Planning Statement Sywell Shooting Ground, Sywell ... · Sywell Shooting Ground, Sywell,...

Planning Statement

Sywell Shooting Ground, Sywell, Northamptonshire The application if permitted will allow the handling, storage and processing of inert material and its exportation off site. The application is a sensible extension to the existing permitted use for the temporary siting of a mobile crusher and screen to separate soils and recycled aggregates. The site already benefits from a consent which involves the importation of waste material for the construction of other parts of the shooting grounds. The imported material is screened and material crushed. This provides suitable material to be used in the construction of the permitted go-kart track and mounding. If consent is granted materials will be selected either for the mounding, go kart track or to go off site. The site is located on the A43 approximately 4 miles north of Northampton, 7 miles south of Kettering and 5 miles west of Wellingborough. With regard to planning policy, PPS10 considers sustainable waste management. The waste hierarchy shows the reuse and recycling of materials as a means of moving towards a more sustainable waste management system. The site has been operating as a waste management site since the early 1990’s with the granting of consent for the construction of sound attenuation screens. Inert material was being imported on to the site in accordance with a consent dated 18 November 1998 for the construction of a 600m rifle range with safety bunding. The design however was altered with consent granted for mounding in April 2010. There are however consistently still approximately 30 lorry movements into the site per day clearly showing a need for the site. The supply comes principally from the nearby towns as outlined above. Predominately the waste comes from within Northamptonshire. There is no reason why this would change if consent were granted. In terms of the waste hierarchy apart from reduction, which is clearly not in the applicant’s control, there is no better use. As it is inert material it will not cause damage to the environment. Hardcore inert material will be used again off site in other development schemes.

J:\james\Muttock\Recycling Application September 2010\Planning Statement.doc

The proposal has been considered against BPEO above and apart from ‘reduction’ there appears to be no better use. The major material consideration in this application is the existing consent which must be given great weight in the decision making process. Other policies of the development plan have been considered above and there is no conflict. The PPS10 also considers indentifying suitable sites and areas and states:- “…waste planning authorities should consider…looking for opportunities to collocate facilities together and with complementary activities”. Clearly this proposal is a complementary activity. The main policies in the Northamptonshire Waste Local Plan 2003 – 2016 are policies 2, 8 and 17. Policy 2 considers the location of waste development. This policy confirms that sites will be permitted if they come forward in accordance with Policy 4 of the same document. This Policy has been replaced through the adoption of the Core Strategy which is considered below. The benefits and suitability of this site are considered above. Policy 8 considers traffic and access. Currently the permitted use on site is for the importation of inert waste only and no removal of material off site. Consequently vehicles are coming onsite fully laden but leaving empty. The widening of the permission will allow these vehicles to take away material which will have no increased effect on the number of traffic movements onto and off the site therefore not adversely affecting highway safety. Policy 17 considers waste transfer, recovery and recycling. Where the primary activity is, amongst others, the recovery and/or recycling of waste operations will be required to: i. demonstrate that the development will assist the efficient collection and recovery of waste

materials There are 3 large waste streams all within 10 miles of the site. The Core Strategy describes facilities receiving waste from a catchment of up to 30 miles radius as local/sub-regional implying that distance from source to site is minimal.


It is intended that the recovered material will be used within a similar catchment area. There have already been approaches by developers enquiring as to whether they can currently make use of the facility to recycle and reuse material. Their use is generally local. ii. minimise open-air storage It is proposed that material is stored outside but due to it being restricted to soil and hardcore only there will be no issue with rubbish been blown around the site. This is therefore not considered an issue. iii. maximise screening; The applicant already has the crushing and screening machinery on site to assist with the permitted use. The majority of material will be screened. iv. where located on existing waste management sites…demonstrate that the proposed

facility would not unduly prejudice previously-agreed restoration timescales for the site or workings.

There are no previously agreed restoration timescale for the red line application site. There is however a landscaping condition with involves planting on the external boundary slopes. The proposed development will not affect this planting scheme nor its implementation as required by the April 2010 consent. The Core Strategy was adopted in May 2010. Policy CS1 considers Northamptonshire’s waste management capacity. The policy requires the growth of a network of facilities to meet capacities during the Plan period. To achieve this growth the provision will come from a mix of extensions to existing sites, intensification or re-development of existing sites and new sites, providing they meet the spatial strategy for waste management and are assessed as meeting environmental, amenity and other requirements. The site already carries out waste management activities and as such this proposals falls squarely into the intensification element of it albeit it will not be an intensification in terms of vehicle movements. The spatial strategy for waste management is considered below in Policy CS2. With regards to environmental factors a habitat survey and flood risk assessment have been previously carried out on the site which included


consideration of the type of activity proposed. Both reports concluded that there were no flood risks and the effect on ecological factors were negligible. The current use has no affect on local amenity. There are no residential dwellings in the immediate area. The materials are inert and therefore cause no harm to the environment. There is no issue with noise in fact any noise created is very much secondary to the adjacent airfield. Policy CS2 considers the spatial strategy for waste management. Facilities within Northamptonshire’s waste management network should be focused within the central spine. The central spine runs from Northampton to Corby and encompasses Wellingborough and Kettering. This site is therefore extremely well located within the spine area. Policy CS14 requires that the impact of the proposed development be addressed. • Minimising environmental impact and protecting Northamptonshire’s key

environmental designations. There is already a significant waste management process ongoing on the site which involves a number of vehicle movements each day. This proposal will only result in material being taken off site in vehicles are already leaving the site, however at present without a load. The proposal therefore minimises environmental impact. The site is not located within an area of a key environmental designation. • Protecting natural resources or ensuring that any unavoidable loss or reduction is

mitigated. The proposal will not use up any natural resources. • Ensuring built development is of a design and layout that has regard to its visual

appearance in the context of the defining characteristics of the local area There is no built development proposed. • Ensuring access is sustainable, safe and environmentally acceptable The site is immediately on the A43, within the central spine. The access is safe and the proposal will not create any more traffic movements than are already permitted.


• Ensuring that local amenity is protected The proposed use has no affect on local amenity. There are no residential dwellings in the immediate area. The materials are inert and therefore cause no harm to the environment. There is no issue with noise in fact any noise created is very much secondary to the adjacent airfield. Although not yet adopted, the Control and Management of Development DPD considers development criteria for secondary and recycled aggregate processing facilities in Policy CMD5. The policy states that preference for the development of this type of facility should be in locations within amongst others:- Existing, permitted or allocated waste management / disposal facilities (including temporary facilities) where this accords with the type of waste management / disposal use at that location. It should also not conflict with the spatial strategy. Again the subject site and proposal fits squarely into this policy. The proposal is in accordance with the development plan and as such consent should be granted.


Design and Access Statement

Sywell Shooting Ground, Sywell, Northamptonshire The application is for an extension to the existing permitted use for the temporary siting of a mobile crusher and screen to separate soils and recycled aggregates and allow them to be taken off-site. The site already benefits from a consent which involves the importation of waste material for the construction of other parts of the shooting grounds. The imported material is screened and material crushed. This provides suitable material to be used in the construction of the permitted go-kart track and also subject to consent being granted the handling, storage and processing of inert material which will, once processed, go off-site again. Amount The amount of development proposed in relation to the extension to the shooting ground is 1.39 hectares. In terms of volume, if permitted the amount of material to be processed will not exceed 50,000 tonnes per annum. This proposal allows for the recovery of inert material which will be carries out on the above area. This screening and crushing of material is already permitted on this part of the site under reference 10/00005/WAS and dated 21 April 2010. The area will comprise both the machinery and stockpiles inert material awaiting processing and material that has been processed, waiting collection. The site is located behind the existing mounding around the edge of the applicant’s land. This will mean the development will not be seen from any public vantage points and within the site will assimilate into the larger boundary mounds. Layout The principal access routes are already in place onto the site and as such will remain as existing so as to cause minimum disruption to other users on the site. The site is within a 15 minute drive time of Northampton and is well located on the A43, Northampton to Kettering road. In terms of crime prevention, as this is an entirely private site we do not consider this as an issue. The wider site has only one access from the A43 which is kept locked out of hours and when open staff are on site.

J:\james\Muttock\Recycling Application September 2010\Design and Access Statement.doc

Scale The scale of the storage and recovery area is on average 205 metres long by 65 metres wide. The material will be stockpiled depending on material, grade and quality and should not exceed 2 metres in height and in event will be protected from public view by the mounding around the site perimeter. Landscaping Landscaping was discussed at length with the County Council as part of the previous application with a condition applied to the permission. As such it is considered there is no further condition required for this application. Appearance The appearance of the existing area is already large mounds surrounding the shooting ground. The proposal will mean there will be stockpiles of material that will be transient in nature. The general appearance will therefore change throughout the lifetime of the consent. There is no lighting proposed with this application. Access Direct access to the wider site is from the A43, Northampton to Kettering Road. Although the speed limit along this part of the road is 60 mph there is still good visibility in each direction. The site already benefits from a good number of off road parking spaces and more than adequate turning areas. Within the site there is an existing haul road of approximately 700 metres which will serve this development. A level pathway approach from the parking spaces will ensure easy access for all people including those with disabilities. Hardcore will form the base of the recycling area and will be generated from inert material brought onto site.

J:\james\Muttock\Recycling Application September 2010\Design and Access Statement.doc

FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NORTHAMPTON SHOOTING GROUND SYWELL FOR JOHN DRAKE AND CO ON BEHALF OF THE NORTHAMPTON SHOOTING GROUND NOVEMBER 2009

FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NORTHAMPTON SHOOTING GROUND, SYWELL

Landscape Science Consultancy Ltd L:\LSC\J14.09a Sywell Flood Risk Assessment\Reports\Flood Risk Assessment FINAL REV A.doc

2

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 2.0 Aim Of The Study

3.0 Methodology

4.0 Catchment Description

5.0 Site Description Of Existing Site

6.0 Qualitative Assessment of Potential Impacts

from Re-Contouring 7.0 Flood Risk

8.0 Proposed Flood Reduction Measures

9.0 Additional Considerations

10.0 Conclusion References

Figure 01: Local Catchment Boundary Figure 02: Existing Drainage Figure 03: Potential Flood Areas

(for information only) Figure 04: Water Management Proposals

Report: Ref No: J14.09a

Author: Hilary R Ludlow MSc CBiol CMLI MIEEM

Scientific check:

Hilary R Ludlow MSc CBiol CMLI MIEEM

Presentation check: Zoe Lewis BA (Hons)

Date: November 2009



3

1.0 Introduction

Landscape Science Consultancy Ltd was commissioned by John Drake and Co on behalf of the Northampton Shooting Ground to undertake a flood risk assessment of a proposed development at Sywell Shooting Range, Northampton, as required by the local authority under Planning Policy Statement PPS25. The location of the application site is shown on Figure 01 and is owned by the applicant company. The proposals are to re-contour an area of approximately 1.65 ha to create an undulating plateau rising 9m above the adjacent ground to the north east. To the west, the ground would integrate with the existing perimeter acoustic bund. Collation and evaluation of available data indicates that the proposed development site near Sywell falls within Zone 1 where there is low risk of flooding and there are no constraints to development due to river flooding. According to the PPS 25 Sequential Test (Appendix D), the proposed type of development falls under the Water Compatible Development Table D2 as outdoor recreation. Table D3 indicates that within Zone 1 the development is appropriate. No Exception Test is required. The PPS 25 recommends that any developer ensures that the rate of flow off the site from flash flooding is controlled and does not impact downstream. To this end, proposals for maintenance and a storage area to control sediments and flow adjacent to the downstream end of the on site section of stream are put forward.

2.0 Aim of the Study The following Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) report is considered to be in proportion to the risk and appropriate to the scale , nature and location of the proposed development. The report describes the existing sources of water and the existing risk of flooding; and existing and recommended control measures. The aims of the FRA process are drawn from CIRIA (2004) as being: • to assess the flood risk to the proposed development and to

demonstrate the feasibility of the development design such that any residual flood risk is acceptable;



4

• to assess the potential impact of the proposed development on flood risk elsewhere and to demonstrate the feasibility of the development design such that it would not increase flood risk elsewhere; and

• to satisfy the requirements of national planning policy guidance. Relevant policies in the Nene Catchment Flood Management Plan and the Northampton Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment have been considered.

3.0 Methodology 3.1 Legislation

The Town and Country Planning (Flooding) (England) Directive 2007 came into force on the 1st January 2007. The accompanying Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Circular 04/2006 states that proposals that fall within the category requiring a flood risk assessment (FRA) are those that are: (a) non-residential development with a site area of more than 1 hectare; or

(b) located on land that is within Flood Zones 2 or 3. The site falls within the first category.

3.2 Planning Policy Statement 25

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25 Development and Flood Risk (DCLG 2006) outlines a risk-based approach to ensure that development is safe and not exposed unnecessarily to flooding. The statement also requires that a development should not increase flood risk elsewhere in the catchment. PPS25 classifies areas of possible flood risk into four zones: Zone 1 – Low probability - Little or No Risk = < 0.1% Zone 2 – Medium probability - Low to Medium Risk = > 0.1% but < 1% Zone 3a – High Probability - High Risk = > 1% Zone 3b – Functional Floodplain – where water flows in time of flood The FRA follows the guidance in PPS25 and the PPS25 Practice Guidance notes; and from the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Standing Advice (PPS25) version 1.0.

3.3 Consultation The following statutory bodies have been consulted: • Environment Agency (EA)

• Anglian Water Board



5

• Northampton Borough Council Information was also drawn from the following documents: • PPS25 Development and Flood Annex E

• EA Flood Risk Standing Advice

• CIRIA Development and Flood Risk: Guidance for the Construction Industry

• EA Flood Risk Strategy

• DEFRA Making Space for Water

• River Nene Catchment Flood Management Plan

• Northampton Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

• Geological information sourced from British Geological Survey (BGS) Sheet and the relevant memoir BGS Geology of the country around

3.4 Assessment Level

The initial Level 1 FRA has been undertaken and achieved by a screening study to:

• confirm whether the site is likely to be in a “little or no risk”, “low to

medium” or “high” flood risk zone

• produce a preliminary qualitative assessment of the potential impact of, and constraints to, the proposed development

• develop an understanding of the potential development design that may be employed at the site

4.0 Catchment Description

Figure 01 Catchment The overall site of the Northamptonshire Shooting Ground is typical of outdoor recreation with swathes of amenity grass, mixed age planting and disturbed ground. The site sits amongst agricultural land at the top of a minor tributary to the River Nene. The upper reaches of the stream cross undulating ground sloping to the south west. There are no main rivers in this minor catchment. The geology for this area of the catchment is a capping of boulder clay, several metres thick, over the Jurassic sedimentary beds. Land Use



6

The land use over the upper reaches of the catchment of the unnamed tributary to the River Nene is mainly agricultural with residential further downstream. The land use, particularly the agriculture, is relevant to the hydrology and hydrogeology in that it influences evapo-transpiration and therefore the water balance of the catchment. The Shooting Ground is used for outdoor recreation and is mainly amenity grass and extensive perimeter earth bunds. The site, therefore, responds to rainfall as a greenfield site. Surface Water Runoff Figure 02 The boulder clay soils have limited permeability and surface water drains from the catchment in a typical pattern following the contours. The boulder clay will prevent rainfall entering the soils quickly and runoff will be rapid. On site the drainage is based on a natural stream and a system of ditches and culverted drains (Section 5). Flooding Figure 03 The upper reaches of the minor tributary are not shown as experiencing flooding. The water flow in the stream course on site is ephemeral. Flooding occurs downstream as the stream passes through a narrow valley at the Cow Spinney down into the residential areas of north east Northampton. Flooding may also occur approximately 3km downstream as the waters pass through the lake at Overstone Park. The lake is artificially constrained by a road on the downstream side. Further flooding along the tributary can occur as the stream passes through the industrial and residential areas on the outskirts of Northampton. Aquifer Recharge The boulder clay capping will prevent rapid aquifer recharge from the site. Abstractions No major aquifer units immediately underlie the catchment and there are no public water supply licences in the area.

5.0 Site Description of Existing Site



7

In the context of the overall sub-catchment of the minor tributary that flows into the River Nene, the site lies in the upper reaches of the tributary, close the source issues. The proposed development area covers approximately 1.65 hectares within the overall grounds of the Northamptonshire Shooting Ground.

Photograph 1. Showing the survey site and approximate red line boundary The surface water drainage system is typical of recreational land in the countryside with an interconnecting system of a natural stream and field drains, Figure 02. The site responds to rainfall as a greenfield site. Stream A small ephemeral stream rises offsite to the north east from issues in Sywell Woods. The stream course runs across the site in a south westerly direction in a straightened line with vertical banks that deepen towards the south east to approximately 1.75m depth. The width at the south eastern end is approximately 4m bank top to bank top and the base of the channel is approximately 0.5m. The stream is well vegetated by tall ruderals and a few aquatics.



8

Photograph 2. Showing the overgrown stream course Pond Up stream of the proposed development site, the stream flow passes through a pond. The flow of water into the pond is relatively minimal and at times of storm the pond depth can vary up to 18 inches, well within the capacity. No silting in the pond occurs due to the slow rate of flow and the water remains clear with no stagnation. The pond is not at capacity and provides an additional storage capacity for any excess flow from upstream of the site.

Photograph 1. Pond Culverts Where the stream leaves the pond, goes under an access track and exits the site under the perimeter bund there are culverts with constructed headwalls. Culvert 1 includes a length of concrete to control the flow and a mesh screen to prevent blockages by debris.



9

Photographs 2 and 3. Culvert 1 Culvert 2 is a simple structure. The culvert headwall where the water flows under the perimeter bund is not protected by any mesh to prevent blockages by debris.

Photograph 3. Stream culvert 2 The stream exits the site from Culvert 3 under the acoustic perimeter mound. There is no headwall on this pipe.

Photograph 4. Stream culvert 3



10

Ditches and Drains The natural overland flow drainage pattern of the area has been constrained and developed by the system of field ditches that drain the catchment towards the stream. The field ditches are often dry in the winter and during the drier summer months. On site, the ditches have been adapted to meet the requirements of the site layout and are culverted under the flat amenity grass. Record of Flooding There has been no history of flooding and no flood data recorded. There are no flood protection systems in place. The current owners have not recorded an instance of the capacity of the stream course and the drains being exceeded during intense storms over the past 36 years.

6.0 Qualitative Assessment of Potential Impacts from Re-Contouring

The re-contouring of the area would result in an insignificant minor increase in the surface area as a result of the surface runoff contribution from the increased surface area of the slopes. The re-contouring would result in an area of clay soils overlying a minor aquifer being further capped. No reliance is currently placed on these areas as a source of water supply and no impact would occur on groundwater abstractions elsewhere in the catchment. The mound would be built up using clay soils and the permeability would be as for the existing site, that is, slow and limited with the majority of rainwater running off as surface flow. The existing pattern of drains and the stream would be retained. New drains at the base of the new bund would be created. The site would remain as greenfield and the existing performance of site would not change.



11

7.0 Flood Risk 7.1 Mechanism of Potential Existing Flood Risk Hazards.

Site The Indicative Flood Map sourced from the Environment Agency is shown in Figure 03. The Indicative Flood Map for the area shows the site falls within Zone 1 and is outside the functional flood plain. Zone 1 is designated as Low Probability which includes land assessed as having a less that 1 in 1000 annual probability of river flooding in any year. The site is not shown as having any flood risk from fluvial flooding. Risk of Flooding arising from Development The causes of local flooding on this site are potentially when the flow exceeds the system’s capacity caused by severe convection storms; or the free flow of water is impeded by blockages. The main sources of potential flood risk are • A failure of the infrastructure of the ditches and stream that occur

within and near to the site. Flooding would occur if culverts were blocked by debris.

• Flooding could also result from a derogation of the carrying capacity of the drains from high intensity rainfall events, particularly at times when the ground is already saturated.

• Overtopping of levels at the soakaways along the A43 could contribute to waters on also flood the site, given the slope of the ground from the A43 towards the site.

There are no historical records of flooding on the site. Downstream Flooding is recorded downstream in Cowpasture Spinney where the flood envelope is narrow, shown as limited to approx 50m either side of the stream course at Cowpasture Spinney; and to the south where the tributary enters the Overstone Park, approximately 3km away. Downstream, the tributary is rated as high risk of flooding, Flood Zone 3 from Cowpasture Spinney downstream through to Northampton and into the River Nene, (Sheet 4 Strategic Northampton Flood Risk Assessment). No proposed developments areas on the west side of the town would be affected.



12

The potential for increased flooding in the downstream parts of the valley would not be significantly increased by the proposals but are considered in respect of the requirements under PPS 25 in Section 8.

7.2 Existing Flood Reduction Measures Drainage System The agricultural land surrounding the site is gently undulating and drained by a network of drainage ditches, many of which are ephemeral during any year. Given that the stream flow and ditches are ephemeral and the water level in the pond is normally well below capacity level, the stream, pond and the surface drains on the site have the capacity to store and contain a degree of storm water in times of high flows. Existing Management of Drains and Stream The length of stream course that crosses the site is monitored on a regular basis and ditching takes place every 6 years. The length of stream is due for ditching this autumn when the foliage has died down. Two sump holes in the pond are cleared every 3 years and were last cleared in 2008. Where the water exits the pond via a short culvert, Culvert 1, the mesh screen is regularly monitored and cleared as necessary. No problems of overflow have been experienced in the last 36 years. The management of the surface water drainage on site would be the responsibility of the owners of the Shooting Ground.

7.3 Impacts to the Development Site

No buildings would permanently occupy the proposed development area of the site and therefore any changes in the existing localised runoff from structures and hard standing would be nil. The development would result in a minor insignificant increase in surface area with an equivalent greenfield runoff rate.

7.4 Impacts From the Development Construction Phase During the construction phase, the existing vegetation would be removed and storm runoff would be more rapid than that which would occur under the current surface vegetation. As a result of the earth moving, there would be an increase in unconsolidated, un-vegetated soil material on site and consequently a



13

potential increase in sediment flow into the stream and potentially through the culvert, Culvert 3. Operational Phase The pre-development pattern of drainage would be amended by drains at the toes of the bunds. The existing surface drainage system, with additional drains in the vicinity, is considered to be adequate for the development provided that it is managed. In the long term, the proposals would not alter the hydraulics of the local drainage system. The vegetation would be re-instated and the development would not change the ability of water to soak into the site. No increase in flood risk would result from the works. The site is not at risk of flooding from the watercourse, the groundwater, overland flow or the artificial drainage system.

7.5 Sequential and Exception Test

The Sequential Risk based test is passed. The proposed development, under Table D3 22 Flood Risk Vulnerability, sits in the low risk category Zone 1. From Table D1, the use of the site for outdoor recreation is compatible to the flood zone category. The proposed development is, therefore, appropriate. There is no requirement for an Exception Test.

8.0 Proposed Flood Reduction Measures Figure 04

8.1 The FRA is required to demonstrate that any potential flood risk to others as a result of the proposed development is managed now and takes climate change into account.

The potential flood risk from the site is low but is considered in the context of exacerbating the existing potential local flooding downstream. In addition, as flooding is unpredictable, the interaction of the effects of a high flow from the site on downstream areas of potential flooding are considered. The runoff within the catchment of this minor tributary can cause flooding further downstream and to avoid contribution from the site to excess flow during storm periods, as a precautionary and preventative measure, appropriate surface water drainage features and management regimes would be put in place to manage surface water.



14

The reduction of potential flood risk in the future is based on three elements: • Management of the existing and new system of drains

• Control of silt and sediment

• Location of a storage area by the stream

8.2 During Construction Prior to earth moving, the existing stream would be cleared of vegetation to maximise flow capacity. During the construction phase, best practice guidelines issued by the Environment Agency to control the flow of silt and sediments into the water course as a result of construction, would be followed. It is recommended that a headwall is constructed at Culvert 3 with a mesh protection.

8.3 During Operation

Management of Existing Ditches, Stream and Culverts

Potentially, the risk of flooding could occur if the capacity of the piped flow and/or the ditches is exceeded or a blockage of the culverts occurs. The management of the stream, ditches and culverts to maintain free flow is essential. A management plan for the stream, culverts and ditches is in operation and will be extended to include all new ditches and drains and will be monitored and maintained on a regular basis. In addition it is recommended that the entrance of Culvert 3 is protected by a mesh screen to avoid debris flowing in to the culvert under the perimeter mound and causing a blockage. Management of Flow Offsite The aim would be to maintain any rapid, excess flow on site within a storage location to prevent nuisance and damage downstream. This would include both water flow and control of sediments. The proposed attenuation area would delay the transmission of water offsite and allow the settlement of sediments. The storage area would be located between the stream and the toe of the bund and created by the lowering of the existing surface to be 0.25m below the existing bank height to the toe of the existing bund. This would provide an additional storage area of 488 square metres with an increase in potential



15

storage volume on site of 122 cubic metres. An inflow point would be created by lowering the bank top at a point 5m below the upstream culvert.

9.0 Additional Considerations 9.1 Effects of Climate Change

PPS25 also requires consideration of the effects of climate change on the risk of flooding at the development site. Annex B of PPS25 provides sensitivity ranges up to the year 2115 that may provide an appropriate precautionary response to the uncertainty about climate change impacts on rainfall intensities and river flow. According to Annex B, the predicted increase in peak rainfall intensity ranges from 5% by 2025 to 30% by 2115. Therefore, the probability of flooding at the site from surface run-off may increase and the potential impacts and reduction measures have been considered against this shift.

Given the existing site conditions and low risk of flooding the proposals to

increase the on-site storage should be sufficient to accommodate the risk from climate change.

9.2 Residual Risk

PPS25 requires that any residual risks after mitigation be safely managed and that the flood risk assessment demonstrates that the residual risk is acceptable for the development. The amount residual risk is acceptable for the type of land use. No residual flood risks are predicted from the re-contouring development.

10.0 Conclusion A Level 1 and Level 2 Flood Risk Assessment has been carried out for development at the Northamptonshire Shooting Ground, Sywell. The site lies within the catchment of the River Nene but lies in the upper reaches of a minor tributary sub-catchment. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25 Development and Flood Risk (DCLG 2006) outlines a risk-based approach to ensure that proposed development is safe and not exposed unnecessarily to flooding. The statement also requires that a development should not increase flood risk elsewhere in the catchment. PPS25 classifies areas of possible flood risk into four zones. The site falls within Zone 1, the zone of Low probability with little or no risk, < 0.1%, of flooding.



16

The development is considered to be a Water-compatible Development and therefore is Appropriate in Zone 1. Based on this assessment it is determined that the development would be acceptable in terms of flood risk and that a Level 3 FRA is not required. The water board has reported that no records exist of flooding from drains or water-logging in the area. No flood risk impacts are predicted to result from the operational phase either on the site or within the surrounding catchment area. The potential for increased rainfall over the next 100 years due to climate change would not significantly affect the flood risk. As a precautionary measure, mitigation to control the flow of excess water from the site is proposed.



17

References British Geological Survey 1977. Hydrogeological Map of England and Wales British Geological Survey. England and Wales Sheet 185 Northampton Solid and Drift Edition British Geological Survey 1989. British Regional Geology Central England Centre for Ecology and Hydrology 2008. Flood Estimation Handbook CIRIA Report 113 Control of Groundwater for Temporary Works CIRIA 2004 Development and Flood Risk Guidance for the Construction Industry. CIRIA Report C624 DCLG 2006. Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk. The Stationery Office DCLG 2006. Planning Policy Statement 25: Practice Guidance Notes Development and Flood Risk. The Stationery Office DEFRA 2005. Making Space for water: A New Government Strategy for Flood and Coastal Erosion Control Risk Management in England – Sustainable Drainage Systems a Summary of Issues DEFRA circular. Preliminary Rainfall Runoff Management for Development Interim Procedure Circular DEFRA W5 – 074/A Environment Agency Nene Valley Catchment Management Plan European Flood Action Programme 2006 Best Practice on Flood Prevention, Protection and Mitigation HMSO 2006. Circular 04/2006 The Town and Country (Flooding) (England) Direction 2007. The Stationery Office Northampton Borough Council 2004. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

PROJECT: J14.09a Sywell

TITLE: LOCAL CATCHMENT BOUNDARY

DATE: OCT 09

SCALE: NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE NO:01

The South WingThe Old Barracks, Sandon Road

Grantham, LincolnshireN 31 9AS

Tel: 01476 569600 Fax: 01476 569633e-mail:

G

admin@landscapescienceconsultancy.co.ukwww.landscapescienceconsultancy.co.uk

Key

RevisionSource: Reproduced under OS Licence Number AL100014007

Site boundary

Local catchment boundary

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.landscapescienceconsultancy.co.uk

Soakaways along A-road A43

12

3

Key

DA

TE: OC

T 09

SCA

LE: NO

T TO SCA

LER

evision

FIGU

RE:

02

TITLE: EXISTIN

G D

RA

INA

GE

PRO

JECT: J14.09a Syw

ell

Proposed site boundary

Ephemeral stream

Ephemeral drainage ditch

PondThe South Wing

The Old B

arracks, Sandon RoadG

rantham, Lincolnshire

NG

31 9AS

01476 569600 Fax: 01476 569633em

ail: admin@

landscapescienceconsultancy.co.ukw

ww

.landscapescienceconsultancy.co.uk

Source: Shyres Rural Ltd Draw

ing No: SR

L.44.09C

Culverted drainage pipe

Stream culvert (1, 2, 3)

PROJECT: J14.09a Sywell

TITLE: POTENTIAL FLOOD AREAS(FOR INFORMATION ONLY)

DATE: Nov 09

SCALE: Not to scale

FIGURE NO:03

The South WingThe Old Barracks, Sandon Road

Grantham, LincolnshireN 31 9AS

Tel: 01476 569600 Fax: 01476 [email protected]

www.landscapescienceconsultancy.co.uk

G

Key

Revision

Extent of flood

Extent of extreme flood

Source: Environment Agency Flood MapsReproduced under OS Licence Number AL100014007

Site boundary

North EastNorthampton

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.landscapescienceconsultancy.co.uk

Key

DA

TE: Nov 09

SCALE: 1:2500 @

A3

Revision

FIGU

RE:

04

TITLE: WA

TER M

AN

AG

EMEN

T PR

OPO

SALS

PRO

JECT: J14.09a Syw

ell

The South Wing

The Old B



NG

31 9AS

01476 569600 Fax: 01476 569633em

ail: admin@


ww


Soakaway drains at base of bank

Additional w

ater storage area

Managed culvert (1, 2, 3)

Length of stream under regular clearance

Survey boundary


ing No: SR

L.44.09C

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE SHOOTING GROUND SYWELL, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY FOR JOHN DRAKE AND CO ON BEHALF OF MR AND MRS MUTTOCK OCTOBER 2009

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE SHOOTING GROUND, SYWELL PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY

Landscape Science Consultancy Ltd L:\LSC\J14.09 Sywell Shooting Ground\Reports\Extended Phase 1 FINAL REV A.doc

2

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 2.0 Site Description 3.0 Legislation and Policy 4.0 Methodology 5.0 Results 6.0 Impacts 7.0 Recommendations 8.0 Conclusion

References Figure 01: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Appendix 1: Target Notes

Report: Ref No: J14.09

Author:

Hilary Ludlow MSc MIEEM CMLI CEnv

Scientific check:

Hilary Ludlow MSc MIEEM CMLI CEnv

Presentation check: Zoe Lewis BA (Hons)

Date: October 2009



3

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Landscape Science Consultancy Ltd (LSC Ltd) was commissioned by John

Drake and Co to conduct an ecological assessment on an area of land at the Northamptonshire Shooting Ground, Sywell, Northamptonshire. The survey was carried out in respect of a planning application. A baseline ecological assessment of site conditions has been undertaken and recommendations for ecological enhancement have been made.

1.2 The aim of the ecological survey was to identify all relevant aspects of

ecology on the development site and assess their relative importance, as well as determining the likely scale and magnitude of ecological impact from the development proposals. A background data search was undertaken.

1.3 An extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the site was undertaken on 1st

October 2009 by principal ecologist Hilary R Ludlow MSc CMLI MIEEM CEnv. This included an examination of key habitats and all potential ecological constraints present on the site, including the presence and potential presence of protected species.

1.4 The impacts of the development proposals are discussed and

recommendations made for mitigation and enhancement. 2.0 Site Description 2.1 The site is located to the south of the A43 main trunk road, at Sywell,

Northamptonshire. The surrounding landscape is rural with arable and pasture fields. There are direct links from the site to the wider landscape through the hedgerows that line the A43 and demarcate the field boundaries.

2.2 The majority of the survey area is grassland with mature and semi-mature

trees and scrub forming the boundaries. There is a balancing pond to the immediate north east of the survey area and a stream runs along the southern boundary of the survey area.

2.3 The site is enclosed on the south and west by high acoustic mounds. 2.4 The location of the site is shown in Map 1 and an aerial photograph with the

extent of the area surveyed is shown in Map 2.



4

Map 1 – Showing the location of the site (indicated by the red circle).

Map 2 – Showing the site in the context of surrounding habitats in the wider landscape

(indicated by the red line).

N



5

3.0 Legislation and Policy

The potentially relevant legislation is summarised below.

3.1 Statutory Legislation

The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended), or the ‘Habitat Regulations’, transposes European Directives into English legislation. Under these regulations, wild animals of a European Protected Species (EPS) and their breeding sites or resting places are protected under Regulation 39. Such wild animals of an EPS include great crested newts and all species of bats. It is an offence to deliberately capture, injure or kill any such animal or deliberately take or destroy their eggs. It is also an offence to damage or destroy a breeding place or resting place of such an animal. Amendments to the ‘Habitat Regulations’ in 2009 have now raised the threshold for deliberately disturbing a wild animal of an EPS. Under Regulation 39, it is now an offence if a person: Deliberately disturbs wild animals of any such species which is likely: (a) To impair their ability - • to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young; or

• in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or

(b) To affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species

to which they belong. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) adds further protection to wildlife in England and Wales under Part 1. It unlawful to intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird or take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst the nest is in use or being built. If the bird is included on the Schedule 1 list, it is additionally an offence to intentionally disturb its nest during the breeding season. Certain species of animal, such as the water vole, are offered ‘full protection’ under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) by being included in Schedule 5 in respect of certain offences under Section 9. Such offences include: 9(1) Intentional killing, injuring or taking of a Schedule 5 animal; 9(4a) Damage to, destruction of, obstruction of access to any structure or

place used by a Schedule 5 animal for shelter or protection;



6

9(4b) Disturbance of a Schedule 5 animal occupying such a structure or place.

Widespread species of native reptiles occurring within England and Wales such as the adder or common lizard are protected against killing and injuring under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) only. Animals of an EPS are now only protected under offences 9(4a) and 9(4b) of Section 9, however the main legislative tool covering EPS’s is under the ‘Habitats Directive’. Badgers are primarily protected by The Protection of Badgers Act 1992, under which it is a criminal offence to willfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger, or to attempt to do so and to intentionally or recklessly interfere with a sett. Sett interference includes disturbing badgers whilst they are occupying a sett, as well as damaging or destroying a sett or obstructing access to it.

3.2 Planning Policy

Planning Policy Statement (PPS9) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation aims ‘to conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of England’s wildlife by sustaining and where possible improving the quality and extent of the natural habitat ….and the populations of naturally occurring species that they support.’ (ODPM, 2005). Under PPS 9 local planning authorities are required to ensure that species are protected from the adverse affects of proposed developments through the use of control measures within the planning system. Where impact would occur to biodiversity interest, the local planning authority must be satisfied that there is no reasonable alternative and that adequate mitigation measures would be in place to result in less or no harm.

3.3 Biodiversity Action Plans

The UK Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) were drafted for ‘Priority’ species and habitats in which specific conservation targets were set and are regularly reviewed. BAP features do not receive any legal protection but have biodiversity value within a national context. The UK BAPs also serve as a framework for local biodiversity conservation efforts. The Biodiversity Plan for Northamptonshire lists the local priority habitats and species for which conservation targets have been developed. There are no habitats or species listed in the Plan that are of potential relevance to this site.



7

4.0 Methodology 4.1 Desktop Study

Natural England’s ‘Nature on the Map’ and the ‘MAGIC’ websites were accessed for locations of statutory nature conservation sites within 1km of the survey site. Northamptonshire Biological Records Centre was consulted with regard to protected species and statutory and non-statutory nature conservation sites within a 1km radius of the survey area.

4.2 Field Surveys

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

Based on the JNCC (2003) guidelines, a walkover of the site was undertaken on 1st October 2009 to identify macro-habitats present and note target points of interest. This method provided an overview of existing communities and associations within the site and points of ecological interest which can then be incorporated into recommendations for the future, developing linkages, reducing fragmentation and strengthening existing habitats. Species lists for the main habitat areas were compiled. Plant nomenclature follows Stace (1997). The UK priority Species/Red Data book/locally important species lists were used to establish national, regional and local status of any rarer plants, animals or invertebrates recorded during the survey. The ecological survey of the site considered all relevant aspects of ecology in order to provide sufficient detail to: • identify and assess the overall habitat pattern of the site and associated

linkages relevant to the proposals, highlighting the terrestrial habitats present;

• assess the current ecological status and sensitivity, particularly in relation to any statutory designations;

• identify presence or possible presence of protected species; • identify constraints to development; • identify any notifiable weeds; • provide recommendations if mitigation is necessary.

4.3 Assessment of Ecological Value and Potential Impacts The ecological value and potential impacts of the survey area are determined

using standard methodology based on the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, as updated by the Interim Advice Note 81/06 (Dft 2006).

This methodology is an accepted method of appraisal which, although

developed for linear sites, is valid when applied to any habitat area (Tables 1, 2 & 3).



8

Table 1. The criteria used for determining the nature conservation value of ecological

features (from DFT 2006).

Value Criteria Examples

Very High High importance and rarity, international scale and limited potential for substitution.

Internationally protected sites and species.

High High importance and rarity, national scale with limited potential for substitution.

National designated sites or regionally important sites with limited potential for substitution. Nationally protected species.

Medium

High or medium importance and rarity, regional scale with limited potential for substitution.

Regionally important sites with potential for substitution or locally designated sites. Species important within a regional context.

Low Low or medium importance and rarity, local scale.

Undesignated sites of some local biodiversity and earth heritage interest. Species of local ecological value.

Negligible Very low importance and rarity, local scale.

Other sites with little or no biodiversity and earth heritage interest.

Table 2. The criteria used for determining the magnitude an ecological impact (DFT 2006).

Magnitude Criteria

Major

• Loss of resource and/or quality and integrity; severe damage to key characteristics, features or elements (Adverse).

• Large scale or major improvement of resource quality; extensive restoration or enhancement; major improvement of attribute quality (Beneficial).

Moderate

• Significant impact on the resource but not adversely affecting the integrity; partial loss of/damage to key characteristics, features or elements (Adverse).

• Benefit to, or addition of, key characteristics, features or elements; improvement of attribute quality (Beneficial).

Minor

• Some measurable change in attributes quality or vulnerability; minor loss of, or alteration to, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements (Adverse).

• Minor benefit to, or addition of, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements; some beneficial impact on attribute or a reduced risk of negative impact occurring (Beneficial).

Negligible

• Very minor loss or detrimental alteration to one or more characteristics, features or elements (Adverse).

• Very minor benefit to or positive addition of one or more characteristics, features or elements (Beneficial).

No change • No loss or alteration of characteristics, features or elements; no observable impact in either direction.



9

Table 3. The criteria used to appraise the overall impact to ecological features (DFT 2006). 5.0 Results 5.1 Desktop Study 5.1.1 Statutory Sites of Nature Conservation Interest

There are no statutory sites of nature conservation interest within 1km radius of the survey area.

5.1.2 Non-Statutory Sites of Nature Conservation Interest There is one non-statutory site of nature conservation interest within 1km of the survey site. This is the Sywell Wood Potential Wildlife Site (pWS).

5.1.3 Protected Species

Records exist for protected species within the 1km search radius. Badgers have historically been recorded along the A43 route corridor, with the last record noted as July 2004.

5.2 Habitats Bunds The area at TN1 is an acoustic bund to the south of the shooting ground. The bund demarcates the survey area, but also extends to the east, marking the southern boundary of the rifle range. The dominant habitat on the bund is disturbed ground with extensive areas of bare ground being colonized by species including rye (Lolium perenne), sterile brome (Anisantha sterilis),

Magnitude of potential

impact Nature conservation value of sites damaged or improved

Very high High Medium Lower Negligible

Major Negative

Very serious adverse

Very serious adverse

Significant adverse

Minor adverse Neutral

Intermediate Negative

Serious adverse

Serious adverse

Significant adverse


Minor Negative

Minor adverse

Minor adverse

Minor adverse


Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral

Positive Major gain Major gain Significant gain Minor gain Neutral



10

false oat grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), rough meadow grass (Poa trivialis) and Timothy (Phleum pratense). Herbs present include scentless mayweed (Tripleurospermum inodorum), creeping cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans) and dock (Rumex sp). Patches of scrub are starting to develop with butterfly bush (Buddleia davidii), elder (Sambucus nigra), creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) and great hairy willow herb (Epilobium hirsutum) present.

Photograph 1. Showing the bund to the south of the survey area Disturbed Ground TN2 is an area of disturbed ground situated between the track and the stream that runs along the southern boundary of the survey area. Many of the species found here are the same as on the adjacent bund, with the addition of species synonymous with disturbed ground including teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), groundsel (Senecio vulgaris), mullein (Verbascum thapsus), mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris) and spurge (Euphorbia sp).

Photograph 2. Area of disturbed ground adjacent to the track



11

Stream The stream at TN3 flows from the balancing pond at TN11. The stream has a width of ~4m from bank-top to bank-top. The banks are steep and the bottom 0.5m is almost vertical. The stream has a depth of ~2m. The stream course is overgrown except at the entrance to the culvert. The bank tops are vegetated with smooth sow-thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium), fleabane (Pulicaria dysenterica), tufted hair grass (Deschampsia cespitosa), hairy tare (Vicia hirsuta) and salad Burnet (Sanguisorba minor). The banks are dominated by mature hawthorn stands, some of which reach up to 8m in height. Other species present include white bryony (Bryonia dioica), bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg) and dogrose (Rosa canina).

Photograph 3. Culvert of stream at TN3

Photograph 4. Stream (TN3) overgrown with vegetation



12

The stream course is heavily shaded by the dense vegetation. Where the light penetrates water mint (Mentha aquatica), watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquatica) and fools parsley (Aethusa cynapium) have established.

Photograph 5. Showing vegetation in the stream course A stand of Portuguese laurel (Prunus lusitanica) has been planted and become well-established at the north-eastern end of the stream, near to the balancing pond. Amenity Grass An area of amenity grass at TN4 dominates the survey area. The sward is actively managed with a regular mowing regime, maintaining a short sward height. Species present within the sward include clover (Trifolium sp), red fescue (Festuca rubra), rye (Lolium perenne), creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) and cocks foot (Dactylis glomerata). At TN5, on the right hand side of the grassland sward, are four newly planted saplings.



13

Photograph 6. Newly planted saplings at TN5 TN6 is a small earth mound within the amenity sward. The mound has a height of approximately 1.75m and is vegetated by tall ruderals with species including creeping thistle, cocksfoot, nettle, hogweed, false oat grass, tufted hair grass, fleabane and dock. Evidence of rabbit activity was noted within the mound, with several holes present.

Photograph 7. Earth mound at TN6 with scrub and ruderal vegetation at the base Perimeter Bund – North East and North West Perimeters Seven Leyland cypress (Cupressocyparis leylandii) are present at the entrance to the site, with three on one side and four on the other. At the foot of the mound are two horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) saplings approximately 2m in height and one ash (Fraxinus excelsior) sapling with a height of approximately 3m. The mound is vegetated by tall ruderals. Evidence of rabbit activity was noted within the mound, with several holes present.



14

Photograph 8. Bund with Leyland cypress at the entrance to the survey site TN8 is an earth bund approximately 2.5m in height, although the height decreases towards the south west (TN9). On the southern (site) side, the bund is vegetated by tall ruderals, dominated by nettle and creeping thistle, with four newly planted eucalyptus saplings, four newly planted horse chestnut saplings and four newly planted ornamental Acer saplings. Also present are two mature, multi-stemmed elder (Sambucus nigra), which have a height of approximately 7m. The northern side of the bund, along the road, is dominated by bramble.

Photograph 9. Earth bund at TN8 The earth mound at TN9 meets TN8 in the north western corner of the survey site. The earth mound supports tall ruderal vegetation, although some areas of the mound show evidence of recent disturbance. Scrub is beginning to naturally regenerate with species present including elder, ash, grey willow (Salix cinerea), eared willow (Salix aurita) and stands of hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna). The scrub has reached a height of approximately 8m.



15

Photograph 10. TN9 Hedge TN10 is a mature hawthorn and blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) dominated hedgeline with a width of approximately 6m and a height that varies along its length. The understorey comprises ruderals and bramble scrub with self-set eared willow and ash saplings. The hedgerow shows evidence of having been laid at some time in the past. A number of ash trees are present along its length with occasional young oak (Quercus robur) stands.

Photographs 11 and 12. Hedge and understorey at TN10 Offsite Pond TN11 is a balancing pond present to the south east corner of the survey area. The pond is fed by a stream that flows along the southern boundary of the rifle range. The pond, in turn, then flows into the stream at TN3. The pond has water lilies present on its surface and fish were noted within the pond at the time of survey.



16

Photograph 13. Pond at TN11

5.3 Species

No evidence of protected species, such as badger, was noted on site at the time of survey. The pond immediately offsite from the development proposals had coarse fish present and was unlikely to support a successful breeding population of great crested newt. The habitats on site, such as the amenity grassland, are sub-optimal habitat for the terrestrial phase of the newt. The rough grass and tall ruderals on the bunds that are to be removed could provide foraging habitat for newts. There are no records of meta-populations of GCNs in the area. The stream course was examined for a potential water vole population. The water level in the stream is regularly very low and the stream would provide sub-optimal habitat for water vole. No evidence of water vole was found at the time of survey. There are no habitats suitable for grass snake on site and no trees sufficiently mature to support bat roosts. A number of rabbit warrens were noted within the bunds on site.

6.0 Impacts

The proposals would result in the removal of the amenity turf and existing low perimeter bunds. The proposals are to create an undulating area for clay pigeon shooting within the grassland, with inert waste material used to create an elevated plateau.



17

The removal of the amenity sward, low perimeter bunds, recently planted saplings and the rank grass with tall ruderals would have a negligible impact on the local biodiversity of the site as a whole. The mature hedge along the dry ditch and the stream would be retained, giving a neutral impact to these habitats. The overall magnitude of the impact of the proposals is therefore assessed from Table 3 as being neutral. The new elevated plateau would be planted with native indigenous trees and shrubs which would enhance the biodiversity of the proposed development area and would increase the contribution of this area to the wider site. In the long term therefore the proposals would have a positive beneficial impact on the site’s biodiversity.

7.0 Recommendations 7.1 Habitats 7.1.1 The mature hedge line with semi-mature trees is an important feature on the

site. Although the proposal is to retain that hedge line, the new bunds would be built up close to the hedge. Compaction of soil within the root zone of the hedge by heavy machinery is therefore a potential risk. In order to avoid any impacts on the retained hedge the following recommendation is made: Recommendation: In all cases consideration should be given to ensuring site works are as far away as possible from retained trees and shrubs within, and along, the development site boundaries. In any instance British Standard (BS) 5837 ‘Guide for Trees in Relation to Construction’ (British Standards Institute 2005) should be followed with regards to working nearby retained trees. Work within a Root Protection Area should be avoided to prevent damage to the root structure of each tree. The protected zone should be clearly demarcated by visible Netlon fencing before work commences. If work must take place within this area it should be undertaken carefully by hand following BS 5837.

7.1.2 The retained stream should be regularly cleared on a five year cycle to control the vegetation growth. An unmanaged buffer of at least 1m width should be retained along the stream bank of uncut vegetation in order to maximise the ecological value of the water course.

7.1.3 In respect of habitat enhancement, the re-contouring of the ground offers

potential for planting a mix of native indigenous trees and shrubs. The planting could be extended up the west facing side of the perimeter acoustic bunds. To ensure that the height of the planting does not exceed requirements from the airport in respect of flight lines, the canopy trees should be planted towards the base of the bunds.



18

Recommendations: i) Following the re-contouring, areas of disturbed ground along the

margins and bunding should be planted with native indigenous shrubs at staggered spacing 2m apart including:

Trees Ash Fraxinus excelsior Aspen Populus tremula Field maple Acer campestre Crab apple Malus sylvestris Goat willow Salix caprea Whitebeam Sorbus aria

Shrubs

Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna Midland Hawthorn Crataegus laevigata Dogwood Cornus sanguinea Wild privet Ligustrum vulgare Holly Ilex aquifolium Blackthorn Prunus spinosa Buckthorn Rhamnus catharticus

ii) To allow for the natural development of a diverse ground flora unplanted

areas should be allowed to re-vegetate naturally which would result in a diverse flora suited to the ground conditions.

iii) Where grass seeding is necessary a wild flower mix could be used that

would respond to close mowing.

7.2 Species

7.2.1 The hedgeline, small trees and areas of scrub have the potential to support breeding birds. Recommendation: To avoid negative impacts to nesting birds any clearance works on site should be conducted outside the bird breeding season (March-September). If works are conducted between March and September a nesting bird survey must be carried out by a qualified ecologist prior to clearance. Any located nests must then be identified and left undisturbed until the young have left the nest.

7.2.2 No evidence of any other protected species was noted on site at the time of survey.

8.0 Conclusion



19

The proposed development would result in the loss of an area of amenity grassland and low bunds vegetated by common widespread tall grasses, tall ruderals, occasional shrubs and conifer trees. Twelve recently planted saplings would also be removed. The ecological value of the habitats to be removed is negligible. The area would be re-contoured with a plateau of raised topography. Recommendations are made for the consideration of trees retained on site, landscaping to enhance the biodiversity of the site, stream management to maximize the ecological value of the water course and protection of breeding birds during the works stage.



20

References BCT (2007) Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation Trust, London British Standards Institute (BSI) (2005). BS 5837 ‘Guide for Trees in Relation to Construction – Recommendations’ HMSO (1981). Wildlife and Countryside Act. HMSO, London HMSO (1994). Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations. HMSO, London HMSO (2000).Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act. HMSO, London JNCC (2007). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey. Peterborough ODPM (2005). Planning Policy Statement (PPS9) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. HMSO, London Stace, C. (1999). Field Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press

Websites: MAGIC www.magic.gov.uk Natural England www.naturalengland.org.uk Northamptonshire Biodiversity Action Plan

http://www.magic.gov.uk

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk



21

APPENDIX 1

TARGET NOTES



22

Target Note Description

TN1

Acoustic bunding dominated by grassland. Grass species include rye (Lolium perenne), sterile brome (Anisantha sterilis) false oat grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), rough meadow grass (Poa trivialis), timothy (Phleum pratense) knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare), creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera) and tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea). Herbaceous species within the sward include scentless mayweed (Tripleurospermum inodorum), sow thistle (Sonchus asper), creeping cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans), dock (Rumex sp), hedge bindweed (Calystegia sepium), great hairy willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum) and creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense). Scrub species encroaching include butterfly bush (Buddleia davidii) and elder (Sambucus nigra).

TN2

An area of disturbed ground between the track and the line of the stream. Grass species include rye (Lolium perenne), sterile brome (Anisantha sterilis) false oat grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), rough meadow grass (Poa trivialis), timothy (Phleum pratense) knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare), creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera) and tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea). Herbaceous species within the sward include scentless mayweed (Tripleurospermum inodorum), sow thistle (Sonchus asper), creeping cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans), dock (Rumex sp), hedge bindweed (Calystegia sepium), great hairy willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum) and creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense). Scrub species encroaching include butterfly bush (Buddleia davidii) and elder (Sambucus nigra). Other species synonymous with disturbed ground include teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), groundsel (Senecio vulgaris), plantain (Plantago media and P. lanceolata), nipplewort, (Lapsana communis), mullein (Verbascum thapsus), mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), field speedwell (Veronica persica), spurge (Euphorbia sp), common mallow (Malva sylvestris), nettle (Urtica dioica), nightshade (Solanum sp) and thorn apple (Datura stramonium).

TN3

Stream that flows from the balancing pond at TN11. The stream has a width of ~4m from bank-top to bank-top. The banks are steep and the bottom 0.5m is almost vertical. The stream has a depth of ~2m. The stream course is overgrown except at the entrance to the culvert. The bank tops are vegetated with smooth sow-thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium), fleabane (Pulicaria dysenterica), tufted hair grass (Deschampsia cespitosa), hairy tare (Vicia hirsuta) and salad Burnet (Sanguisorba minor). The banks are dominated by mature hawthorn stands, some of which reach up to 8m in height. Other species present include white bryony (Bryonia dioica), bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg) and dogrose (Rosa canina). The stream course is heavily shaded by the dense vegetation. Where the light penetrates water mint (Mentha aquatica), watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquatica) and fools parsley (Aethusa cynapium) have established.

A stand of Portuguese laurel (Prunus lusitanica) has been planted and become well-established at the north-eastern end of the stream, near to the balancing pond.

TN4

An area of amenity grass that dominates the survey area. The sward is actively managed with a regular mowing regime, maintaining a short sward height. Species present within the sward include clover (Trifolium sp), red fescue (Festuca rubra), rye (Lolium perenne), creeping thistle (Cirsium



23

Target Note Description

arvense), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) and cocks foot (Dactylis glomerata).

TN5 Four newly planted saplings on the right hand side of the grassland sward.

TN6

Small earth mound within the amenity sward. The mound has a height of approximately 1.75m and is vegetated by tall ruderals with species including creeping thistle, cocksfoot, nettle, hogweed, false oat grass, tufted hair grass, fleabane and dock. Evidence of rabbit activity was noted within the mound, with several holes present.

TN7

Seven Leyland cypress (Cupressocyparis leylandii) at the entrance to the site, with three on one side and four on the other. At the foot of the mound are two horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) saplings approximately 2m in height and one ash (Fraxinus excelsior) sapling with a height of approximately 3m. The mound is vegetated by tall ruderals. Evidence of rabbit activity was noted within the mound, with several holes present.

TN8

Earth bund approximately 2.5m in height, although the height decreases towards the south west (TN9). On the southern (site) side, the bund is vegetated by tall ruderals, dominated by nettle and creeping thistle, with four newly planted eucalyptus saplings, four newly planted horse chestnut saplings and four newly planted ornamental Acer saplings. Also present are two mature, multi-stemmed elder (Sambucus nigra), which have a height of approximately 7m. The northern side of the bund, along the road, is dominated by bramble.

TN9

Earth mound that meets TN8 in the north western corner of the survey site. The earth mound supports tall ruderal vegetation, although some areas of the mound show evidence of recent disturbance. Scrub is beginning to naturally regenerate with species present including elder, ash, grey willow (Salix cinerea), eared willow (Salix aurita) and stands of hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna). The scrub has reached a height of approximately 8m.

TN10

Mature hawthorn and blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) dominated hedgeline with a width of approximately 6m and a height that varies along its length. The understorey comprises ruderals and bramble scrub with self-set eared willow and ash saplings. The hedgerow shows evidence of having been laid at some time in the past. A number of ash trees are present along its length with occasional young oak (Quercus robur) stands.

TN11

Offsite balancing pond present to the south east corner of the survey area. The pond is fed by a stream that flows along the southern boundary of the rifle range. The pond in turn then flows into the stream at TN3. The pond has water lilies present on its surface and fish were noted within the pond at the time of survey.

A

xxxxxxxxx

xxx

++

++

+

++

+

+

+

++

++

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

++

+

+

TN6

TN5

TN3

+

+

+

+

+

+

++

+

+

++

+

+

+

+

++

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

++

++

++

++

+

+

++

++

++

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

++

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

TN1

TN1

TN2

TN9

TN8

TN7

TN4

TN10

TN11

Key

DA

TE: OC

T 09

SCALE: 1:2500 @

A3

Revision

FIGU

RE: 01

TITLE: PHA

SE 1 HA

BITA

T SUR

VEY

PRO

JECT: J14.09 Syw

ell

xx++A

Approxim

ate site boundary

Stream

Earth bund

Pond

Dense scrub

Scattered scrub

Tall and short ephemeral vegetation

Am

enity grassland

Tall ruderal

TreeThe South Wing

The Old B



NG

31 9AS

01476 569600 Fax: 01476 569633em

ail: admin@


ww



ing No: SR

L.44.09C

TN9

Target Note

Planning Statement Sywell Shooting Ground, Sywell ... · Sywell Shooting Ground, Sywell,...

Documents

Transcript of Planning Statement Sywell Shooting Ground, Sywell ... · Sywell Shooting Ground, Sywell,...