow, Lapwing, Lesser redpoll, , Tree pipit, Tree sparrow, , Yellowhammer (all 3.0 – 5.0km).

Crustaceans: White-clawed crayfish (1.0km).

Mammals: Badger (<1.0km); Common pipistrelle (1.0km), Daubenton's bat (1.0km), Soprano pipistrelle (3.0km)

Plants: Bluebell (4.0km).

Reptiles: none

In addition, a wide array of UK BAP priority species has been recorded in the 3.0km surrounding area, including many bird, invertebrate and plant species, plus Brown hare and Hedgehog.

Where appropriate, i.e. where above-listed records of protected species occurrences are within potential dispersal range of the Site, there is further discussion presented under sub-headings in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of this report.

3.2 Vegetation & Habitats

3.2.1 Location & Surroundings Fig. 2 (next page) presents labelled extracts from a 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey map and an aerial photograph (© Bing Maps), both exemplifying the location of the Application Site in relation to its surroundings. As shown, the Site is located on the eastern side of Rawtenstall in a semi-rural area, with steep, wooded valleys to the west, agricultural pasture fields to the north-east, and pockets of woodland to the south. Housing and industry are also present within immediate range of the Application Site. The habitat composition is of variable potential value for wildlife, with the developed land being largely unsuitable for use but the mosaic of vegetation types being suitable for a range of species.

2 BOCC = the British Trust for Ornithology’s ‘Birds of Conservation Concern’ list


3.2.2 Features within the Site Fig. 3 (Appendix 1) presents a labelled vegetation and habitat map of the Application Site, as prepared using an aerial photograph (© Bing Maps) and results from the walkover survey. Photographs and descriptions of habitat features and vegetation types throughout the Site are provided in the following paragraphs.

Bare & disturbed ground:

Upon arrival at the Application Site it was established that a high proportion of the land comprised bare and disturbed ground (see Photo. 1, next page), with the land having been levelled during the summer months of 2014 (pers. com. owner 29/10/2014). The land was re-colonising with sparse herbs and grasses, such as locally frequent Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus) and occasional Common Sorrel (Rumex acetosa) and White clover


(Trifolium repens), plus there was remnant grassland to the margins, which provided a strong indication as to what had formerly been present. Notably, from appraisal of historic aerial photographs on Google Earth it appears likely that there was originally a small grassland field unit (images dating from 2000 and 2005), but in 2011 there was significant disturbance to the land.

Photo. 1 An account of the remnant grassland at the margins is provided under the following sub-heading. Based on what is currently present (i.e. sparse re-colonisation), there is no representation of an NVC community and there is no example of UK BAP Priority Habitat or Habitat of Principal Importance.

Former grassland & remnant grassland to the margins: The plant species recorded along the south and east edges of the disturbed plot of land suggest the presence of a former grassland, exhibiting a mixed sward of herbs and grass species, as accounted for in Table 1 (Appendix 2) and also exemplified in Photo. 2. There is evidence of frequent or locally frequent Yorkshire fog, Crested dog’s-tail (Cynosurus cristatus), Rough meadow-grass (Poa trivialis) and Perennial rye-grass (Lolium perenne) as well as herbaceous ruderal species such as locally abundant Meadow vetchling (Lathyrus pratensis), frequent Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) and locally frequent Lesser trefoil (Trifolium dubium). Locally frequent patches of Soft rush (Juncus effusus) are also occurring, suggesting possible seasonal waterlogging.

Photo. 2 The remnant grassland has affinity with the MG6: Lolium perenne – Cynosurus cristatus

Sparse re-colonisation on bare and disturbed ground

Example of former grassland composition at the edges

Disturbed ground, showing sparse re-colonisation


NVC community and it is likely that much of the former grassland within the Site was probably also an example of an MG6 sward. There are no rare species in the remaining grassland and this grassland type does not typically support any rare species. The grassland is of relatively common and widespread occurrence throughout England and the grassland is not an example of a BAP Priority Habitat or Habitat of Principal Importance. Tussocky grassland: The land associated with the proposed access track for the Site was still supporting undisturbed vegetation at the time of survey, with this comprising a tussocky grassland sward on a moderately steep slope, as shown in Photo. 3, below. Here there was a greater abundance of coarse, tussock forming grasses, such as Cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerata) Tufted hair-grass (Deschampsia cespitosa) and Red fescue (Festuca rubra), but accompanied by occasional presence of the mixed species recorded in the MG6 sward.

Photo. 3

This grassland is representative of the MG9: Holcus lanatus – Deschampsia cespitosa NVC community (MG9a: Poa trivialis sub-community). It contains no rare species and it is not botanically notable, nor is it an example of a BAP Priority Habitat or Habitat of Principal Importance. Ruderal tall-herb vegetation: Towards the base of the aforementioned steep slope and towards the western corner of the Application Site there are stands of ruderal vegetation, suggestive of nutrient-rich and unmanaged land. Closest to the tussocky grassland there is dominant Rosebay willowherb (Chamerion angustifolium), with an understorey of sparse and occasional Bramble (Rubus fruticosus), which is an example of the OV27: Chamerion angustifolium NVC community. This is species-poor and is not botanically notable. Progressing further west and to the base of the slope there is co-dominant Cleavers (Galium aparine) and Common nettle (Urtica dioica), which is typical of the OV24: Urtica dioica – Galium aparine NVC community. This vegetation type is common and has widespread occurrence throughout lowland Britain. These ruderal vegetation types are not examples of BAP Priority Habitat or Habitat of Principal Importance.

Greater prevalence of tussock-forming grasses


Tipped materials: As illustrated in Fig. 3 (Appendix 1) and in Photo. 4, there is also locally abundant tipped garden waste amongst the tall ruderal vegetation, comprising a heap of garden lawn clippings and a heap of conifer branches, both from the neighbouring property. These features do not have any botanical value but influence the structural composition of the Site. Again, there is no example of BAP Priority Habitat.

Photo. 4 Trees & shrubs: An assemblage of semi-mature and early-mature deciduous trees and shrubs are present at the western corner of the Site, near where the proposed access track would meet with Burnley Road East. The species include frequent Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), plus two Cherry (Prunus avium) and two Swedish whitebeam (Sorbus intermedia). These cast heavy shade, resulting in a high proportion of bare ground to the base, as indicated in Photo. 5. Additionally there is local Broad buckler (Dryopteris dilatata), Wood avens (Geum urbanum) and very local occurrence of a Bluebell sp. (Hyacinthoides sp.), for which species identification was not achieved from the senesced stems. There is no example of an NVC in this area and the habitat is not BAP Priority Habitat or Habitat of Principal Importance.

Photo. 5 Additionally there are trees at the margins of the cleared land of the Site, mostly along the


eastern field-edge, as shown below in Photo. 6. These are semi-mature specimens and include Horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), Beech (Fagus sylvatica), Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), Alder (Alnus glutinosa) and Pendunculate oak (Quercus robur). It is understood that several have been transplanted (pers. com. owner 29/10/2014). The trees are not forming an NVC community are not a BAP Priority Habitat.

Photo. 6 Boundary and adjacent features: The north and east red-line boundaries are defined by the presence of post and wire fencing, which is largely permeable at the base to wildlife. No such fence-lines are in place to the west and south red-line boundary. To the west, beyond the Application Site’s boundary there is an area of planted deciduous woodland, dominated by closely-planted Sycamore, as seen in Photo. 7. There is heavy shade and no shrub layer, leading to the limited diversity and coverage of ground flora. This is a poor example of young woodland.

Photo. 7 To the east and north there are grassland fields, which appear to be used for livestock grazing. These are not ecologically noteworthy. To the south there is the curtilage associated with Bowness Bungalow, including a steeply sloping bank on which there is already one array of solar panels, plus compacted chippings forming a driveway and vehicular parking.

Semi-mature trees along eastern red-line boundary


Invasive species: There is no evidence of Japanese knotweed (Fallopoa japonica), Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) or other invasive species within the Site.

3.3 Fauna

3.3.1 Bats

There are no buildings in the Application Site and the trees all are unsuitable for the support of roosting bats, being too young and displaying no rot or crevice features.

Daylight assessment indicates that the trees rooted along the eastern, western and north-western sides of the Site are likely to provide sheltered air-space and low potential for use by foraging and commuting bats. In the context of the surrounds, this is not of substantive local importance. Elsewhere throughout the Site there is limited potential value and low likelihood of use by active bats.

3.3.2 Badger

There is no evidence of Badger at the Site or on the immediate adjoining land, but further east of Bowness Bungalow and within 100m of the Site there was evidence of foraging field signs on the day of the walkover survey, indicating it is possible that this species passes through the wider surrounding area. Habitat appraisal indicates that the cleared land throughout the Site is unsuitable for use and the deciduous plantation adjacent to the western red-line boundary is also unsuitable for creation of a sett. Whilst cover is available amongst trees and shrubs to the north-west tip of the Site, the area is adjacent to a main road and the land is poorly drained so there is no reasonable likelihood of future colonisation and use. In summary, there is no legislative implication because there is no reasonable likelihood of a sett becoming established and there is no requirement for further consideration of Badger.

3.3.3 Birds The bird species recorded during the course of the walkover survey were as follows:

Blackbird (x several)

Magpie (x many)

Bullfinch (x 1, male, foraging within Hawthorn shrubs towards north-west tip of Site) No occurrences of Schedule 1 bird species were recorded during the walkover survey and it is assessed there is no habitat value for Schedule 1 birds to nest at the Site. There is habitat suitability for wintering Schedule 1 birds though because the presence of established Hawthorn and Whitebeam indicates there is a food source for thrush species such as Redwing and Fieldfare. In the context of surrounding habitat value, this is not of ecological significance, but it merits consideration in relation to opportunities for replacement planting of berry-bearing species. No UK BAP species were recorded during the survey, but there is local low potential for UK BAP priority species such as Dunnock Song thrush and House sparrow to nest within the red-line boundary; these are small, perching, shrub-nesting species, which can use shrubs and trees at the north-western and eastern boundaries. Similarly, such habitats could be


used by common garden birds such as Robin and Chaffinch. Risk of shrub-nesting birds requires precautionary consideration, as discussed in latter sections of this report. In relation to ground-nesting birds, habitat assessment indicates a lack of suitable nesting habitat and no further consideration is required.

3.3.4 Great Crested Newt & Other Amphibians

There are no records of GCN occurrence in the data search results and there are no ponds associated with the Site or within an accessible dispersal radius around its boundaries. The closest occurrence of a water-body is Jack lodge, which is a very large water-body situated 350m to the north-east of the Site (at the closest edge). This is judged to be unsuitable for GCN because of its size and likely support of fish, though it is feasible that Common toad could breed within it. There is no reasonable likelihood of GCN occurrence at the Site and there is no requirement for further survey or for further consideration of GCN in relation to the proposal. Whilst it is feasible for Common toad to breed in Jack Lodge and this species will typically disperse further from breeding ponds than GCN, there is still only very low potential for terrestrial Common toad to disperse to the Application Site. Furthermore, the cleared land is unsuitable for this species so there is only localised potential value associated with tussocky grassland, ruderal vegetation, tipped debris and shrubs in the north-west of the Site. There is no legislative or policy concern or constraint, but best-practice consideration of Common toad is appropriate to ensure no net loss of biodiversity value at the Site.

3.3.5 Water vole and Otter The walkover survey verified that there are no water features within or adjoining the Site. There is no requirement for further consideration of these species.

3.3.6 Reptiles

Habitat within the Application Site is largely unsuitable for reptiles. Furthermore, there are no records of reptile occurrence in the local area. It is concluded that there is negligible potential for occurrence of reptiles at the Application Site and that reptiles do not require further consideration in relation to the proposal.

3.3.8 Other Wildlife The Site is unsuitable for Brown hare, but it provides potential value for Hedgehog, given the dense ground-level cover associated with the vegetated eastern embankment, plus shrubs in the garden curtilage. Hedgehog requires minor further consideration.

4.0 SUMMARY, ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Summary The results from the desk study, data search and walkover survey, show that there are the following ecological considerations at the Application Site:

Statutory / non-statutory sites of ecological interest = No concerns or constraints.

Habitats of principal importance, and/or plant species that are rare, protected or


species of principal importance = No concerns or constraints.

Invasive plant species = No concerns or constraints.

Bats = No concerns regarding roosting bats. The air-space alongside trees is suitable for foraging bats, but does not warrant further consideration in the context of the planning proposal and the small scale of proposed shrub and tree loss.

Breeding birds = The trees and shrubs are suitable for use by low numbers of breeding birds. The standard precautions for protecting breeding birds will be needed, in accord with Section 4.2.1.

Badger, Water vole, Otter, Great crested newt and reptiles = No concerns or constraints

Other amphibians = Limited potential for terrestrial Common toad prompts a minor and best-practice requirement for consideration of Common toad.. Guidance is presented in Section 4.2.2.

Other wildlife = There is limited potential for Hedgehog occurrence, prompts a minor requirement for precautionary protection measures, in accord with guidance in Section 4.2.2.

4.2 Recommendations

The recommendations arising from the survey and assessment are for a combination of standard and best-practice measures. Sub-section 4.2.1 present recommendations that are essential measures, required for compliance with wildlife legislation. It is respectfully recommended that these are made the subject of one or more planning conditions to ensure that they are enforceable. Sub-section 4.2.2 presents recommendations that are additional considerations and opportunities, which are examples of how biodiversity retention and/or enhancement can best be achieved at the Site. Their implementation is not essential or enforceable, but where it is possible to incorporate them into the scheme this will demonstrate accordance with the principles of local planning policy and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF 2012), which encourage developments to facilitate retention or enhancement of biodiversity value.

4.2.1 Essential Measures

Protection of breeding birds: The standard protection of breeding birds is applicable at the Site. Retention of habitat and avoidance of impacts is therefore the primary objective, i.e. where possible there is to be retention of trees that have the potential to support low numbers of nesting birds during the breeding season. Where avoidance cannot be achieved, mitigation is necessary and the breeding season is typically regarded as March to August inclusive so where possible the clearance of such vegetation is to take place outside this breeding season. If other constraints dictate that sensitive timing is not possible, commencement may be able to take place during the bird breeding season, provided extra due diligence is implemented prior to and during the clearance; the following precautions must be applied:


In the days immediately prior to commencing work, a thorough inspection is to be made, to check for active birds’ nests.

If any occurrences of breeding birds are detected, the nest(s) must be left undisturbed until the chicks have fledged, at which point the work can take place. As a rough indication, the incubation of eggs and rearing of chicks until they depart the nest can take 2 – 4 weeks, depending on the bird species and what stage the process has reached at the time that the nest is discovered.

Once it is demonstrated that no birds are actively nesting, features can then be removed.

4.2.2 Best practice measures & opportunities

Precautionary protection of Hedgehog and Common toad: Precautionary action is considered appropriate, to ensure that there is no reasonable likelihood of negative impacts on sheltering Common toad and Hedgehog. Recommended actions are listed on the following page:

Clearance works:

Initial invasive clearance work is also to be sensitively timed. Hedgehogs typically breed between April and early-September (i.e. throughout a similar seasonal time frame to birds), which reinforces that optimally the vegetation clearance should commence outside the summer period, hence minimising any risks.

Before the access road is created there is to be careful and controlled removal of the tipped branches and the shrubs and trees are be cut down to a height of approx. 6 – 7 inches (15 – 18cm) so that the ground beneath is exposed.

The ground beneath is to be checked, to identify any sheltering animals so that they can be captured and removed from the zone of invasive works. For guidance, images and description of adult animals of both species are provided below.

Hedgehog = a prickly mammal, curled into a ball Common toads = have dry and warty-looking skin when under threat from predators or invasive works

If animals are found, they are to be carefully captured and placed over the fenceline and in the base of the adjacent conifer hedge, in the edge of the grassland field, where there is good connectivity for dispersal further afield.

All cut and uplifted material is to be removed. Branches and leaf-litter can simply be placed under shrubs that are going to be retained, so that the materials continue to provide shelter and habitat value in the future. Any excess will have to be removed

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=YmyXbFqg7KVCBM&tbnid=6_ZWeQ72-xxJZM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://pursglove.blogspot.com/2012_08_01_archive.html&ei=ivREU-6pCKWc0QXYj4GICg&bvm=bv.64507335,d.d2k&psig=AFQjCNEn_P0gpK8C1s-eVkwazsz13ul-vQ&ust=1397114235252644


and disposed of responsibly.

5.0 CONCLUSION In conclusion, there are not substantive ecological concerns or constrains in relation to the proposal for solar panel installation at land to the north of Bowness Bungalow, though minor considerations and precautions will apply. Provided the essential legal measures presented in Section 4.2.1 of this report are implemented then this will ensure that there is due consideration of wildlife legislation. Further, if it is possible to apply the measures of best practice that are described in Section 4.2.2 then the proposal will avoid harm to local wildlife.

6.0 REFERENCES BSI (30 April 2012) BS5837: 2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction Department for Communities and Local Government (March 2012) National Planning Policy Framework. Entwistle, A. C. et al. (2001) Habitat Management for Bats. JNCC. Fitter, R., Fitter, A. and Farrer, A. (1984) Grasses, Sedges, Rushes and Ferns of Britain and Northern Europe. Collins. Google Earth 5 http://earth.google.co.uk Joint Nature Conservation Committee. (2003). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a technique for Environmental Audit. Joint Nature Conservancy Committee. Peterborough. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) UK BAP Priority Species. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5717 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) UK BAP Priority Habitats. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5718 Marchant, J.H. (1983) Common Birds Census instructions. British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), Tring.

Multi-agency Geographical Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) (2000). http://magic.defra.gov.uk/website/magic/ Mitchell-Jones, A. J. Bat Mitigation Guidelines. Jan 2004. English Nature. Mitchell-Jones, A. J. & McLeish, A. P. The Bat Workers’ Manual. 3rd ed. 2004. JNCC. National Biodiversity Network Gateway (2000) www.nbn.co.uk

Office of the Deputy Prime Minster (August 2005) Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System. H.M.S.O., London. Parsons, K. et al. Bat Surveys. Good Practice Guidelines – 2nd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust. 2012.


Rodwell, J. S. (ed.) (1991). British Plant Communities. Volume 1. Woodlands and Scrub. Cambridge University Press. Rodwell, J. S. (ed.) (1992) British Plant Communities. Volume 3. Grasslands and Montane Communities. Cambridge University Press. Rodwell. J. S. (ed.) (2000) British Plant Communities. Volume 5. Maritime communities and vegetation of open habitats. Cambridge University Press. RSPB website. http://www.rspb.org.uk Stace, C. A. (1991). New Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. The UK Biodiversity Steering Group Report. Volume 2. Action Plans. H.M.S.O. (1995), London. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). H.M.S.O., London.


APPENDIX 1 – FIGURES


APPENDIX 2 – TABLES

Table 1: Species list for the former grassland

Species common name Species Latin name Distribution

Prickly sow-thistle Sonchus asper O

Common sorrel Rumex acetosa O

Broad-leaved dock Rumex obtulifolius O

Broad-leaved willowherb Epilobium montanum VLF

Cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata VL

Annual meadow-grass Poa annua VL

Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata O

Crested dog’s-tail Cynosurus cristatus LF

Creeping cinquefoil Potentilla reptans VLF

Groundsel Senecio vulgaris VL

Common ragwort Senecio jacobaea O

Common mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum VL

Lesser trefoil Trifolium dubium LF

Sweet vernal Anthoxanthum odoratum LF

Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens F

Soft rush Juncus effusus LF

Creeping thistle Crisium arvense O

Dandelion Taraxacum officinalis O

Tufted hair-grass Deschampsia cespitosa VL

Common bent Agrostis capillaris LF

Field horsetail Equisetum arvense O/LF

Rough meadow-grass Poa trivialis LF

Meadow vetchling Lathyrus pratense F/LA

Perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne LF

Red clover Trifolium repens LF

Red fescue Festuca rubra LF

Selfheal Prunella vulgaris VL

White clover Trifolium repens LF

Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus F

Key: D = Dominant; A = Abundant; F = Frequent; O = Occasional; R = Rare; L = Locally, v = very

Ecological Survey & Assessment · Great crested newt (WML CL08 Level 1) and bats (WML CL18 - Bat...

Documents

Transcript of Ecological Survey & Assessment · Great crested newt (WML CL08 Level 1) and bats (WML CL18 - Bat...