REPORT€¦ · WLM-2010-1621 and WLM/2011/1788 during 2010 and 2011 (Golder Associates 2010b)....

October 2013

PLANNING APPLICATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT - CHAPTER 7, ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION

Climafuel Facility at Malpass Farm, Rugby

REPO

RT

Report Number 12514190666.500/A.3

Distribution: Warwickshire County Council - 2 copies (1 pdf) SITA UK Ltd - 2 copies (1 pdf) Golder Associates (UK) Ltd - 1 copy

Submitted to: Warwickshire County Council Shire Hall Warwick CV34 4SA


October 2013 Report No. 12514190666.500/A.3 i

Table of Contents

7.0 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION ........................................................................................................... 1

7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1

7.2 Results .......................................................................................................................................................... 2

7.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 2

APPENDICES APPENDIX A Badger Mitigation Strategy

APPENDIX B Landscape and Ecology Management Plan

APPENDIX C Habitat Protection Plan


October 2013 Report No. 12514190666.500/A.3 1

7.0 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION 7.1 Introduction This report is designed to present a consolidated summary of ecological surveys and reporting outputs in response to the Section 73 Planning Application for the construction of a Climafuel Manufacturing Facility (‘the Facility’) at the Malpass Farm site (‘the Site’). This report will serve to evaluate the existing ecological baseline of the Site and assess whether changes in the design of the Facility as described in Chapter 3 of the Environmental Statement will result in adverse ecological impact.

This report should be read in conjunction with the supporting Golder material pertaining to ecology and referenced herewith. The assessment is based on the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) in the United Kingdom (IEEM, 20061).

Planning permission (Ref: R410/08CM038) for the Facility was granted on 17 November 2010, and the following ecological reports supported this consent:

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd (2008a) Climafuel Manufacturing Facility. Malpass Farm, Rugby, Warwickshire. Chapter 7.1 Ecology Baseline Report. Unpublished report by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd; and

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2008b) Climafuel Manufacturing Facility. Malpass Farm, Rugby, Warwickshire. Chapter 7 Ecology & Nature Conservation. Unpublished report by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd.

The planning permission (Ref: R410/08CM038) detailed a number of planning conditions pertaining to ecology and they include the provision of a badger mitigation strategy (Appendix A), Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) (Appendix B) and a Habitat Protection Plan (HPP) (Appendix C). Additionally, the badger mitigation undertaken at the Site included the delivery of two Natural England exclusion licences Ref: WLM-2010-1621 and WLM/2011/1788. Formal responses from Warwickshire County Council (WCC) ecologists (Becky May and Lois Browne) have resulted in amendments being implemented to both the LEMP (Golder, 2012a) and HMP (Golder 2012b) during May 2013. Furthermore, Site meetings between Golder and Butterfly Conservation have steered ecological mitigation, compensation and enhancement for the Site as prescribed within the revised LEMP and HPP respectively. All conditions precedent attached to the extant permission relating to ecology have now been discharged by Warwickshire County Council.

Post Planning consent ecological reports and Technical Memorandums pertaining to the Site are detailed as follows:

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2010) CEMEX Malpass Farm, Badger Report. Unpublished report by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd;

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2012a) SITA Malpass Farm, Landscape and Ecology Management Plan. Unpublished report by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd;

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2012b) SITA Malpass Farm, Habitat Protection Plan. Unpublished report by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd;

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2012c) SITA Malpass Farm, Badger Survey and Ecology Walkover. Unpublished report by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd;

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2012d) SITA Malpass Farm, Badger Fencing Technical Memorandum by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd (Provided within Appendix A); and

1 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Winchester: IEEM.


October 2013 Report No. 12514190666.500/A.3 2

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2012e) SITA Malpass Farm, Habitat Management and Protective Fencing Technical Memorandum by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd (Provided within Appendix A).

7.2 Results The Site’s ecological attributes are well understood, testament to the level of local recording undertaken owing to the entomological interest created by the calcareous habitats that have developed. In addition, the Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) process, implemented by Golder in order to achieve planning permission, has resulted in a robust mitigation scheme that can be delivered in strict accordance with the LEMP and HPP as prescribed. The driver for this new assessment, the Section 73 application, details modifications to the consented Scheme as defined in Chapter 3. When considering these modifications it is considered that changes with regard to the reduction of the proposed building footprint will not result in any increase in adverse ecological impact. Likewise, the re-configuration of the internal layout to include the roadway, parking and weighbridge location will occur within the prescribed construction footprint and under no circumstances will this result in any incursion to ecologically sensitive receptors at the Site.

7.3 Conclusion Through constructive consultation with stakeholders and WCC, the LEMP (Golder, 2012a) and HPP (2012b) are now considered to be wholly suitable management plans to deliver biodiversity gain within the ecologically sensitive areas throughout the Site. Changes in Facility design associated with the Section 73 Application are not envisaged to detract from the ability of the LEMP and HPP to facilitate this gain and therefore these documents, including all management prescriptions, must be delivered in accordance with the detailed schedules provided.


October 2013 Report No. 12514190666.500/A.3

Report Signature Page

GOLDER ASSOCIATES (UK) LTD

Jon Alsop Timothy Fill Project Manager Reviewer

Date: 11 October 2013

FB/JA/SA/TF/te

Company Registered in England No.1125149 At Attenborough House, Browns Lane Business Park, Stanton-on-the-Wolds, Nottinghamshire NG12 5BL VAT No. 209 0084 92 Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.



APPENDIX A Badger Mitigation Strategy

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd

Golder House, Tadcaster Enterprise Park, Station Road, Tadcaster, North Yorkshire LS24 9JF, UK

Tel: [+44] (0) 1937 837800 Fax: [+44] (0) 1937 837850 www.golder.com

Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America

Company Registered in England No.1125149. At Attenborough House, Browns Lane Business Park, Stanton-on-the-Wolds, Nottinghamshire NG12 5BL VAT No. 209 0084 92 Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

Introduction

This Technical Memorandum serves to consolidate and refresh information regarding badger distribution and

the badger mitigation strategy at Malpass Farm (‘the Site’). The onus on this document is to create an

overarching enforceable mitigation strategy for Site delivery.

A number of ecology reports have previously been produced by Golder Associates, and reference is made to

the following reports:

Golder Associates (2008) CEMEX, Malpass Landfill site, confidential badger report;

Golder Associates (2010a) Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2010a) CEMEX Malpass Farm, Badger

Report;

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd (2010b) CEMEX Malpass Climafuel Facility Method Statement to

Accompany Badger Licence Application;

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2012a) SITA Malpass Farm, Badger Survey and Ecology Walkover;

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2012b) Malpass climafuel- Badger Protective Fence Barrier; and

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2012c) SITA Malpass Farm, Habitat Protection Plan. Unpublished report

by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd.

Legislation

The badger Meles meles is protected in the UK under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended).

The law offers considerable protection to both badgers and badger setts. Not only is it an offence to cruelly

ill treat, kill or take badgers, but it is also illegal to damage or disturb the badger sett, obstruct the access or

entrance, or cause a dog to enter the sett while the sett is still occupied. The definition of ill treatment is no

longer limited to the direct killing of badgers, but can be taken to include the destruction or severance of

large areas of foraging territory.

Licences can be granted to disturb badgers in respect of development. Guidance from Natural England

(2009)1 ‘Interpretations of ‘Disturbance’ in relation to badgers occupying a Sett’ provides greater clarity of

activities which may need a licence. Natural England advice identifies that badgers can be relatively tolerant

of moderate levels of noise and activity around their setts and that even moderate levels of ‘disturbance’ may

not actually disturb the badger occupying the sett. Therefore licences should only be sought were the

1 Natural England (2009) Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended). Interpretation of ‘Disturbance’ in relation to badgers occupying a sett. Available online:

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/WMLG16_tcm6-11814.pdf. [Accessed in August 2012].

DATE 6 June 2013 PROJECT NO. No. 12514190331.506

TO Corrina Scott-Roy SITA

CC

FROM Adele Antcliff EMAIL [email protected]

SITA MALPASS FARM, BADGER MITIGATION STRATEGY

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/WMLG16_tcm6-11814.pdf

Corrina Scott-Roy 12514190331.506

SITA 6 June 2013

2/3

activity will in fact disturb a badger, such as high levels of noise/activity around a sett, damaging a sett or

obstructing access to a sett.

Licences to disturb badger setts in respect of development may be issued by Natural England, if the

applicants can convince the licensing authority of the necessity for the proposed action. Natural England

has produced useful guidelines for development activities within a given range of a sett which may require a

licence (English Nature, 2002)2:

Using very heavy machinery (generally tracked vehicles) within 30 m of any entrance to an active sett;

Using lighter machinery (generally wheeled vehicles), particularly for any digging operation, within 20 m;

and

Light work such as hand digging or scrub clearance within 10 m.

Some activities such as the use of explosives or pile driving may cause disturbance at greater distances and

require individual consideration.

Field Survey

A number of badger surveys have been undertaken at the Site in 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2012 (Golder

Associates 2008, 2010a and 2012). The former location of Sett A is shown on Drawing 1. This was an

outlier sett, situated within the consented Facility footprint that was closed and destroyed under licences

WLM-2010-1621 and WLM/2011/1788 during 2010 and 2011 (Golder Associates 2010b). During 2012

surveys of the area formerly associated with this sett was found to be free of any holes, though signs of

exploratory digging, likely to be by badger as defined by the presence of badger hair, were recorded within

the vicinity of sett A as illustrated by photos in Drawing 1.

The survey in 2012 revealed that the main sett (sett B) located on a chalk mound indicated on Drawing 1,

remains active although only two of the fourteen entrances showed signs of recent spoil heap development

and badger hair. In accordance with previous surveys a number of well-used paths radiate out from the sett

to the areas of rank grassland toward the north and east of the sett. This sett is situated approximately 40 m

outside of the consented Facility footprint.

Field signs in the form of badger latrines and pathways were recorded throughout the Site (refer Drawing 1).

Mitigation Strategy

The current distribution of badger within the Site will dictate that adverse impacts to this species are avoided.

However, should badger re-colonise in the old footprint of sett A, direct and indirect impacts to badger would

be experienced and badger would need to be excluded once more under the auspices of a Natural England

badger exclusion licence.

To prevent badgers re-excavating the land surrounding the old sett A, in November 2012 this area has been

‘ring fenced’ using badger proof fencing. This work is designed to provide a physical barrier to prevent

re-colonisation and this work will be stringently monitored in order to review the soundness of the installation

and also to assess whether badger have attempted to re-excavate this part of the Site.

To compensate for the loss of badger foraging habitat, the habitat retained within proximity to the main

badger sett (Sett B) will be managed in a sensitive manner for badgers. Accordingly, the riparian habitat

towards the north of the Site will be managed as grassland with occasional patches of scrub. Furthermore

the clay mound will be managed in a sensitive way, by clearing areas of dense scrub to promote the

establishment of larger areas of grassland, which can provide a local and valuable source of bedding and

earthworms. Planting of native fruit bearing shrubs, associated with the broader Site landscaping, will also

benefit badger by providing additional forage and linear habitat connectivity features. The retained main sett

has been afforded additional protection by the placement of a protective barrier ‘stock’ fence as illustrated in

Drawing 2 and 4 (Golder, 2012c).

2 English Nature (2002) Badgers and Development. English Nature

Corrina Scott-Roy 12514190331.506

SITA 6 June 2013

3/3

Any excavations undertaken during the construction works will be backfilled or securely covered at the end

of each working day. If this is impracticable then ramps will be installed to allow badgers to climb out.

Simple ramps or ladders will be constructed from planks of wood with strapping and timber batons attached

at perpendicular angles to provide footing for badgers. The ramp or ladder will be placed at an angle of no

more than 45O. Where installation of ramps is not possible, badger proof fences will be erected around any

significant voids.

Badger Monitoring

A programme of monitoring badgers will be conducted throughout the development. Areas of suitable

habitat (i.e. field boundaries, grassland and ditch banks) will be inspected for signs of badger every 6 months

until the construction is complete. Thereafter monitoring will be undertaken at a suitable time of year, once

every two years.

Adele Antcliff Jon Alsop Ecologist Project Manager AA/FB&JA/cr

© Golder Associates (UK) Ltd

1 Alie StreetLondonE1 8DE

+44 (0)20 7423 0940

Scale

Project

Title

File No.

Status

Project No.

Drawing No. Rev

Client

Proj Manager ReviewerCreated by DateRequested by

SizeA3

SITA

Malpass

Badger Survey and Distribution

TS FB SJS JF 24/08/12519511 12514190331

1:2,000 Reprt Issue

01 -

Legend:

Consented Planning App. BoundaryBuilding footprintBadger sett locationBadger sett closed under licenceBadger pathwaysLatrines



APPENDIX B Landscape and Ecology Management Plan

June 2013

SITA MALPASS CLIMAFUEL FACILITY

Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP)

RE

PO

RT

Report Number. 12514190331.501/A.2

Distribution:

SITA UK - 1 copy (pdf)

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd - 1 copy

Submitted to:

SITA UK SITA House Grenfell Road Maidenhead Berks SL6 1ES

LANDSCAPE AND ECOLOGY MANAGEMENT PLAN

June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background and Context of the Landscape and Ecology Management Plan ............................................... 1

1.2 Management Plan Review ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Scope, Purpose and Structure of the Landscape and Ecology Management Plan ....................................... 1

1.3.1 Scope and Purpose................................................................................................................................. 1

1.3.2 Structure of the LEMP ............................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND POLICY ................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 Biodiversity Action Plans and Relevant Planning Policy ............................................................................... 2

2.2 Nature Conservation Designations ............................................................................................................... 3

3.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND FEATURES ............................................................................................ 4

3.1 General Information ...................................................................................................................................... 4

3.1.1 Ownership/Tenure................................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Environmental Information ............................................................................................................................ 5

3.2.1 Physical ................................................................................................................................................... 5

3.3 Flora and Fauna ........................................................................................................................................... 5

3.3.1 Habitats and Flora ................................................................................................................................... 5

3.3.2 Mammals ................................................................................................................................................ 6

3.3.3 Birds ........................................................................................................................................................ 6

3.3.4 Amphibians and Reptiles ........................................................................................................................ 6

3.3.5 Invertebrates ........................................................................................................................................... 7

3.4 Evaluation of Existing and Potential Features .............................................................................................. 7

3.4.1 Existing Features .................................................................................................................................... 7

3.4.1.1 Malpass Quarry Ecosite ....................................................................................................................... 7

3.4.1.2 River Avon and Sow Brook .................................................................................................................. 8

3.4.2 Potential Features ................................................................................................................................... 8

3.4.2.1 Floodplain grassland ............................................................................................................................ 8

3.4.2.2 Planted Woodland and Newly Created Grassland ............................................................................... 9

3.4.2.3 Proposed Lagoon ................................................................................................................................ 9

3.5 Confirmed List of Habitat Management Features ....................................................................................... 10

3.6 Proposed Management Zones.................................................................................................................... 10

3.7 Structure for Habitat Management Feature Entries .................................................................................... 11


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 ii

4.0 FEATURE 1: SPECIES-RICH GRASSLAND/SCRUB MOSAIC ............................................................................. 11

4.1 Summary Description of Feature ................................................................................................................ 11

4.2 Summary of Mitigation Strategy Relevant to the Feature ........................................................................... 12

4.3 Management Objective ............................................................................................................................... 12

4.4 Management Projects ................................................................................................................................. 15

5.0 FEATURE 2: RIVERINE HABITATS ....................................................................................................................... 17





6.0 FEATURE 3: FLOODPLAIN GRASSLAND ............................................................................................................ 20





7.0 FEATURE 4: WOODLAND ...................................................................................................................................... 24





8.0 FEATURE 5: WATERBODIES ................................................................................................................................ 26





9.0 MANAGEMENT AND OTHER OBJECTIVES APPLICABLE TO ALL FEATURES ............................................... 28

9.1 Non-native Invasive Plant Removal ............................................................................................................ 28

9.2 Reporting .................................................................................................................................................... 29

9.3 Legislative Compliance ............................................................................................................................... 29

10.0 ACTION PLAN ......................................................................................................................................................... 32

11.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 33


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 iii

TABLES

Table 1: BAP Species and Habitats Relevant to the Site .................................................................................................... 3

Table 2: Ecosite Citations .................................................................................................................................................... 4

Table 3: BAP Habitats Associated with Habitat Management Features ............................................................................ 10

Table 4: Management Projects for Feature 1: Scrub Cutting ............................................................................................ 15

Table 5: Management Projects for Feature 2: Riverine Habitats ....................................................................................... 19

Table 6: Management Projects for Feature 3: Floodplain Grassland ................................................................................ 22

Table 7: Management Projects for Feature 4: Woodland .................................................................................................. 25

Table 8: Management Projects for Feature 5: Waterbodies .............................................................................................. 27

Table 9: Management Projects Applicable to all Features ................................................................................................ 29

Table 10: Action Plan ........................................................................................................................................................ 32

APPENDICES

DRAWINGS Drawing 1: Site Location Plan

Drawing 2: Management Zones

APPENDIX A Relevant Wildlife Legislation

APPENDIX B Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Drawing 3)


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Context of the Landscape and Ecology Management Plan

The Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (‘the LEMP’) has been developed in accordance with the

granting of planning permission reference R410/08CM038 on 17 November 2009 for the construction of a

Fuel Preparation Plant (‘the Facility’) at the Malpass Farm Site (‘the Site’). Planning Condition 7 as detailed

below defines this requirement as follows:

Condition 7: The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced, including site clearance, until a

landscape and ecology management plan has been submitted and approved in writing by the County

Planning Authority. The plan should follow the recommendations set out in Chapter 7 of the Environmental

Statement and those of Butterfly Conservation in Appendix 7-3, it must include details of ground preparation,

planting plans, and a program of implementation and management for areas of habitat creation, to be

supervised by a suitably qualified ecologist. The plan must also include details of the proposed management

of the existing habitats and monitoring for the whole site for at least five years. The plan must thereafter be

implemented in full.

Reason: In order to ensure the habitat creation and management measures are implemented successfully

and to ensure that enhancement for protected species is implemented, in accordance with PPS9.

1.2 Management Plan Review

This LEMP is based on a five-year strategy. The Facility will operate beyond five years; as such it will be

necessary to periodically review and update the LEMP. Thus, every five years site audits should be

undertaken to review the LEMP and address any major issues or changes at the Site, in consultation with the

County Planning Authority. This review would target for instance, objectives which are not being met.

In addition to the five year review, in order to keep the Management Plan updated and relevant to site

operations, an annual review will also be carried out, and a summary report produced. This will be an

opportunity to report on the status of features, informed by the on-going surveys and monitoring events.

Allied with this, the five-yearly and annual reviews will also enable a process of fine-tuning, allowing for the

alteration or addition of new management projects to the work programme for subsequent years.

1.3 Scope, Purpose and Structure of the Landscape and Ecology Management Plan

1.3.1 Scope and Purpose

The purpose of the LEMP is to set objectives for, and guide the establishment of biodiversity features at the

Site covering all important habitats and species. The LEMP will also define the positive management and

monitoring required to maintain these features at a favourable conservation status. The importance of this is

underlined by the requirement to maintain habitat connectivity with the six Ecosites that occur within or

adjacent to the Site. As defined within Condition 7, the LEMP will detail management prescriptions for five

years after practical completion of the construction phase.

1.3.2 Structure of the LEMP

In order to facilitate environmental management for the Site the LEMP will be structured in a standard format,

as follows:

Section 1 provides context to the development and the planning conditions relevant to the

management of habitats on the Site;

Section 2 outlines the relevant legislation and policy;


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 2

Section 3 provides a general description of the Site and its existing features of biodiversity value.

Based on existing features and future vision of biodiversity for the Site it considers and proposes

Habitat Management Features;

Sections 4 to 9 describes in detail the Habitat Management Features, which include achievable

management targets and realistic management projects for each of these features; and

Section 10 provides an Action Plan which lists all Management Projects and indicates the timing and

year in which they are to be carried out.

The LEMP will be prepared in advance of construction, in consultation with the landscape consultant, County

Ecologist, Warwickshire Wildlife Trust and Butterfly Conservation Warwickshire.

2.0 RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND POLICY

A level of statutory protection is afforded to specific species, largely as a consequence of dramatic declines

in populations caused by habitat loss and/or degradation (both direct and indirect impacts) and persecution.

The various statutes which provide this protection include the following:

The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended);

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010;

The Protection of Badgers Act 1992; and

The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996.

Of particular relevance to the Malpass Site is protection for certain species described in Appendix A.

2.1 Biodiversity Action Plans and Relevant Planning Policy

National Planning Policy

In March 2012 the Government published a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which sets out

national planning policies for England and how they should be applied by local planning authorities. The

NPPF condenses over 1000 pages of national planning policy into a single 59 page document and replaces

the existing suite of national Planning Policy Statements, including Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity

and Geological Conservation (PPS9, 2005). A core principle of the NPPF is a clear “presumption in favour of

sustainable development” both in plan-making and decision-taking, putting the need to balance mutually

dependent economic, social and environmental goals at the heart of planning.

Regional and Local Policy

Regional planning policy is set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands published in

January 2008 (West Midlands Regional Assembly, 2008). At a local level, planning policy is set out in the

Rugby Borough Local Plan (Rugby Borough Council, 2006). Policies E2, E6, E7, E8, and E9 relate to Nature

Conservation and Geology. The Ecology Chapter of the ES (Golder, 2008b) provides further details on

these policies.

Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs)

In 1994, the UK Government published Biodiversity: the UK Action Plan, in response to the 1992 Rio

Convention (BRIG, 2007). The UK Biodiversity Action Plan describes the UK’s biodiversity and commits a

detailed plan for the protection of this. The UK Biodiversity Partnership conducts reviews of priority habitats

and species (a major review was completed in 2007). The UK BAP priorities are used at country based

through to local geographic levels to assist determination of local priority species and habitats and

conservation action. In England, the UK BAP is primarily delivered through the England Biodiversity


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 3

Strategy, which was launched in 2002 and regularly monitors changes in the state of the priority species and

habitats (Defra, 2002).

At the local level, action to promote biodiversity conservation is coordinated by the Warwickshire, Coventry

and Solihull Local BAP. Local BAPs work on the basis of partnership between statutory and non-statutory

conservation organisations to identify local priorities and to determine the contribution they can make to the

delivery of the national Species and Habitat Action Plan targets. The Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull

Local BAP outline how landowners, land-managers and policy makers will protect the characteristic wildlife

and landscapes of this region. The plan contains 26 Species Action Plans that have been chosen because

of their threatened status or because important national strongholds occur. 24 Habitat Action Plans have

been described, covering farmland, woodlands, wetlands, grasslands, urban areas and post-industrial land.

Habitats and species that are included in the UK BAP and Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull Local BAP,

and are relevant to the Malpass Site, have been identified in Table 1.

Table 1: BAP Species and Habitats Relevant to the Site

Habitat Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)

UK BAP Priority Local BAP

Unimproved Calcareous Grassland

Unimproved Neutral Grassland

Scrub

Broad-Leaved Semi-natural Woodland

Hedgerows

Roadside Verge

Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land

Quarries and Gravel Pits

Rivers and Streams

Swamp

Species UK BAP Priority Local BAP

otter

Grass snake

bullfinch

reed bunting

song thrush

dingy skipper

grizzled skipper

2.2 Nature Conservation Designations

Statutory

There are no statutory sites local to the Site that are relevant to the production of the LEMP.

Non-Statutory

A number of sites recognised for their nature conservation importance have been designated (and receive

protection) as non-statutory Ecosites1 for wildlife in the Rugby Borough Local Plan (Rugby Borough Council,

2006). A number of Ecosites, which are Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) or potential Local Wildlife Sites (pLWS’s),

have been designated on and adjacent to the Site. These are included in Table 2 below:

1 Ecosites are now known as Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) within the County of Warwickshire


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 4

Table 2: Ecosite Citations

Ecosite Name Description (summarised from latest, unpublished information supplied by Warwickshire Museum Field Services)

10/47 (LWS)

River Avon

This site includes the river and its adjacent bank side habitat and associated tributaries which function as a valuable wildlife corridor.

05/47 (pLWS)

Malpass Quarry/ Victoria Quarry Rugby Portland Cement Works

This site consists of two areas north and south of the railway line, of which the southern part has been reworked and an aftercare scheme established covering part of this. The value of the site may re-develop in future years and there are pockets of interest remaining which need additional monitoring and assessment. Existing habitats include semi-improved neutral and calcareous grasslands, dense and scattered scrub, semi-natural broadleaved woodland and swamp and standing water in the base of the quarry. There are some areas of tall ruderals and areas of improved grasslands grazed by cattle and horses. The River Avon runs westward to the north of Malpass quarry. There is an old spoilbank that has been recolonised by calcicolous flora, which is now becoming invaded by scrub. Species include bee orchid Ophrys apifera and common spotted orchid Dactylorhiza fuchsii and hybrids of these, cowslip Primula veris, wild parsnip Pastinaca sativa and fairy flax Linum catharticum. The site is of high importance for butterflies.

4/47

(pLWS) Rugby to Nuneaton Railway

Forms part of the Easenhall Railway Cutting. This is an active railway line with limited survey information. Phase 1 survey in 1998 described the cutting as composed of broad-leaved woodland, dominated by pioneer tree species.

09/47

(pLWS) Parkfield Quarry

Site of district/county value and selected as a pLWS and a Regionally Important Geological Site (RIGS). Habitats include bare ground, cliff face, tall herb, scrub, open water and swamp. Notable for regional rare plants and diversity of invertebrates.

71/47 (pLWS)

Parkfield Road Verge

Contains plant species listed as county rarities.

91/47 (pLWS)

Railway - London to Birmingham Mainline

Site of high parish value for nature conservation, noted for its potential to support a notable assemblage of birds, invertebrates and mammals. Survey information is sparse due to access problems of an active railway.

3.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND FEATURES

3.1 General Information

The Site (shown in Drawing 1) is located at National Grid Reference (NGR) SP 489761, approximately

1.6 km west of Rugby Town Centre, and covers a total area of approximately 14 ha. It borders the West

Coast Main Railway Line and residential land to the north, Parkfield Road and an industrial estate to the

east, the London to Birmingham Main Railway Line and CEMEX (Rugby Cement Works) to the south and the

River Avon to the west. The majority of the Site was previously a quarry operated by Rugby Cement, which

has subsequently been filled with Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) and covered with 300 mm of clay and topsoil. A

conveyor will link CEMEX’s existing Cement Works facility with the Climafuel Facility which will run

north – south, crossing the London to Birmingham Main Railway Line at 90 degrees. The original ground

elevations exist on the Site, between the old quarry and Parkfield Road.

3.1.1 Ownership/Tenure

The Site is owned by CEMEX.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 5

3.2 Environmental Information

3.2.1 Physical

The Site is situated in the “Midland Clay Pastures” Natural Area, which is comprised of both rural and urban

areas and includes Rugby and the neighbouring towns of Warwick, Banbury and Daventry. The landscape

in this Natural Area is low lying and is characterised by farmland (arable land and improved pasture)

supporting features such as hedgerows, mature trees, road verges, ponds and watercourses.

3.3 Flora and Fauna

A detailed ecological survey of the Site was completed in 2008 and subject of an Ecological Impact

Assessment:

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd (2008a) Climafuel Manufacturing Facility. Malpass Farm, Rugby,

Warwickshire. Chapter 7.1 Ecology Baseline Report. Unpublished report by Golder Associates (UK)

Ltd; and

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2008b) Climafuel Manufacturing Facility. Malpass Farm, Rugby,

Warwickshire. Chapter 7 Ecology and Nature Conservation. Unpublished report by Golder Associates

(UK) Ltd.

A separate ecological survey of the area to the south of the Site, around the proposed conveyor was also

carried out in 2009 (Golder, 2009).

The following sections summarise the ecology of the Site and proposed mitigation, based on the above

reports.

3.3.1 Habitats and Flora

A Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map showing baseline habitat distribution is presented in Appendix B. In order of

area coverage, the Site (together with the adjacent areas up to 200 m from the Application Boundary and the

areas along the River Avon and the Sow Brook) comprises the following habitats:

1) Dense scrub and scattered scrub, dominated by hawthorn Crataegus monogyna and dog-rose Rosa

canina;

2) Poor semi-improved grassland covers the area between the Site and the River Avon and is dominated

by rank, species-poor grassland with areas of tall ruderal vegetation;

3) Unimproved neutral grassland includes extensive species-poor unmanaged neutral grassland,

dominated by false oat grass Arrenatherum elatius and encroached by hawthorn scrub. Species-rich

unimproved neutral grassland (MG1 – Arrhenatherum elatius NVC community type) is present in a band

between the west boundary of the Planning Application Area and the areas of dense scrub; and

species-rich unimproved neutral grassland grazed by rabbits (resembles MG6 – Lolium perenne-

Cynosurus cristatus) on the mound to the southwest of the Site;

4) Bare ground covers the majority of the eastern side of the Planning Application Area, and a steep bank

to the south of the Site, beyond the railway line; this has some ephemeral vegetation present;

5) Broad-leaved semi-natural woodland covers the chalk spoil mound to the south of the Site and is

dominated by willow trees;

6) Species-rich unimproved calcareous grassland is present on chalk mounds to the south of the Site,

which most closely resembles CG1 – Festuca ovina-Carlina vulgaris grassland NVC type;

7) Two lagoons are present to the south of the Site, beyond the railway line. The larger, more linear

waterbody (to the east) is an active water storage and pumping lagoon. It has a deep layer of silt and

has very little vegetation with the exception of a fringe of common reed Phragmites australis on the

western bank. A smaller, more circular waterbody is to the west. This has a greater coverage of


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 6

marginal vegetation, which includes common reed, reedmace Typha latifolia and overhanging

hawthorn; and

8) Other habitats include tall ruderal vegetation along the River Avon and in patches within the grassland

areas, ephemeral/short perennial vegetation on the railway ballast and swamp vegetation along the

River Avon.

Linear habitats are also present within the Site:

i) Species-rich hedgerow marks an old field boundary that is to the west of Parkfield Road;

ii) Species-poor hedgerow marks the northwest of the Planning Application Boundary;

iii) The River Avon flows in a southwest direction past the western boundary of the Site. Abundant

macrophyte vegetation includes emergent and floating plant species; and

iv) The Sow Brook meanders beneath an open canopy of hawthorn scrub with scattered willow, before

flowing into the River Avon.

The development of the proposed Facility will result in losses primarily of species-poor, unmanaged

grassland and areas of scattered scrub. To offset these losses a series of proposals for habitat creation will

be implemented across the Site extending north towards the River Avon and west across the Malpass

Ecosite. The range of proposals includes measures to protect existing sensitive habitats of nature

conservation value and to further increase the area of species-rich grassland (neutral and calcareous).

Subsequent management of these habitats would secure their continued nature conservation value into the

future. A lagoon will also be created that provides habitat for wetland flora and fauna to the north of the Site,

whilst the two lagoons to the south would also be favourably managed to attain nature conservation targets.

3.3.2 Mammals

Badger – Survey results and mitigation is presented in the Confidential Badger Report,the Badger Survey

and Ecology Walkover and the Badger Mitigation Strategy (Golder, 2010, 2012b and 2013).

Otter – There is evidence of otter to the north of the Site, on the River Avon. This was limited to an old

spraint that was observed at one of the railway bridges, located to the northwest of the Site boundary. Whilst

the development of the proposed Facility will not directly impact on the River Avon, or otter, habitat

management along the riparian zone of the River would undoubtedly benefit the potential for this species to

reside close to the Site.

3.3.3 Birds

A total of 33 bird species were recorded from the Site during surveys undertaken in 2008. Of these, six were

Amber List species (green woodpecker Picus viridis, willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus, hedge accentor

Prunella modularis, swallow Hirundo rustica, house martin Delichon urbica and kestrel Falco tinnunculus)

and four were Red List and UK BAP species (starling Sturnus vulgaris, reed bunting Emberiza schoeniculus,

bullfinch Pryhulla pryhulla, and song thrush Turdus philomelos). All these species, except swallow, house

martin, kestrel and starling, were breeding at the Site.

Areas of habitat within the Site particularly suitable for breeding birds are the rank grassland, the areas of

dense and continuous scrub and the areas of willow scrub and marginal vegetation alongside the River

Avon. The proposed management of scrub on the clay mound of the Malpass Ecosite and also along the

fringes of the River Avon will increase structural diversity and floral diversity to the benefit of a greater range

of breeding bird species.

3.3.4 Amphibians and Reptiles

Surveys undertaken during September and October 2007 confirmed likely absence of reptiles. However,

during the badger survey of June 2010 a grass snake Natrix natrix skin or ‘slough’ was noted under a tin

within the rank grassland centrally on the site. The closest desk based reptile record adder Vipera berus

was from the Rugby to Nuneaton Railway, which borders the Site to the north. It is therefore considered that


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 7

a small population of reptiles (grass snake) occurs at the Site, at such a low level that they are difficult to

detect. Habitat management, especially in riparian areas and lowland grassland habitats will benefit grass

snakes, which use these habitats in which to feed and lay eggs.

3.3.5 Invertebrates

During surveys undertaken in 2008, a total of 103 species of Coleoptera (beetles) were recorded, which

include nine locally distributed beetle species and one Nationally Scarce beetle species, Longitarsus

dorsalis, which is associated with flowers of the Asteraceae (daisy) family. Incidental recording of

Hymenoptera (sawflies, ants, bees and wasps) uncovered the nationally scarce red ant Myrmica shencki, a

subterranean species associated with flowers of calcareous habitats and regarded as nationally rare, that is

a new record to Warwickshire. One hundred and sixty five species of Lepidoptera (moths) were recorded,

with three nationally scarce and four locally distributed species. The majority of these are found in

calcareous districts. The desk study also revealed recent records of numerous regionally scarce species of

butterfly, including the grizzled skipper Pyrgus malvae, green hairstreak Callophrys rubi and marbled white

Melanargia galathea. Of particular note is the population of grizzled skipper, as this species is closely

associated with the plants and microclimate of the chalk and clay mounds at the Site. The proposed Facility

brings a range of opportunities to promote invertebrate diversity at the Site. Species-rich habitat creation

surrounding the Facility, especially of short calcareous grassland, will benefit a range of invertebrates,

especially butterflies.

3.4 Evaluation of Existing and Potential Features

In line with the guidance provided in the Countryside Management System Guidelines (Alexander, 2005), the

existing nature conservation features at the Site are consolidated into a list of Habitat Management Features:

‘Management planning for nature conservation requires a focus. In theory, it might be possible to write a

single, all-encompassing objective for an entire site. In practice, this would be an unwieldy statement, so

complex that it is unlikely we would be able to recognise, or deal with, the detail.’

‘The approach adopted is to identify a range of the most important features and use these as a focus for the

entire plan (Alexander, 2005).’

Section 3.4.1 below presents an evaluation of the existing nature conservation features at the Site. These

are the features that were included in the Ecological Impact Assessment for the Site (Golder, 2008b). Each

feature is considered in turn and a rationale is introduced, where appropriate, for the inclusion, omission or

splitting of the feature in order to facilitate its management. Additional features which have potential (but no

current) significant ecological value are presented in section 3.4.2. Both existing and potential features are

then consolidated into a list of confirmed Habitat Management Features, presented in Section 3.5.

3.4.1 Existing Features

3.4.1.1 Malpass Quarry Ecosite

Malpass Quarry Ecosite forms part of the south and south west of the Site, and extends beyond the site

boundary to the south. It supports a mosaic of UK BAP and Local BAP habitats, including unimproved

neutral grassland, unimproved calcareous grassland, broad-leaved semi-natural woodland, scattered/dense

scrub and an overgrown species-rich hedge. These occur on chalk and clay substrata which are a legacy of

historical quarrying and land filling activities. Generally, the habitats of the Ecosite are located 10 - 20 m

above the River Avon, and are not subject to flooding. The areas of neutral and calcareous grassland

provide important habitat for thermophilous (warmth-loving) invertebrates at the Site, for example supporting

the grizzled skipper Pyrgus malvae and dingy skipper Erynnis tages butterfly, both UK BAP priority species,

and several nationally scarce and locally distributed moth and beetle species. Part of the value of the

Ecosite for these and other species derives from the mosaic of scrub and open areas that is present.

However, the current habitat is sub-optimal for thermophilous invertebrates, due to the large extent of scrub

and associated shading of basking sites and loss of food plants in the ground flora. If natural succession is

allowed to continue, the conservation interest of the Site for this suite of invertebrates will potentially

disappear. Hence this feature has significant potential for improvement through appropriate management.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 8

In addition to its value for invertebrates, the Ecosite supports a number of breeding UK BAP bird species

bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula, reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus and song thrush Turdus philomelos and

hedge accentor Prunella modularis, and plant species which are locally distributed in Warwickshire (common

milkwort Polygala vulgaris, blue fleabane Erigion acer, rough hawkbit Leontodon hispidus, carline thistle

Carlina vulgaris, fairy flax Linum catharticum and salad burnet Sanguisorba minor). The Ecosite provides

linking habitat between five adjacent Ecosites: the Rugby to Nuneaton Railway Ecosite (to the north); the

River Avon and Sow Brook Ecosites (to the north and west); the London to Birmingham Railway (to the

south) and the Parkfield Road Verge Ecosite (to the west).

The Malpass Quarry Ecosite was considered to be of county importance for its biodiversity value in the

Ecological Assessment of the Site. The area within the Planning Application Boundary, which excludes the

key areas of invertebrate and botanical interest, is of lower value and was assessed as of borough

importance. The key impact upon the Ecosite that was identified was the loss of the 4.6 ha within the

Planning Application Boundary, and a deterioration in habitat value of an area of chalk mound due to

shading. Mitigation proposed included the construction of compensation habitat in the north of the Site, and

habitat management across the remaining Ecosite, consisting primarily of reducing the proportion of scrub.

This feature will be taken forward as Habitat Management Feature 1: SPECIES-RICH GRASSLAND/SCRUB

MOSAIC. In addition to the Malpass Quarry Ecosite, this will also include a proposed area of raised

calcareous mounds and planted grassland in the north of the Site, and an additional area of existing

grassland and scrub on CEMEX land to the south of the Site. The extent of this feature is indicated as

Zone 1 in Drawing 2.

3.4.1.2 River Avon and Sow Brook

The River Avon forms the north western boundary of the Site. Sow Brook is a tributary which flows to the

west of the Site and enters the River Avon there. Both represent UK BAP habitat. The river Avon is an

important ecological feature in its own right: it provides habitat for a range of aquatic species, is an important

wildlife corridor across the region, and supports various downstream habitats associated with the river (and

ultimately with the lower reaches of the River Severn, which it joins). Field signs of otter Lutra lutra have

been recorded from the River Avon just beyond the northern boundary the Site. This is a UK BAP species,

and protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats

and Species Regulations 2010. Two large crack willows Salix fragilis on the southern bank of the River Avon

have moderate/low potential to support roosting bats. Aquatic invertebrate surveys indicate that the River

Avon supports reasonable number of aquatic invertebrates, including the white-legged damselfly

Platycnemis pennipes (a Nationally Scarce species) and is classified as moderate biological water quality.

The Sow Brook is classified as poor quality, probably in large part due it being shaded by dense scrub for the

majority of its length within the Site. The Sow Brook therefore has considerable potential for habitat

improvement through management.

The River Avon (including the Sow Brook) was considered to be of county importance for its biodiversity

value in the Ecological Assessment of the Site. Potential impacts that were identified included pollution of

the river via surface runoff during construction and operation of the Site, and through discharges of process

water during the operation of the Site. Mitigation proposed included a water storage lagoon in the north of

the Site, oil interceptors, a process water treatment facility, and routine monitoring of discharges into the

River Avon.

This feature will be taken forward as Habitat Management Feature 2: RIVERINE HABITATS. This also

includes strips of riparian land out to 5 m beyond all banksides. The extent of this feature is indicated as

Zone 2 in Drawing 2.

3.4.2 Potential Features

3.4.2.1 Floodplain grassland

The area of low-lying neutral grassland which lies adjacent to the River Avon along the western boundary of

the Site provides a potentially important linking habitat between the wildlife corridor of the river and the areas

of species-rich grassland on the bank above (within Malpass Quarry Ecosite). Whilst this grassland is


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 9

currently species-poor, with significant areas of ruderal vegetation such as stinging nettle Urtica dioica, it has

potential to be transformed into a damp species-rich neutral grassland. Its position directly adjacent to a

major lowland river will allow it to provide a significant area of habitat suitable for invertebrates using the river

corridor, for ground nesting birds (which have not been recorded at the Site, but include a number of BAP

species, such as lapwing Vanellus vanellus), and also additional forage and larval food plants for

invertebrate species primarily associated with habitats in the Malpass Quarry Ecosite (for example, the dingy

skipper butterfly is known make use of greater bird’s-foot trefoil Lotus pedunculatus as a larval food plant on

heavier soils). Achieving this transformation will require regular management and monitoring.

This feature will be carried forward as Habitat Management Feature 3: FLOODPLAIN GRASSLAND. The

extent of this feature is indicted as Zone 3 in Drawing 2.

3.4.2.2 Planted Woodland and Newly Created Grassland

Broad-leaved semi-natural woodland will form part of the planting scheme for areas in the north and east of

the Site. This will provide both wildlife benefits and visual screening. The native species mix will be

dominated by ash Fraxinus excelsior and oak Quercus robur, with various other appropriate trees and

shrubs. The primary reason for including this woodland as a management feature is because it will require

arboriculture management after the first few years of growth in order to maintain its screening and wildlife

value.

There are also areas of young broad-leaved woodland to the south of the Site beyond the railway line. In

some areas only young saplings (< 5 years old) are present, and in other areas the stands are

15-20 years old. Species in these areas include hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, field maple Acer

campestre, holly Ilex aquilinum, dogwood Cornus sanguinea and privet Ligustrum vulgare. Occasional

mature ash and conifers are located throughout. The ground flora beneath this habitat is sparse, mostly

comprising short ruderal vegetation and mosses.

The management of the planted woodland will be taken forward as Habitat Management Feature 4:

WOODLAND. The extent of this feature is indicated as Zone 4 in Drawing 2.

Raised mounds of calcareous soils will be created to the north of the Site, and allowed to re-vegetate

through natural succession. This grassland will require regular management in order to develop and

maintain its wildlife value, and is intended to form part of the mitigation for impacts to the Malpass Quarry

Ecosite discussed above. Further details of the habitat creation for these areas are included in the Habitat

Protection Plan (HPP) (Golder, 2012a).

The management of the planted wildflower meadow on both neutral and calcareous soil will be taken forward

under Habitat Management Feature 1: SPECIES-RICH GRASSLAND/SCRUB MOSAIC, alongside the

Malpass Quarry Ecosite feature discussed above. This combination is justified by the similarities in habitat

type, management regime and target species between these features. The extent of this feature is indicated

as Zone 1 in Drawing 2.

3.4.2.3 Proposed Lagoon

The water storage lagoon to be constructed in the north of the site will primarily be for the temporary storage

of roof and hard standing-collected rainwater before discharge into the River Avon. (It will act as an

attenuation facility during storm events to maintain the greenfield run-off at the Site.) Its water level is

therefore likely to fluctuate considerably. The margins of the lagoon will be contoured such as to optimise

the habitat value of this water body (for full details see the HPP for the Site (Golder, 2010a). It has the

potential to offer significant areas of open water and marginal habitats, of value to a range of invertebrate,

amphibian, bird and mammal species. On-going management of this lagoon is likely to be necessary in

order to maximise its biodiversity value into the future.

Two established lagoons are present to the south of the Site. The larger, more linear waterbody (to the east)

is an active water storage and pumping lagoon. It has a deep layer of silt and has very little vegetation with

the exception of a fringe of common reed Phragmites australis on the western bank. A smaller, more circular


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 10

waterbody is to the west. This has a greater coverage of marginal vegetation, which includes common reed,

reedmace Typha latifolia and overhanging hawthorn.

The management of these three lagoons will be taken forward under Habitat Management Feature 5:

Waterbodies. The extent of this feature is indicated as Zone 5 in Drawing 2.

3.5 Confirmed List of Habitat Management Features

Given the above rationale for the selection of Habitat Management Features, the following features are

confirmed as a priority for nature conservation at the Malpass Site. Table 3 evaluates the status of these

features based upon the national (UK) and local (Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull) BAP habitats and

species.

Table 3: BAP Habitats Associated with Habitat Management Features

Ref Feature National BAP Local BAP

Habitats Priority Habitats Broad Habitats

Feature 1 SPECIES-RICH GRASSLAND/SCUB MOSAIC

1) Lowland

Calcareous

Grassland

1) Calcareous

Grasslands

1) Lowland Calcareous

Grassland,

2) Lowland Neutral

Grassland

3) Scrub

Feature 2 RIVERINE HABITATS

1) Rivers 1) Rivers and

Streams 1) Rivers and Streams

Feature 3 FLOODPLAIN GRASSLAND

1) Lowland

Meadows

1) Neutral

Grassland

1) Lowland Neutral

Grassland

Feature 4 WOODLAND

1) Lowland

Mixed

Deciduous

Woodland

1) Broad-leaved,

Mixed and Yew

Woodlands

1) Woodlands

Feature 5 WATERBODIES 1) Ponds

1) Standing Open

Water and

Canals

1) Ponds, Lakes and

Reservoirs

3.6 Proposed Management Zones

Proposed Management Zones have been selected on the basis of a range of factors, as follows:

Predominant existing habitats;

Potential habitat following habitat re-creation; and

Proposed management regimes.

The locations of the proposed Management Zones are illustrated in Drawing 2. These correspond to the five

Habitat Management Features identified above.

Zone 1: Species-rich grassland/scrub mosaic;

Zone 2: Riverine habitats;

Zone 3: Floodplain grassland;


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 11

Zone 4: Woodland; and

Zone 5: Waterbodies

Of these, Zone 1 is sub-divided into sub-zones 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e, in order to allow long-term rotational

management. Zone 4 is sub-divided into sub-zones 4a, 4b and 4c because there are three separate areas

of woodland. Zone 5 is sub-divided into sub-zones 5a, 5b and 5c because it covers three distinct lagoons.

Having identified five Habitat Management Features, and indicated the five management zones in which they

are located, the next section will include a summary of each feature in turn. The selection of management

objectives will then be discussed for each feature, and a series of management (and monitoring) projects will

be recommended that are capable of meeting these objectives.

3.7 Structure for Habitat Management Feature Entries

Entries in sections 4-8 cover each of the five Habitat Management Features that have been identified above.

Each entry is structured as follows:

a) Summary Description of Feature. This provides a description of the Habitat Management Feature,

including reference to the management zone in which the feature occurs;

b) Summary of Mitigation Strategy relevant to the Feature. This provides a summary description of

relevant mitigation proposed for the feature;

c) Management Objective. This is a clear, site-specific description of the desired state for each feature.

It includes the following:

Management Vision: A portrait - in words - of a feature in the desired condition in the short to medium

term (e.g. next 5 – 20 years dependent on habitat type);

Targets: Targets are linked to the objectives. They provide the evidence required in order to determine

whether or not the objectives are being met, and allow progress to be monitored. Targets should be

both achievable and quantifiable, with upper and lower limits set wherever possible;

Current Conservation Status: This provides a summary of the current conservation status of each

feature; and

Explanation of Targets: This part explains why the targets have been set and describes the work

required to achieve the objective, taking into consideration the current status.

d) Management Projects. The management projects are recommendations put forward to help achieve

the desired management objective. As specified in Condition 6, each of these projects would continue

(unless stated otherwise) until the end of the 5-year period from completion of construction of the

Facility.

4.0 FEATURE 1: SPECIES-RICH GRASSLAND/SCRUB MOSAIC

4.1 Summary Description of Feature

This feature includes the remaining parts of the Malpass Quarry Ecosite in the south and west of the Site,

areas of newly created wildflower areas in the north and to the south of the Site, and areas of grassland and

scrub on a steep bank to the south of the Site, beyond the railway line. Various parts of the Malpass Quarry

Ecosite are outside (albeit next to) the Site boundary. However, they are included within the LEMP because

they are on CEMEX property, are next to the Site, and were identified in the Environmental Impact

Assessment as having significant potential for improvement in wildlife value through appropriate

management.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 12

The existing area of this habitat is dominated by a mosaic of unimproved neutral grassland, unimproved

calcareous grassland and scattered/dense scrub, corresponding to NVC communities MG1, MG6 and CG1.

These communities occur on chalk and clay substrata which are a legacy of historical quarrying and land

filling activities. Most parts of this zone are located 10 to 20 m above the River Avon, and are not subject to

flooding. The areas of neutral and calcareous grassland provide important thermophilous (warmth-loving)

invertebrate habitat at the Site, for example supporting the grizzled skipper Pyrgus malvae and dingy skipper

Erynnis tages butterfly, both UK BAP priority species, and several nationally scarce and locally distributed

moth and beetle species. The calcareous grassland supports several locally distributed plant species, and

the scrub provides habitat for a number of UK BAP bird species.

The newly created wildflower meadow in the north and to the south of the Site is on neutral to slightly

calcareous clays, with several calcareous mounds created at discrete locations. Generally, these areas will

be left to re-vegetate through natural succession, although some small areas to the north of the lagoon will

be planted with ragged robin Cardamine pratensis and Lady’s smock Lychnis flos-cuculi. An area of inland

cliff habitat is to be created in the south of the Site during the excavation of this calcareous material, and is

included under this management feature.

4.2 Summary of Mitigation Strategy Relevant to the Feature

Mitigation proposed included the construction of compensation habitat in the north of the Site, and habitat

management (to include the creation of open glades) across the remaining Ecosite (including areas outside

the Planning Application Boundary).

Apart from the creation of new habitats as discussed in the summary above, the main mitigation strategy for

this Management Feature is the appropriate management of scrub that currently dominates areas to the

south and south west of the Site. Although part of the current value of this habitat derives from the mosaic of

scrub and open areas that is present, the current habitat is sub-optimal for thermophilous invertebrates, due

to the large extent of scrub and associated shading of basking sites and loss of food plants in the ground

flora. If natural succession is allowed to continue, the conservation interest of the Site for this suite of

invertebrates will potentially disappear.

Specific mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures relevant to this Management Feature, as

described in the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Site included:

Partial clearance to create open glades and long-term management of scrub on the large clay and chalk

mounds in order to maintain calcareous grassland in these areas;

Clearance of areas of dense scrub at the base of the eastern side of the clay mound to create additional

areas for thermophilous and phytophagous invertebrates. This is likely to benefit UK BAP birds as well,

such as hedge accentor and song thrush, which favour open clearings in which to forage;

Planting of fescue grasses and bird’s-foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus within some of the newly created

open glades to benefit invertebrates including the dingy skipper butterfly;

Scarification and the removal of accumulated organic material to be explored as a means to expose

nutrient poor soils to encourage the establishment of UK BAP habitats that are of high ecological value

(e.g. species-rich calcareous grassland); and

Pest control measures to be employed on the Site must not adversely affect the local rabbit population.

These animals help to maintain the slow-growing grassland sward that is essential for many

invertebrates.

4.3 Management Objective

Management Vision

The large area of species-rich grassland and scrub in the south and west of the Site is the most important

habitat feature within the Site. From a mound that was heavily scrub-encroached, even dark and rather


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 13

forbidding in places, has emerged an open species-rich grassy habitat. Areas of scrub and taller vegetation

do remain, providing valuable perching and nesting sites for a range of UK BAP bird species, and shelter and

overwintering sites for invertebrate species. The majority of the area is dominated by calcareous and neutral

species-rich grassland, with some areas of bare ground. Together, these conditions support a thriving

thermophilous insect assemblage, with sustainable populations of two UK BAP butterfly species, dingy

skipper and grizzled skipper.

Targets

1) Scrub and Ruderal Cover

Upper limit: 30% in Zones 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e; and

Lower limit: 10% in Zones 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e.

2) Bare Ground/Very Short Turf Cover

Upper limit: 10% in Zones 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e; and

Lower limit: 5% in Zones 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e.

3) Species-rich Calcareous Grassland Diversity

Upper limit: not required; and

Lower limit: three or more calcareous grassland indicator species2 present in 30% of 10 separate

2 m x 2 m quadrats in grassland areas of each of Zones 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e.

4) Grizzled Skipper Key Food Plants


Lower limit: one or more of agrimony Agrimonea eupatoria, creeping cinquefoil Potentilla reptans or wild

strawberry Fragaria vesca present in 30% of 10 separate 2 m x 2 m quadrats in grassland areas of

each of Zones 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e.

5) Dingy Skipper Key Food Plants


Lower limit: one or more of bird’s-foot trefoil or horseshoe vetch Hippocrepis comosa present in 30% of

10 separate 2 m x 2 m quadrats in grassland areas in each of Zones 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e.

6) Diversity of Butterflies

Aim for an increase in numbers of species and counts of each species. Specific targets will need to be

set after an initial year of (baseline) monitoring.

7) Non-native Invasive Plants

Upper limit: no species listed in Schedule 9 of the WCA present in any of Zones 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d or 1e;

and

Lower limit: not required.

2 Appropriate indicator species for this site include: glaucous sedge Carex flacca, yellow oat-grass Trisetum flavescens, bird’s foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus, wild carrot Daucus

carota, ox-eye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare, common milkwort Polygala vulgaris , salad burnet Sanguisorba minor, fairy flax Linum catharticum, common knapweed Centaurea nigra , carline thistle Carlina vulgaris, blue fleabane Erigion acer, rough hawkbit Leontodon hispidus, autumn hawkbit Leontodon autumnalis, musk mallow Malva moschata, imperforate St. John’s wort Hypericum maculatum, yellow wort Blackstonia perfoliata and any orchid species. These species all tend to be associated with species-rich (calcareous) grassland habitats. All were found at the site during surveys carried out for the Environmental Impact Assessment. NB - the presence of indicator species is to be used as a surrogate measure of the more general plant diversity within this feature, and therefore it is important that specific seeding of these particular species is not used as a management technique to meet this target.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 14

Current Conservation Status

In Zones 1a, 1b, and 1c, this feature is currently in an unfavourable condition due to the dominance of dense

scrub (> 80% cover). This feature is not yet present in Zone 1d, which is due for habitat creation in

2011-2012. In Zone 1e this feature is currently in an unfavourable condition due to the dominance of bare

ground and ephemeral vegetation. Grassland is likely to develop in this area through natural succession.

Explanation of Targets

The value of this mosaic habitat for thermophilous invertebrates, particularly butterflies and beetles, and also

birds will be maximised by maintaining the following attributes:

1) Varied vegetation structure, which includes areas of short grassland in combination with areas of

taller ruderal or scrub plants. These provide the combination of warm sheltered microclimates and

overwintering and sheltering sites required by many invertebrates. Small areas of bare ground/very

short turf would also provide important basking and feeding sites for a number of species, including the

grizzled and dingy skipper (Butterfly Conservation, 2010). A varied vegetation structure also has

significant benefits for all manner of other animal groups, including birds, reptiles and amphibians;

2) Plant species diversity, which includes a range of calcareous and neutral grassland species. These

act as larval and nectar food sources for various invertebrates, and some of the plant species

themselves are of value due to their local distribution in Warwickshire (e.g. common milkwort Polygala

vulgaris, blue fleabane Erigion acer, rough hawkbit Leontodon hispidus, carline thistle Carlina vulgaris,

fairy flax Linum catharticum and salad burnet Sanguisorba minor); and

3) The presence of specific larval food plants, particularly bird’s-foot trefoil for the dingy skipper, and

agrimony, creeping cinquefoil and wild strawberry for the grizzled skipper. Several scrub species are

also possible food plants for the grizzled skipper, including dog rose Rosa canina, bramble Rubus

fruticosis agg. and wood avens Geum urbanum (Butterfly Conservation, 2010).

Succession to dense scrub and eventually to woodland is a real threat to any mid-successional feature such

as this mosaic habitat. In order to prevent this, management to reduce and control the encroachment by

scrub will be necessary. Given the current extent of scrub cover, and to increase structural diversity, the

preferred management option is an initial round of significant scrub removal from Zones 1a, 1b and 1c,

focussing on one of each of these zones per year. It is likely to be necessary to continue this rotational cycle

of management indefinitely, extending into Zones 1d and 1e as they become established, although the

quantity of scrub requiring cutting in later years in order to attain the above targets will be much reduced. At

all times all of the cut material should be completely removed from the site for disposal, since disposal on

site is likely to cause significant long-term damage to habitats through mulching and nutrient inputs.

Ideally, over the longer term, occasional grazing by livestock (particularly cattle) would be employed in order

to maintain and enhance structural diversity in the grassland areas. The benefit of cattle is that they produce

the greatest variety in vegetation heights, and also their trampling encourages seed germination by creating

localised bare ground. However, for at least the first five years there is unlikely to be sufficient grassland for

this to be a useful approach. In the absence livestock grazing, the combined impact of rabbit grazing

together with the disturbance caused by scrub cutting can be used to simulate the effect of livestock.

Grubbing out some (e.g. 10 to -20%) of the scrub that is removed and not reinstating or tidying up the ground

in these areas would provide a useful level of disturbance and help to maintain areas of bare ground and

early successional grassland.

The above targets have been set at a level which will ensure that this mosaic habitat is dominated by

grassland (with a strong calcareous component), but with significant areas of scrub and small areas of bare

ground. Larval food plants of the dingy and grizzled skipper will be monitored in order to assess the

suitability of the habitat for these species, and monitoring of the adult butterflies themselves will further

develop our understanding on the success of the management across this feature. Non-native invasive

species will be monitored so that a response will be triggered should these be detected. Because of the

mosaic nature of this feature, specific NVC community compositions have not been specified as targets,


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 15

however it is likely that grassland areas will continue to include areas with affinities to the communities MG1,

MG6 and CG1.

4.4 Management Projects

Table 4 outlines the management activities necessary to achieve the desired conservation status of this

feature.

Table 4: Management Projects for Feature 1: Scrub Cutting

Project 1-1 Scrub Cutting

Purpose Reduce scrub cover to target levels in Zone 1.

Responsibility SITA, with initial on site guidance and marking out from ECoW3 and Butterfly

Conservation.

Equipment

Hazard tape and canes (ECoW only);

Chainsaw, drill, strimmer, brushcutter and hand tools;

Push-along stump grinder;

Herbicide such as Glyphosate; and

4WD vehicle and trailer (and chipper if considered necessary).

Methodology

Annual cutting of scrub in each sub-zone will take place as follows:

Remove 50% of scrub from the relevant sub-zone;

The extent of scrub to be cut should be clearly marked with hazard tape by the ECoW, taking into account the need to create open glades beneficial to invertebrates and any sensitive ecological features such as protected species (especially badgers) or ecologically valuable woody species. Areas of ruderal plants may also be included, which are best removed by strimming. The planting of fescue grasses and bird’s-foot trefoil will also be undertaken within some of the open glades;

All stems of the marked scrub should then be cut to within 100 mm of ground level. Cut surfaces should then be drilled (to 50 mm) and treated with glyphosate herbicide;

Between 10 and 20% of stems should not be treated with herbicide but should be dug out using a stump grinder. The resulting disturbed ground should NOT be reinstated or ‘tidied up’ in any way; and

All cut woody material should be removed from the Site within one month of cutting. This may be chipped and removed, so long as this activity is carried out tidily.

Timing Should be carried out between October and February inclusive in order to avoid disturbance during the bird breeding season.

Frequency / Programme

Year 0 – remove 50% of scrub from sub-zone 1a;

Year 1 – remove 50% of scrub from sub-zone 1b;

Year 2 - remove 50% of scrub from sub-zone 1c;

Year 3 – remove 50% of scrub from sub-zone 1d;

Year 4 - remove 50% of scrub from sub-zone 1e; and

Year 5 - remove 50% of scrub from sub-zone 1a... and so on...

Resulting Action Adjust frequency of cutting and/or percentage of scrub to be removed should

the results of the monitoring identify that Target 1 is continually failing to be met.

3 ECoW – Ecological Clerk of Works


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 16

Project 1-2 Grassland/Scrub Mosaic Monitoring

Purpose

To identify whether the intensity of scrub cutting (and associated ground disturbance) is appropriate for hitting grassland/scrub/bare ground cover targets (targets 1, 2 and 3) across Zone 1; and

To identify whether plant species composition within the grassland areas of this feature are appropriate for hitting the calcareous grassland diversity/butterfly food plant/invasive species targets (targets 3, 4, 5 and 7) across Zone 1.

Responsibility ECoW.

Equipment Gridded Site plan, 2 m x 2 m quadrat, data recording sheets.

Methodology

For each of the five sub-zones in Zone 1;

Map the extent of scrub, grassland and bare ground onto a gridded plan of the Site and use this to estimate the % cover of each of these habitat types; and

Place 10 separate 2 m x 2 m quadrats in random locations throughout the grassland part of each sub-zone. Within each quadrat record the presence or absence of calcareous grassland indicator species, dingy skipper/grizzled skipper food plants, and non-native invasive species, as listed in the targets section above.

Timing June to July.

Frequency Once every year for the first five years, then every two years thereafter.

Resulting Action

Modify cutting regime under the guidance of the ECoW if targets for this feature continually fail to be achieved; and

Carry out non-native invasive plant removal (Project 6-1) immediately if any of these species are detected.

Project 1-3 Butterfly Monitoring

Purpose To identify whether the intensity of scrub cutting (and associated ground disturbance) is appropriate for hitting target 7 across Zone 1.

Responsibility ECoW/Butterfly Conservation.

Equipment Site Plan showing route of Pollard Walk, data recording sheets.

Methodology

Identify and agree with Butterfly Conservation a route to be taken that incorporates Zones 1a to 1d:

A suitably experienced volunteer to undertake a ‘Pollard and Yates’ walk along the route, during suitable weather conditions, identifying all butterflies within a 5 m wide transect;

Records to be submitted after each month to the ECoW for incorporation into the annual report; and

Records to be submitted to the UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme each year.

Timing April to September (baseline surveys immediately after construction practical completion with a view to setting targets for subsequent years).

Frequency Every week if possible to justify inclusion of results in UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme. At a minimum, one walked transect every month.

Resulting Action Modify cutting regime under the guidance of the ECoW if target 6 continually fails to be achieved once set.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 17

5.0 FEATURE 2: RIVERINE HABITATS


This feature includes the stretch of the River Avon which forms the boundary of CEMEX property to the north

west of the Site, the stretch of the Sow Brook which lies on CEMEX property to the west of the Site (this

stream is a tributary of the River Avon and enters this river south west of the site), and all riparian land within

5 m of either of these two watercourses. Both of these watercourses fall outside the boundary of the Site.

However, they are included as a management feature because they are within or adjacent to CEMEX

property, are close to the Site, and were identified in the Environmental Impact Assessment as having

significant potential for improvement in wildlife value through appropriate management. Both watercourses

represent UK BAP habitat.

The River Avon is an important ecological feature in its own right: it provides habitat for a range of aquatic

species, an important wildlife corridor across the region, and supports various downstream habitats

associated with the river (and ultimately with the lower reaches of the River Severn, which it joins). Field

signs of otter Lutra lutra have been recorded from the River Avon just beyond the northern boundary of the

Site. This is a UK BAP species, and protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended)

and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Two large crack willows on the southern

bank of the River Avon have moderate/low potential to support roosting bats.

Aquatic invertebrate surveys indicate that the River Avon supports reasonable number of aquatic

invertebrates, including the White-legged damselfly Platycnemis pennipes (a Nationally Scarce species) and

is classified as moderate biological water quality. The Sow Brook is classified as poor quality, probably in

large part due it being shaded by dense scrub for the majority of its length within the Site.


Mitigation proposed for this feature is focussed upon pollution impact prevention rather than specific habitat

management. It includes the provision of a water storage lagoon in the north of the Site which will hold

surface water runoff for the Site, associated oil interceptors, and routine monitoring of discharges into the

Avon, including the use of biological quality indicators. Additional mitigation includes limitations on the

location of plant, material and fuel storage areas, vehicle refuelling, and the disposal of materials. There is

also provision for the use of silt fencing along the western boundary of the Site to capture surface run-off.


Management Vision

The River Avon provides an important wildlife corridor for aquatic and riparian species at the county-scale.

As this sedate river passes through the Malpass Farm Site, its banks support lush strips of riparian

vegetation which allow the banksides to be used as regular routes and feeding areas for otters. These strips

also proved perching areas for a range of aquatic invertebrates such as the nationally scarce white-legged

damselfly. A number of crack willows have been maintained along the banks, and are locally important and

appropriate mature floodplain trees on the floodplain. Sensitive scrub management has transformed the

Sow Brook from a dark, tunnel-like conduit, densely shaded by scrub, into a sunlit stream, with a rich bank

side vegetation. Its biological quality has improved from poor to moderate.

Targets

1) BMWP Biological Quality Scores

River Avon (upstream and downstream of discharge point): Moderate (or better e.g. ‘Fairly Clean’), also

should be no significant difference in Score between these two sampling points; and

Sow Brook: Moderate (or better).

2) Scrub Cover (River Avon and Sow Brook)

Upper limit: 20%; and


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 18

Lower limit: 10%.

3) Riparian Vegetation Species-richness

To be maintained or increased after an initial (baseline) monitoring visit. Specific targets to be set after

the initial monitoring visit.


Upper limit: no species listed in Schedule 9 of the WCA present in any of Zone 2; and



Adjacent to the Site, the River Avon has a moderate biological water quality score, extensive areas of

herbaceous riparian vegetation, and no non-native invasive species recorded from its banks. The River

Avon and its associated riparian vegetation can therefore be considered to have a favourable conservation

status.

The Sow Brook has a poor biological water quality score, probably due (at least in part) to dense shading by

scrub. This scrub also prevents the occurrence of much herbaceous marginal vegetation. The Sow Brook

and its margins are currently in an unfavourable conservation status, and would benefit from significant scrub

removal.


Water quality plays a key role in determining the habitat value of aquatic habitats, and it should be

acknowledged that the water quality the River Avon and the Sow Brook are determined to a large extent by

upstream factors outside the control of the Site. However, there will be a discharge into the River Avon form

the Site, and upstream and downstream biological water quality targets (BMWP scores) should provide

confirmation that the water treatment procedure within the site is fully effective.

Except for some specialised aquatic habitats in woodlands, most aquatic habitats also require an open

aspect to maximise their plant and animal diversity, and to maximise their value for species of conservation

interest. An open aspect allows a high biomass and diverse range of aquatic and marginal plant species,

which form the basis of the ecosystem and provide physical shelter and food sources for invertebrate and

vertebrate animals. The Sow Brook is densely shaded by scrub along the majority of its length on CEMEX

owned land, and therefore would benefit from significant scrub removal. Currently the River Avon has very

little scrub on its banks, but monitoring is required to ensure that this remains the case. Upper limits of 20%

scrub cover have therefore been set for these watercourses.

Ideally, infrequent disturbance to the marginal herbaceous vegetation would occur, allowing a range of

successional states to be represented, this could be achieved through occasional exposure to livestock

(particularly cattle) or through occasional strimming back of small of areas of less desirable vegetation (i.e.

tall ruderal species such as thistles and nettles). In order to ensure that the species-richness of marginal

vegetation along the watercourses does not decrease a target of maintained or increased species–richness

will need to be set following a future monitoring visit.

Non-native invasive plant species such as Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera and giant hogweed

Heracleum mantegazzianum species represent a significant threat to watercourses, because the banks offer

suitable open, fertile and damp habitat, and the watercourses themselves can transport seeds. A target of

non-native invasive plants being absent within Zone 2 has therefore been set.



feature.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 19

Table 5: Management Projects for Feature 2: Riverine Habitats


Purpose Reduce scrub cover to target levels in Zone 2.

Responsibility SITA, with initial on site guidance and marking out from ECoW.

Equipment


Chainsaw, drill, brushcutter and hand tools;



Methodology

Cutting of scrub along the Sow Brook will take place in year 0. This will reduce the total scrub cover to 20% total cover;

The extent of scrub to be cut should be clearly marked with hazard tape by the ECoW, taking into account any sensitive ecological features such as protected species (e.g. otter holts) or ecologically valuable woody species;

All stems of the marked scrub should then be cut to within 100 mm of ground level. Cut surfaces should then be drilled (to 50 mm) and treated with glyphosate herbicide. Note that this herbicide is considered safe for use near watercourses, but care should be taken to avoid spillage or the use of excessive amounts; and

All cut woody material should be removed from the site within 1 month of cutting. This may be chipped and removed, so long as this activity is carried out tidily. Small habitat piles may be left within the Floodplain Grassland (Zone 3). As directed by the ECoW, to provide habitat for grass snake.

Timing Between October and February inclusive in order to avoid the bird breeding season.

Frequency/ Programme One initial cut at Sow Brook. Further cuts as dictated by ECoW.

Resulting Action Subsequent scrub cutting will only take place when requested by the ECoW, based on the results of monitoring visits.

Project 2-2 Biological Water Quality Monitoring

Purpose To measure BMWP biological water quality scores on a regular basis at three

sampling stations: 1) Sow Book, 2) River Avon (upstream of Facility discharge point) and 3) River Avon (downstream of Facility discharge point).


Equipment Standard Aquatic Invertebrate sampling equipment.

Methodology BMWP standard procedure, comprising 3-minute kick sample and 1 minute

hand search; and

Identification of all macro invertebrates to species level.

Timing March to April.

Frequency Once per year.

Resulting Action If targets are not met, the ECoW should make recommendations on appropriate course of action, which may involve changes to water treatment within the Site.

Project 2-3 Riparian Vegetation Monitoring

Purpose To monitor the plant species-richness and composition of the 5 m wide riparian strip along the River Avon and Sow Brook.



June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 20

Equipment Tape measure, data recording sheet.

Methodology

A series of sampling points are chosen at random along the length of the riparian strips, with 6 along the River Avon (south (CEMEX-owned) bank only) and 4 along the Sow Brook (2 on each bank);

At each sampling point, a 10 m x 5 m quadrat is placed, which covers the entire 5 m width of the riparian strip. All plant species present in each sampling point are recorded; and

Once all banks have been assessed, an estimate of percentage cover of scrub in the riparian strip is made separately for both the River Avon and the Sow Brook, and the presence of any non-native invasive plant species is recorded.


Frequency Initial visit is the baseline visit, to be carried out in year 0 (after scrub cutting at Sow Brook), subsequent visits to be carried out once every 2 years.

Resulting Action

Should plant species richness or scrub cover targets (Targets 2 and 3) not be met, the ECoW should consider whether scrub removal or some other management activity is required, and then arrange for this to be implemented; and

Should any non-native invasive plant species be found, Project 6-1 is to be implemented.

6.0 FEATURE 3: FLOODPLAIN GRASSLAND


The area of low-lying neutral grassland which lies adjacent to the River Avon along the western boundary of

the Site provides a potentially important linking habitat between the wildlife corridor of the river and the areas

of species-rich grassland on the bank above (within Malpass Quarry Ecosite). Whilst this grassland is

currently species-poor, with significant areas of ruderal vegetation such as stinging nettle Urtica dioica, it has

potential to be transformed into a damp species-rich neutral grassland. Its position, directly adjacent to a

major lowland river will allow it to provide a significant area of habitat suitable for invertebrates using the river

corridor, for ground nesting birds (which have not been recorded at the site, but include a number of BAP

species, such as lapwing Vanellus vanellus), and also additional forage and larval food plants for

invertebrate species primarily associated habitats in the Malpass Quarry Ecosite (for example, the dingy

skipper butterfly is known make use of greater bird’s foot trefoil as a larval food plant on heavier soils).

Achieving this transformation will require regular management and monitoring.


No specific mitigation for this feature was provided in the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Site,

because this area lies outside the Site and is not expected to suffer any impacts from the Project. It has

been included in this Habitat Management Plan because it lies on CEMEX property, adjacent to the Site, and

was identified in the Environmental Impact Assessment as having significant potential for improvement in its

wildlife value through appropriate management.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 21


Management Vision

Through an appropriate mowing regime, the linear fields of species-poor floodplain grassland that border the

River Avon have been transformed into species-rich hay meadows which provide a valuable linking habitat

between the wildlife corridor of the River Avon and the raised areas of species-rich grassland and scrub

mosaic within the Site. As well as providing a corridor for invertebrates, small mammals and reptiles, these

meadows also represent an important feature in their own right, supporting ground-nesting birds and a range

of invertebrate and plant species.

Targets

1) Plant Species-richness

To be increased after an initial (baseline) monitoring visit. Specific targets to be set after the initial

monitoring visit.





The area of lowland grassland present between the site and the River Avon is currently species-poor. It is

dominated by grasses, with some areas of ruderal vegetation (e.g. stinging nettle). Its current conservation

status is therefore poor.


In order to develop, species-rich hay meadow habitats typically require two important conditions:

1) Relatively nutrient-poor soils, particularly in terms of nitrates, which prevent a small number of

fast-growing grass species from dominating the sward, and allow a range of leguminous and other forb

species (non-grass herbaceous plants) to prosper. Nutrient levels in neutral alluvial soils such as that

adjacent to the River Avon typically have a somewhat higher nutrient status than other soils which

support hay meadows due to regular silt inputs during flooding events, but it is still significantly lower

than that found in improved (i.e. artificially fertilised) agricultural soils; and

2) A single annual cut of hay, which occurs in late summer. The timing of this cut is important because it

occurs after the majority of plants in the sward have flowered, set and dispersed their seed. This allows

many seed-propagated plants to be maintained in the sward, rather than the dominance plants which

can reproduce by vegetative means, such as grasses. Traditionally, many hay meadows were also

lightly grazed in the autumn and early spring periods, but this is often difficult to achieve outside of large

conservation schemes. Since grassland is a mid-successional habitat, mowing or grazing is also vital

to prevent the establishment of scrub. Without mowing, grazing, or other management techniques,

such as manual scrub clearance, natural succession to scrub and then young woodland would be likely

to occur over a period of 10 to 20 years.

Currently the sward is dominated by grasses such as creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera, timothy Phleum

pratense and false oat grass Arrhenatherum elatius, with some areas of stinging nettle. The dominance of

these species suggests relatively high soil fertility (particularly timothy and nettles), and the false oat grass is

often an indicator of neglected or only infrequently grazed or mown grasslands. In order to increase the

diversity of plant species in this grassland, which will form the basis of a species-rich animal community, it

will be vital to carry out annual mowing at the correct time. The removal of cut hay from the Site will be a

vital management component, which over a number of years will reduce soil fertility and reduce the

dominance of grass species. If practical, some aftermath grazing of Zone 3 by cattle at a density of 0.75


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 22

Livestock Units per hectare (LU/ha) would be of value. This would further reduce the dominance of grasses,

and provide moderate levels of disturbance which would promote seed germination.

The key target for measuring the progress of management for this feature will relate to an increase in plant

species-richness, since plant diversity forms the basis of a diverse faunal community in this habitat. The

specific target for plant species diversity will be set after an initial (baseline) monitoring visit. Although the

most appropriate NVC plant community to aim at in the management of this feature is probably MG5

grassland, given its current relatively fertile soil conditions, achieving an MG5 species composition over the

short to medium term is unrealistic and has not been set as a target.



feature.

Table 6: Management Projects for Feature 3: Floodplain Grassland

Project 3-1 Annual Hay Mowing

Purpose To maintain the floodplain grassland as hay meadow, and lower its soil fertility through hay removal.

Responsibility SITA (funding may be available through a Higher Level Stewardship Scheme).

Equipment Tractor and mower attachment.

Methodology

A single annual cut is to be made on all areas of grassland in Zone 3;

Mowing should follow normal standards for hay cutting, cutting the sward down to approximately 100 to 150 mm; and

All cut hay must be removed from the Site. It must not be retained on the Site. Note that this is a very important part of the management of this feature, and is vital to reduce soil fertility.

Timing This cut must be carried out in late July/early August.

Frequency/ Programme One cut per year from year 0.

Resulting Action N/A.

Project 3-2 Path Mowing

Purpose A non-dictatorial means of encouraging public footpath users not to stray from the

paths, in order to reduce disturbance to vegetation and nesting birds. (It is also a requirement of rights of way legislation not to block public footpaths).

Responsibility SITA.

Equipment Petrol mower.

Methodology Mow 2 m wide paths along the public footpath routes in Zone 3.

Timing May to September.

Frequency Once every two months.


Project 3-3 Autumn Grazing

Purpose To further reduce the grass component of the floodplain grassland sward and

provide moderate disturbance (poaching) of the grass sward to allow areas of seedling germination.

Responsibility SITA (funding may be available through a Higher Level Stewardship Scheme).

Equipment Stock-proof fences around the lowland grassland (i.e. Zone 3); and


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 23

Livestock, preferably cattle (and preferably a hardy native breed such as Lincoln Red or Dexter).

Methodology

Cattle should be present on the Site over the period August (after mowing) to November;

They should be removed by the end of November, or when the sward height has been reduced to 100 mm, or poaching becomes noticeable;

Stock should NOT have been recently treated with an avermectin based wormer, since this medication is likely to decrease invertebrate diversity in the area (RSPB, 2010); and

Additional feeding over this period should be limited to hay, in order to minimise nutrient inputs to the area.

Timing August to November.

Frequency

Annual;

Fences needed before grazing is commenced;

Watering can be gained by allowing access to the river; and

Repairs to infrastructure shall be undertaken as and when required.

Resulting Action In consultation with the ECoW, modify grazing regime if Target 1 for the grassland feature is not being achieved.

Project 3-4 Floodplain Grassland Monitoring

Purpose To monitor the plant species-richness and composition of the floodplain grassland.


Equipment 2 m x 2 m quadrats; and

Site base map.

Methodology

A series of 10 sampling points are chosen at random throughout Zone 3;

At each sampling point, a 2 m x 2 m quadrat is placed. All plant species present in each quadrat are recorded, along with their approximate percentage cover value using the NVC Domin scale; and

During the survey, the locations of any non-native invasive plants in Zone 3 should be recorded.


Frequency Initial visit is the baseline visit, to be carried out in year 1, after which specific targets will be set by the ECoW. Subsequent visits to be carried out once every 2 years.

Resulting Action

Should plant species richness targets not be met, the ECoW should consider whether additional management projects are required, such as scarification and/or seeding (e.g. with yellow rattle, Rhinanthus minor); and

Should any non-native invasive plant species be found, Project 6-1 is to be implemented as appropriate within Zone 3.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 24

7.0 FEATURE 4: WOODLAND


There are areas of young broad-leaved woodland to the south of the Site beyond the railway line, which are

included under this management feature (Zones 4a and 4b). In some areas young saplings (<5 years old)

are present, and in other areas the stands are 15 to 20 years old. Species in these areas include hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna, field maple Acer campestre, holly Ilex aquilinum, dogwood Cornus sanguinea and

privet Ligustrum vulgare. Occasional mature ash and conifers are located throughout. The ground flora

beneath this habitat is sparse, mostly comprising short ruderal vegetation and mosses.

Broad-leaved semi-natural woodland will also form part of the planting scheme for areas in the north and

east of the Site (Zone 4c). This will provide both wildlife benefits and visual screening. The native species

mix will be dominated by ash Fraxinus excelsior and oak Quercus robur, with various other appropriate trees

and shrubs.


No mitigation has been proposed to date for this feature. Zones 4a and 4b are likely to require some

thinning in the short to medium term in order to increase the diversity of the ground flora. Zone 4c is likely to

require this in the longer term.


Management Vision

Pockets of broad-leaved woodland have been allowed to develop across the Site, with relatively limited

management intervention. In addition to providing habitat for a number of native tree species, this woodland

provides a valuable additional level of structural diversity, and provides nesting sites for woodland and

woodland-edge bird species.

Targets

1) Non-native tree and shrub species

Upper limit: no non-native tree and shrub species; and



Upper limit: no species listed in Schedule 9 of the WCA present in any part of Zone 4; and



The woodland in Zones 4a and 4b has a species-poor ground flora and contains some non-native tree

species, it is therefore of rather poor conservation status. The woodland in Zone 4c has yet to be planted.


Native broad-leaved woodland is a climax habitat in many parts of lowland Britain. To maximise its

conservation value, two contrasting routes are often followed:

1) Non-intervention management allows woodland to develop without any additional management, with

the aim of maximising its naturalness. Such woodlands often contain abundant dead wood, and

moribund (dying) trees which are valuable habitats for many woodland invertebrate species, and others

such as woodpeckers and bats. However, such management is unlikely to be appropriate in small-

scale schemes where dead wood has both amenity and health and safety implications. The spread of


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 25

invasive non-native species such as sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus also represents a real problem for

this management approach; and

2) Coppice management involves cutting a proportion of the understory or shrub layer back to stools (the

base) usually on a rotational (10 to 15 yearly) basis around the various management compartments of a

woodland. This approach allows a higher degree of control over the species composition and structure

of the woodland, and periodically provides a relatively open habitat where a diverse ground flora of

woodland edge species can prosper. This form of management is not particularly appropriate to small

scales schemes, and it also involves considerable manual labour.

The small areas of woodland that are present within the Site are included in order to provide amenity

screening and additional habitat structural diversity. The most suitable management regime is likely to be

somewhat different to these approaches and to involve periodic monitoring, followed by the removal of trees

which are health and safety issues or are creating particularly dense shade (and hence limiting the diversity

of the ground flora). In order to maintain valuable dead wood habitats, any felled timber (including any

brash) should be retained on the site in clearly defined piles in shaded areas.

The key target for measuring the progress of management for this feature will the absence of non-native

trees (some of which are currently present) and non-native invasive plants (which could take hold in some of

the disturbed areas). As the woodlands become more established future revisions of the management plan

are likely to introduce specific projects targeting particular woodland attributes that will be desirable at the

Site.



feature.

Table 7: Management Projects for Feature 4: Woodland

Project 4-1 Woodland Monitoring and Tree Marking

Purpose To identify trees for felling and the presence of non-native species in Zone 4.


Equipment Site base map, hazard tape or spray paint.

Methodology

All of Zone 4 is to be walked by the ECoW, and any non-native trees, trees casting dense shade, or trees posing health and safety risks to be identified using hazard tape or spray paint. Any potential for protected species (e.g. bat roosts) in these trees is also to be assessed at the time.

Timing April to September, in order to allow the identification of any non-native herbaceous species.

Frequency This activity is likely to be necessary for Zones 4a and 4b in Year 1. Thereafter it should be carried out once in every 5 years.

Resulting Action Where trees are identified for felling, Project 4-2 will be required. Where non-native invasive plants are identified Project 6-1 will be required in this zone.

Project 4-2 Tree Thinning

Purpose To fell non-native tree species and thin out areas of dense shade.

Responsibility SITA.

Equipment

Chainsaw, bow saw, billhooks etc;

Glyphosate herbicide; and

Where individual branches require removal, arboriculturalist(s) with climbing equipment may be required.

Methodology Marked trees (see Project 4-1) are to be felled, and timber (cut into 1 m lengths)


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 26

piled loosely in shaded sites within the woodland; and

Where non-native trees which are able to re-sprout from cut stumps are felled (e.g. sycamore, but not most conifer species), cut surfaces should be drilled (to 50 mm) and treated with glyphosate herbicide.

Timing This activity should only be carried out between October and February (inclusive) in order to avoid impacts upon nesting birds.

Frequency / Programme

This activity is likely to be necessary for Zones 4a and 4b in Year 1. Thereafter it should be implemented as directed by the ECoW, on the basis of monitoring results.


8.0 FEATURE 5: WATERBODIES


The water storage lagoon to be constructed in the north of the site will primarily be for the temporary storage

of roof and hard standing-collected rainwater before discharge into the River Avon (it will act as an

attenuation facility during storm events to maintain the green field run-off at the Site). Its water level is

therefore likely to fluctuate considerably.

Two existing and established lagoons are present to the south of the Site. The larger, more linear waterbody

(to the east) is an active water storage and pumping lagoon. It has a deep layer of silt and has very little

vegetation with the exception of a fringe of common reed Phragmites australis on the western bank. The

smaller, more circular waterbody is to the west. This has a greater coverage of marginal vegetation, which

includes common reed, reedmace Typha latifolia and overhanging hawthorn.


The margins of the new water storage lagoon will be contoured such as to optimise the habitat value of this

water body, primarily by maximising the area of marginal habitats. For full details see the HPP for the Site

(Golder, 2012a). These margins will be planted with a range of appropriate native species sourced from the

margins of the River Avon. This lagoon has the potential to offer significant areas of open water and

marginal habitats, of value to a range of invertebrate, amphibian, bird and mammal species, but some

management of this lagoon is likely to be necessary in order to maximise its biodiversity value into the future.

No planting or contouring of the two established waterbodies is proposed, but regular monitoring used to

direct appropriate vegetation management would maximise the wildlife value of these features. Also, the

western lagoon (sub-zone 5a) would benefit from significant scrub cutting in order to provide a more open

habitat and to enhance the diversity of marginal plants. Whilst these two waterbodies are outside the Site

boundary, they are included in this Habitat Management Plan because they are on CEMEX property,

adjacent to the Site, and were identified in the Regulation 19 report (Golder, 2009) as having significant

potential for improvement in wildlife value through appropriate management.


Management Vision

Although the three artificial lagoons at the Site were not created for reasons of nature conservation,

intelligent profiling and planting of the northern lagoon and continued monitoring and management of all

three lagoons have results in them attaining considerable biodiversity value. Grass snake will be a regular

visitor to the lagoons, feeding on amphibian prey which will be plentiful. The dense scrub around the

western lagoon has been reduced and a range of marginal plant species flourish around the waterbodies.

Some areas of bare ground remain around the margins, and these conditions provide valuable habitat for a

range of invertebrate and bird species.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 27

Targets

1) Scrub, Herbaceous Vegetation and Bare Ground Cover

Scrub: 0 to 25% cover for all waterbodies;

Herbaceous Vegetation: 50-95% cover for all waterbodies; and

Bare Ground: 5-25% for all waterbodies.





The margins of the western lagoon (sub-zone 5a) contain a number of plant species, though they are

significantly shaded by surrounding scrub. This waterbody therefore has poor conservation status. The

eastern lagoon (sub-zone 5b) has very limited marginal vegetation and is heavily silted and its conservation

status is poor. The northern lagoon (sub-zone 5c) has yet to be constructed.


Despite their fluctuating water level, water storage lagoons can have considerable habitat value:

“A persistent myth about ponds is that water levels need to be stable throughout the year and that any

fluctuation can be damaging. In most ponds, nothing could be further from the truth….The ever changing

drawdown zone is one of the most important areas of a pond, and is an exceptionally rich habitat for plants,

invertebrates and even small mammals.” The Ponds Conservation Trust, (1999).

This habitat value can be maximised by ensuring that the lagoons have an open aspect and varied marginal

and aquatic vegetation, ideally dominated by a varied mix of herbaceous plants, but also some areas of bare

ground and some scrub. Marginal and aquatic vegetation is dictated to a large extent by the depth of water,

and provision of a range of water depths. Depths of up to one metre deep should be encouraged across as

large a surface area of the lagoons as possible. Targets for cover levels for these three elements have been

set accordingly.



feature.

Table 8: Management Projects for Feature 5: Waterbodies


Purpose To reduce scrub cover around the western lagoon (sub-zone 5a) to a maximum of

25% of the perimeter.

Responsibility SITA, under direction of the ECoW.

Equipment


Chainsaw, drill, strimmer, brushcutter and hand tools;




June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 28


Methodology

The extent of scrub to be cut should be clearly marked with hazard tape by the

ECoW, taking into account any sensitive ecological features (such as reptiles and

amphibians). Areas of ruderal vegetation (e.g. nettles and thistles) may also be

included, which are best removed by strimming’

All stems of the marked scrub should be cut to within 100 mm of ground level. Cut

surfaces should be drilled (to 50 mm) and treated with glyphosate herbicide; and

All cut woody material should be removed from the site within 1 month of cutting.

This may be chipped and removed, so long as this activity is carried out tidily. Small

habitat piles may be left close to the lagoon, as directed by the ECoW, to provide

habitat for grass snake and amphibians.

Timing Between October and February in order to avoid the bird breeding season.

Frequency Scrub cutting in sub-zone 5a will take place in Year 0.

Resulting Action

In future revisions of the LEMP, scrub cutting may be necessary occasionally within

all sub-zones, as recommended by the ECoW and based on the results of

monitoring (Project 5-2).

Project 5-2 Waterbody Margin Monitoring

Purpose To monitor the structure of marginal vegetation in Zone 5, and identify any non-

native invasive species that are present.


Equipment Recording sheets.

Methodology

The ECoW is to walk the perimeter of all three waterbodies and estimate the

percentage of the perimeter dominated by herbaceous plants, scrub and bare

ground separately for each one.


Frequency/ Programme

Once every two years.

Resulting Action

Should vegetation cover targets consistently fail to be met, the ECoW should

consider whether additional management projects are required, such as further

scrub clearance. Should any non-native invasive plant species be found, Project 6-1

is to be implemented as appropriate within Zone 5.

9.0 MANAGEMENT AND OTHER OBJECTIVES APPLICABLE TO ALL FEATURES

9.1 Non-native Invasive Plant Removal

Where monitoring identifies the presence of non-native invasive plants, the management project outlined in

Table 9 will need to be put into place as soon as is practical.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 29

Table 9: Management Projects Applicable to all Features

Project 6-1 Non-native Invasive Plant Removal

Purpose To eradicate non-invasive plants across all areas of the Site as soon as possible after detection, in order to prevent their spread across the Site.

Responsibility SITA, with guidance from ECoW.

Equipment Hazard tape and canes (ECoW only); and

Glyphosate herbicide.

Methodology

Using hazard tape and canes ECoW to identify and mark out stands of invasive plants due for treatment; and

Suitably qualified staff to apply Glyphosate herbicide only to specified plants within the marked area. Note that this herbicide is considered safe for use near watercourses, but care should be taken to avoid spillage or the use of excessive amounts.

Timing April to September only, since Glyphoseate herbicide is only effective on actively growing vegetation.

Frequency Initially one treatment, but may require more dependent on the species.

Resulting Action

A monitoring visit by the ECoW should take place 2 months after the initial treatment (or if this would fall within the dormant period, monitoring should take place the following April). If the plant(s) have not been eradicated then further treatment will be necessary (i.e. repeat Project 6-1).

9.2 Reporting

For each of the five habitat management features there are some requirements for monitoring by the ECoW,

since it is only by regular monitoring that management can be appropriately directed. In order to provide

documentary evidence of this monitoring and circulate the results to interested parties (i.e. CEMEX, County

Ecologist etc.) regular reporting will be necessary. For reasons of efficiency it is recommended that this

reporting is combined into a single annual report, produced by December of each year. The contents of this

report will vary from year-to-year, depending upon the monitoring programme for each of the features.

9.3 Legislative Compliance

The management of the Site must comply with the requirements of all of the legal and other obligations and

policies listed below:

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. These Regulations implement the

Habitats Directive including the provision for the establishment of the Natura 2000 network of sites

(including SPAs and SACs), extend the provisions of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

for the protection of species (flora and fauna) and provide a mechanism for assessing the implications

of plans, projects or proposals on species protected under the Regulations and Natura 2000 sites

(Part 6). Part 3 refers to ‘European Protected Species’ listed in Schedule 2 (animals) and Schedule 5

(plants) and details the protection of these species under Regulation 40 to 47 inclusive. Lawful

derogation from the Regulations by the grant of licences in respect of activities relating to animals or

plants is detailed in Regulations 53, 56-58 inclusive. Regulation 39 requires the inclusion of planning

policies in Local Development Frameworks to implement Article 10 of the Habitats Directive;

Council Directive of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora And

Fauna (92/43/EEC). The aim of the Directive is to contribute towards ensuring biodiversity through the

conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna. Measures taken are to be designed so as

to maintain or restore natural habitats and species of wild flora and fauna at a favourable conservation

status. Measures taken pursuant to the Directive are intended to maintain or restore the favourable

conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest. Special


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 30

Areas for Conservation (SAC) are designated under this Directive and together with the SPA sites form

the Natura 2000 network of sites. Article 10 encourages member states to merge features of the

landscape of major importance for wild flora and fauna such as rivers, traditional field boundaries and

stepping the habitats including ponds and small woods. These features are seen as contributing to the

overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network and “essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic

exchange of wild species”;

Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981 (as amended by the CROW Act, 2000). This is the main

Act for protection of wildlife in the UK. Part I provides a list of blanket criminal offences of interfering

with specified wild animals and plants and their habitats. Schedule 5 lists all the animals that are

protected under the regulations, Schedule 8 all the plants and Schedule 1 all the birds. It is an offence

to intentionally kill, injure or take any scheduled wild animal or to intentionally destroy, damage or

obstruct any structure or place used by such an animal. The maximum penalty is £5,000 for each

offence;

Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. This act enforces the protection of wild mammals from cruelty.

There may be potential welfare issues with regard to the control of mammalian pests;

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Supplements the WCA, in forming the basis of most

statutory wildlife protection in the UK. Part I deals with the protection of animals and plants. Part II is

concerned with general nature conservation and habitats/site protection through designation of Sites of

Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and National Nature Reserves (NNRs). This Act also deals with

Public Rights of Way;

Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act, 2006. Incorporates a general duty

(Section 40) on all public bodies, including local authorities, to have regard to the purpose of conserving

biodiversity in the exercise of their functions. Includes lists of Habitats and Species of Principle

Importance (56 habitats) and 943 species) under Section 41 and correspond with the UK BAP Priority

Species and Habitats;

Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended). Provides comprehensive protection to badgers and

badger setts by the consolidation of previous acts: Badgers Act 1973; The Badgers Act 1991; and

Badgers (Further Protection) 1991;

Weeds Act 1959. Under this Act the Secretary of State may serve an enforcement notice on the

occupier of land on which injurious weeds are growing, requiring the occupier to take action to prevent

the spread of injurious weeds. The Weeds Act specifies five injurious weeds: Common Ragwort, Spear

Thistle, Creeping Thistle, Broad leaved Dock and Curled Dock;

Health and Safety and public liability legislation, e.g. The Management of Health and Safety at

Work Regulations 1992, Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, Occupiers’ Liability Acts, Control of

Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 (COSHH) etc;

Environment Act 1995 and Environment Agency policies; and

National Planning Policy Framework. In March 2012 the Government published a new National

Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which sets out national planning policies for England and how they

should be applied by local planning authorities. The NPPF condenses over 1000 pages of national

planning policy into a single 59 page document and replaces the existing suite of national Planning

Policy Statements, including Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

(PPS9, 2005). A core principle of the NPPF is a clear “presumption in favour of sustainable

development” both in plan-making and decision-taking, putting the need to balance mutually dependent

economic, social and environmental goals at the heart of planning.

National policy on the protection of nature conservation interests and enhancing biodiversity through the

planning system is primarily set out under section 11 of the NPPF, ‘Conserving and enhancing the

natural environment’ (page 25). The Government has summarised this policy as follows:


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 31

“The Framework underlines that the planning system should seek not just to protect, but, where

possible, to enhance biodiversity – making sure we don’t just have isolated pockets of wildlife, but rich

and connected green spaces for all kinds of species to thrive. Planning permission should be refused

for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient

woodland.” (DCLG, 2011).

NPPF policies are incorporated into Local Plans and other development planning documents at local

scales, and are also of material worth in considering individual planning applications. One of the

guiding principles sets out the sequential approach to the planning process through the avoidance of

significant harm, mitigation where harm cannot be avoided and compensation where impacts cannot be

prevented or adequately mitigated. If significant harm cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated

against, or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.

Criteria-based policies for the assessment of development proposals affecting sites designated for

wildlife should be established in local planning documents. The level of protection afforded to such

sites should be proportionate to their importance (whether internationally, nationally or locally

designated) and the contribution they make to wider ecological networks. The ODPM Circular 06/2005

entitled Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact Within the

Planning System (2005) provides guidance on the hierarchy of statutorily protected sites.

Sites of international importance, including Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection

Areas (SPAs) and Ramsar sites receive statutory protection through international conventions and

European Directives. Under the NPPF, potential or proposed international sites, and those identified for

the compensation of adverse impacts on international sites, receive the same level of protection. Many

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) are similarly covered. Proposed development within or

outside a SSSI that is likely to have an adverse impact on the site’s notified features should normally be

refused, unless the benefits of development clearly outweigh those impacts on the site and broader

SSSI network.

Planning policies should plan for biodiversity at a landscape scale and protect local ecological networks,

including designated sites, wildlife corridors and the stepping stones that connect them, from impacts of

development that cause fragmentation and isolation. Priority habitat types and species of principal

importance (under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act, 2006) are also a key

consideration. The restoration and recreation of priority habitats and recovery of priority species

populations, linked to appropriate targets (such as the UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plans), is

encouraged. Protection is also afforded to irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and aged

or veteran trees (where these do not already receive statutory protection).

The NPPF recognises the importance of ecosystem services and identifies the need to provide

coherent ecological networks to provide net gains for wildlife and halt the overall decline in biodiversity.

The reuse of previously developed (brownfield) land is encouraged, unless it is of high environmental

value (for example, by supporting important habitats and species) and development proposals

incorporating good design that provide new opportunities for biodiversity are viewed favourably by local

planning authorities. Accordingly, any proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance

biodiversity should be permitted.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 32

10.0 ACTION PLAN Table 10: Action Plan

Management Project Responsibility Timing Activities in Each Year

Year 11 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Feature 1: Species-rich Grassland and Scrub

1-1. Scrub Cutting SITA October to February

1-2. Grassland/Scrub Mosaic Monitoring ECoW June to July

1-3. Butterfly Monitoring ECoW/Butterfly Conservation April to September inclusive

Feature 2: Riverine Habitats


2-2. Biological Water Quality Monitoring ECoW March to April

2-3. Riparian Vegetation Monitoring ECoW June to July

Feature 3: Floodplain Grassland

3-1. Annual Hay Mowing SITA Late July/early August

3-2. Path Mowing SITA May to September

3-3. Autumn Grazing SITA August to November

3-4. Floodplain Grassland Monitoring ECoW June to July

Feature 4: Woodland

4-1. Woodland Monitoring and Tree Marking ECoW April to September

4-2. Tree Thinning SITA October to February

Feature 5: Waterbodies


5-2. Waterbody Margin Monitoring ECoW June to July

Management Applicable to All Features

6-1. Non-native invasive plant removal SITA April to September As Recommended by ECoW

6-2. Reporting ECoW Annual LEMP Monitoring Report

1 Year 1 is defined as Construction Practical Completion of the Facility.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2 33

11.0 REFERENCES

Alexander, M. (2005) Countryside Management System Guidelines. Conservation Management System

Consortium, Talgarth, Wales.

Butterfly Conservation (2010) A-Z of Butterflies: http://www.butterfly-

conservation.org/butterfly_list/32/a_z_of_butterflies_.html, accessed August 2011.

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd (2008a) Climafuel Manufacturing Facility. Malpass Farm, Rugby, Warwickshire.

Chapter 7.1 Ecology Baseline Report. Unpublished report by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd.

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2008b) Climafuel Manufacturing Facility. Malpass Farm, Rugby,

Warwickshire. Chapter 7 Ecology & Nature Conservation. Unpublished report by Golder Associates (UK)

Ltd.

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2009) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), Environmental

Assessment Regulations 1999 (as amended), Regulation 19 – Additional Information Malpass Farm, Rugby.

Unpublished report by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd.

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2010) CEMEX Malpass Farm, Badger Report. Unpublished report by Golder

Associates (UK) Ltd.

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2012a) SITA Malpass Farm, Habitat Protection Plan. Unpublished report by

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd.

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2012b) SITA Malpass Farm, Badger Survey and Ecology Walkover.

Unpublished report by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2013) SITA Malpass Farm, Badger Mitigation Strategy. Unpublished report by


The Ponds Conservation Trust (1999) The Pond Book – A Guide to the Management and Creation of Ponds.

The Ponds Conservation Trust, Oxford.

RSPB (2010) Hay meadow management advice for farmers, available on the RSPB website:

http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/farming/advice/details.asp?id=204361, accessed August 2010.

http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/butterfly_list/32/a_z_of_butterflies_.html

http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/butterfly_list/32/a_z_of_butterflies_.html

http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/farming/advice/details.asp?id=204361


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2



Adele Antcliff Freddy Brookes

Ecologist Ecologist

Author: Freddy Brookes/JM/AA/cr

Date: 6 June 2013

Company Registered in England No.1125149

At Attenborough House, Browns Lane Business Park, Stanton-on-the-Wolds, Nottinghamshire NG12 5BL

VAT No. 209 0084 92

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation..


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2

DRAWINGS Drawing 1: Site Location Plan Drawing 2: Management Zones

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital mapdata © Crown copyright 2002. All rights reserved.

®

The Site

Scale

Project

Title

File No.

Status

Project No.

Drawing No. Rev

Client Created by Requested by Proj Manager Reviewer Date


Size

CEMEX (UK) Operations

Malpass Farm Quarry

Site Location Plan

AJ JF SJS JF 24/08/10

560660

1:50,000

09514640074

For Information

01 -

A4

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey photography on behalfof The Controller of Her majesty's Stationary Office© Crown Copyright 100017807 2009

Pond

Pond

Conveyors

Tank

Tank

Tanks

FB

Path (um) SL

MP 84

Path

River Avon

Sow

Broo

k

Works

TkPath (um)

Path (um)

WB

El Sub Sta

El Sub Stas

El Sub Stas

Chy

Silo

Path (um)

Path (um)

Path (um)

ETL

River A

vonThurnmill Spinney

MP 0.25

Dra

in

Dra

in

ETL

Thurnmill Spinney

River Avon

River Avon

226

250

238

40

34

8583

8177

BM 90.34m

Gardens

MP 84

CR

ED and Ward Bdy

Viaduct

Drain

Path

(um

)

Rive

r Avo

n

Sow

Broo

k

PARKFIELD

ROAD

LEA CRESCENT

PAR

KFIE

LD R

OAD

Path

FB

92.0mFB

Tanks

Works

Tanks

90.8m

BM 88.59m

Track

Works

SL

PARKFIELDROAD

254

256

91.7m

92.20m

95.4m

90.2m

85.3m

Track

Sub Sta

Sub Sta

Allotment Gardens

Trac

k

Pond

Signal Gantry

Signal Gantry

El

El

BM

1c

1b

1a

1d

1d

5c

4c

1d

1e

4b

4a

5a

5b

Rev Description PM Review Date

Scale

Project

Title

File No.

Status

Project No.

Drawing No. Rev

Client


SizeA3

CEMEX

Rugby Fuel Preparation Plant

Management Zones

JW AA JA FB 03/05/13585398 12514190331

1:3,000 For Information

2 -

Legend

Planning Application Boundary

CEMEX Land Ownership

1:3,0000 60 120 180m

Golder Associates (UK) LtdCavendish House

Bourne End Business ParkCores End Road

Bourne EndBuckinghamshire

SL8 5AS+44 (0)1628 851 851

Zone 1: Species-rich Grassland /Scrub Mosaic

Zone 2: Riverine HabitatsZone 3: Floodplain Grassland

Zone 4: Woodland

Zone 5: Warebodies

1

2

4

5

3


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2



September 2012 No. 12514190331 i

Table of Contents

1.0 SPECIES PROTECTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Otter .............................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Badger .......................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Birds ............................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 Reptiles ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.5 Invertebrates ................................................................................................................................................. 3

1.6 General Considerations ................................................................................................................................ 3

2.0 NON-NATIVE INVASIVE PLANTS ............................................................................................................................ 4

TABLES

Table 1: Relevant Schedules of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) ....................................... 1


September 2012 No. 12514190331 1

1.0 SPECIES PROTECTION A level of statutory protection is afforded to specific species, largely as a consequence of dramatic declines in populations caused by habitat loss and/or degradation (both direct and indirect impacts) and persecution. The various statutes which provide this protection include the following:

The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000) (Table 1);

Table 1: Relevant Schedules of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) Schedule 1 Part 1 Birds which are protected by special penalties at all times

Schedule 1 Part 2 Birds which are protected by special penalties during the close season

Schedule 5 Section 9.1 (killing/injuring) Animals which are protected from intentional killing or injuring Schedule 5 Section 9.1 (taking) Animals which are protected from taking

Schedule 5 Section 9.2 Animals which are protected from being possessed or controlled (live or dead)

Schedule 5 Section 9.4a Animals which are protected from intentional damage or destruction to any structure or place used for shelter or protection

Schedule 5 Section 9.4b Animals which are protected from intentional disturbance while occupying a structure or place used for shelter or protection

Schedule 5 Section 9.5a Animals which are protected from being sold, offered for sale or being held or transported for sale either live or dead, whole or part

Schedule 5 Section 9.5b Animals which are protected from being published or advertised as being for sale

Schedule 8

Plants which are protected from: intentional picking, uprooting or destruction (Section 13 1a); selling, offering for sale, possessing or transporting for the purpose of sale (live or dead, part or derivative) (Section 13 2a); advertising (any of these) for buying or selling (Section 13 2b).




These are further described for specific protected species below.

1.1 Otter The otter Lutra lutra and its habitat are fully protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. It is illegal to:

Deliberately capture, injure or kill an otter;

Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of an otter including places used for shelter or protection (holts, couches etc) – whether occupied or not; and

Deliberately disturb an otter, including disturbance of an otter in such a way as to be likely to significantly affect:


September 2012 No. 12514190331 2

i) The ability of any significant group of otters to survive, reproduce or breed, or to rear or nurture their young;

ii) Their ability to hibernate or migrate; and

iii) The local distribution or abundance of otter.

Provisions are made within the UK legislation to allow for disturbance of otter or their holts to take place under licence (issued by Natural England) where works affect otter. Licences can be issued for scientific, research purposes (including survey work), and for the disturbance of otter in relation to a development. Licences can only be granted if there is no satisfactory alternative or if the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

1.2 Badger The badger Meles meles is protected in the UK under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended). The law offers considerable protection to both badgers and badger setts. Not only is it an offence to cruelly ill treat, kill or take badgers, but it is also illegal to damage or disturb the badger sett, obstruct the access or entrance, or cause a dog to enter the sett while the sett is still occupied. The definition of ill treatment is no longer limited to the direct killing of badgers, but can be taken to include the destruction or severance of large areas of foraging territory.

Licences can be granted to disturb badgers in respect of development. Guidance from Natural England – Interpretation of ‘Disturbance’ in relation to badgers occupying a Sett (June 2009) – provides greater clarity of activities which may need a licence. Natural England advice identifies that badgers can be relatively tolerant of moderate levels of noise and activity around their setts and that even moderate levels of ‘disturbance’ may not actually disturb the badger occupying the sett. Therefore licences should only be sought were the activity will in fact disturb a badger, such as high levels of noise/activity around a sett, damaging the sett or obstructing access to a sett.

Licences to disturb badger setts in respect of development may be issued by Natural England if the applicants can convince the licensing authority of the necessity for the proposed action. Natural England has produced useful guidelines for development activities within a given range of a sett which would require a licence (English Nature, 2002). Notwithstanding the Natural England June 2009 guidance, these guidelines remain useful:

Using very heavy machinery (generally tracked vehicles) within 30 metres of any entrance to an active sett;

Using lighter machinery (generally wheeled vehicles), particularly for any digging operation, within 20 metres; and

Light work such as hand digging or scrub clearance within 10 metres.

Some activities such as the use of explosives or pile driving may cause disturbance at greater distances and require individual consideration.

1.3 Birds All birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), making it an offence, with certain exceptions (e.g. game birds) to intentionally:

Kill, injure or take any wild bird;

Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built; and

Take or destroy the egg of any wild bird.


September 2012 No. 12514190331 3

Schedule 1 of the Act contains a list of birds which are conferred extra protection and for which all offences carry harsher penalties. Under the legislation it is illegal to: intentionally or recklessly disturb a Schedule 1 bird while it is building a nest or is in or near a nest containing eggs or young; and intentionally or recklessly disturb dependent young of such a bird. Examples of species covered under Schedule 1 include: barn owl Tyto alba, kingfisher Alcedo atthis and little-ringed plover Charadrius dubius.

1.4 Reptiles All four of the widespread British species of reptile; common lizard Lacerta vivipara, slow-worm Anguis fragilis, grass snake Natrix natrix and adder Vipera berus are protected in Britain under Section 9 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This prohibits intentional killing, injury or taking and trade of animals and/or parts of animals.

1.5 Invertebrates Certain species of invertebrate are of special interest, primarily on account of their rarity (e.g. the number of 10 km National Grid squares in which a species is estimated to occur). Accordingly, species of special importance include those listed under:

UK list of priority species arising from the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (comprising 411 invertebrate species);


Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended); and

The 1994 IUCN Red List Categories that revise the previously used Red Data Book categories (Shirt, 1997).

52 species of invertebrates are fully protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended), which makes it an offence to:

Intentionally or recklessly (in Scotland) kill, injure or capture an invertebrate;

Intentionally or recklessly disturb an invertebrate;

Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct places of shelter or protection, including invertebrate breeding sites (occupied or not);

Possess or transport an invertebrate (or any part thereof) unless under licence; and

Sell or exchange invertebrates.

1.6 General Considerations All wild mammals are protected against cruelty under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which makes it an offence to mutilate, kick, beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, crush, drown, drag or asphyxiate any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering.

The extermination and control of foxes Vulpes vulpes is restricted under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).


September 2012 No. 12514190331 4

2.0 NON-NATIVE INVASIVE PLANTS Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) it is an offence "to plant or otherwise cause to grow in the wild any plant listed in Schedule 9, Part II”. This includes Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica, giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum, Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera and rhododendron Rhododendron ponticum. This could include cutting the plant or roots and disturbing surrounding soil if not correctly managed.

Further legislation affecting these species is administered via the Environmental Protection Act (1990), whereby Environment Agency guidelines state that “any Japanese knotweed [or giant hogweed] polluted soil or plant material that you discard, intend to discard or are required to discard is classed as 'controlled waste'.” Further, under Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, it is an offence to deposit, treat, keep or dispose of controlled waste without a licence. Section 34 places duties on any person who imports, produces, carries, keeps, treats or disposes of controlled waste. Accordingly, handling of controlled waste should be undertaken by an authorised person, who is either a registered carrier or exempted from registration by the Controlled Waste (Registration of Carriers and Seizure of Vehicles) Regulations 1991. This must be accompanied by appropriate Waste Transfer documentation. The provisions concerning waste transfer notes are set out in the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 (as amended). Failure to comply with these provisions is an offence.

If Japanese knotweed has been treated by certain herbicides with hazardous properties, the vegetative material and contaminated soil must then be classed as hazardous waste. Article 13 of the Waste Framework Directive 2008/96/EC requires that waste is recovered or disposed of ‘without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and in particular without risk to water, air or soil, or to plants or animals; or causing a nuisance through noise or odours; or adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest’. Under Schedule 9 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 every regulator is required to exercise its relevant functions for the purposes of implementing Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive 2006/12/EC.

Failure to manage and dispose of Japanese knotweed responsibly may lead to prosecution. Furthermore, failure to manage this species on development sites may result in structural damage. Japanese knotweed is a notoriously difficult plant to eradicate and can persist under brickwork and tarmac, potentially breaking through the surface where weaknesses occur.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.501/A.2

APPENDIX B Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Drawing 3)

© Golder Associates (UK) Ltd1st Floor

Clyde HouseReform RoadMaidenhead

BerkshireSL6 8BY

+44 (0)1628 586 200

PARKFIELD

ROAD

LEA CRESCENT

PARKFIELD

ROAD

PARKFIELD

ROAD

River Avon

River

Avon

Drain

RiverAvon

SowBrook

Rive

rAvo

n

River Avon

FB

Path(um)

SL

MP 84

Path

TkPath (um)

Path (um)

WB

El Sub Sta

Pa th (um)

Path (um)

Path (um)

Thurnmill Spinney

MP 0.25

MP 84

Viaduct

Path

(um)

ETL

Thurnmill Spinney

Path

BM 88.5

Track

SL

91.7m

92.20m

95.4m

90.2m

Track

Sub

Allotment Gardens

Track

SignalGantry

SignalGantry

BM

226

250

238

40

34

254

256

.

92

92

92

92

90

90 88

102102

102

100

100

100

100

100

100100

98

98

9694106

104

104

98

98

98

98

9696

96

96

94

94

92

92

90

90

88

88

88

86

86

84

84

82

82

90

868482 6

T

A

A

98

7

6

5

4

3

21

2020

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

Base map sources: Survey drawing.dwg andRugby Cement Plant Lawford Road Rugby Ref: DRG. 03.6.0000.L011.00

Client

CEMEX

Size Scale

Project

Title

File No.

Status

Project No.

Drawing No. Rev

Created by Requested by Proj Manager Reviewer Date

-

Not to ScaleA3 Report Issue

09514640074518818

ECS FB


3

Extended Phase 1Habitat Survey

Legend

SJS JF 06/05/11


CEMEXLand Ownership

Target Notes

Scattered Scrub

Scattered Broadleaved Trees

Ephemeral/short Perennial

Broad-leaved Semi-natural Woodland

Broadleaved Plantation Woodland

Dense Scrub



Tall Ruderal

Swamp

Standing Water

Running Water

Inland Neutral Cliff

Species-poor Hedgrow (intact)

Species Poor Hedgerow and Trees

Fence

Building

Bare Ground

0 25 50 75 100 125

Metres

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd

Cavendish House

Bourne End Business Park

Cores End Road

Bourne End

Buckinghamshire

SL8 5AS

UK

T: [+44] (0) 1628 851851

Caption Text



APPENDIX C Habitat Protection Plan

June 2013

SITA MALPASS CLIMAFUEL FACILITY

Habitat Protection Plan

RE

PO

RT

Report Number. 12514190331.500/A.2

Distribution:

SITA UK - 1 copy (pdf)

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd - 1 copy

Submitted to:

SITA UK SITA House Grenfell Road Maidenhead Berks SL6 1ES

HABITAT PROTECTION PLAN

June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background to the Project ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Scope, Purpose and Structure of the HPP ................................................................................................... 2

1.3.1 Scope and Purpose................................................................................................................................. 2

1.3.2 HPP Structure ......................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Site Description ............................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Construction Program ................................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Species Protection ........................................................................................................................................ 3

3.1.1 Badger .................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.1.2 Reptiles ................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.1.3 Breeding Birds ........................................................................................................................................ 4

3.2 Non-Native Plants ......................................................................................................................................... 5

3.3 Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) .................................................................................................................. 5

3.4 Planning Policy ............................................................................................................................................. 6

3.4.1 National Policy ........................................................................................................................................ 6

3.4.2 Regional and Local Policy ....................................................................................................................... 6

3.5 Licences and Approvals ................................................................................................................................ 6

3.6 Planning Constraints ..................................................................................................................................... 7

4.0 ECOLOGICAL BASELINE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. 7

4.1 Survey Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 7

4.1.1 Desk Study .............................................................................................................................................. 7

4.1.2 Field Surveys .......................................................................................................................................... 7

4.2 Results Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 7

4.2.1 Sites of Nature Conservation Interest ..................................................................................................... 7

4.2.1.1 Statutory Sites ..................................................................................................................................... 7

4.2.1.2 Non Statutory Sites .............................................................................................................................. 7

4.2.2 Habitats and Flora ................................................................................................................................... 8


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 ii

4.2.3 Fauna ...................................................................................................................................................... 9

4.2.3.1 Mammals ............................................................................................................................................. 9

4.2.3.2 Birds .................................................................................................................................................... 9

4.2.3.3 Amphibians and Reptiles ..................................................................................................................... 9

4.2.3.4 Invertebrates ........................................................................................................................................ 9

4.3 Ecological Constraints ................................................................................................................................ 10

4.4 Ecological Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 10

5.0 METHOD STATEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................ 13

5.1 Vegetation Clearance, Birds and Reptiles .................................................................................................. 13

5.2 Fencing Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Receptors ....................................................................... 14

5.3 Earth Movement and Storage ..................................................................................................................... 14

5.4 Inland Cliff Creation .................................................................................................................................... 15

5.5 Calcareous Mound Creation ....................................................................................................................... 16

5.6 Wetland Feature Creation and Mitigation ................................................................................................... 17

5.7 Dust Control Contingency Plan ................................................................................................................... 19

5.8 Pollution Control and Contingency Plan ..................................................................................................... 19

5.9 Landscaping ............................................................................................................................................... 20

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND CONTROL...................................................................................................................... 21

6.1 Roles and Responsibilities: Environmental Staff......................................................................................... 21

6.2 Environmental Support Staff ....................................................................................................................... 22

6.3 Environmental Team Structure ................................................................................................................... 22

6.4 Competence, Training and Awareness ....................................................................................................... 22

6.4.1 Induction and Training ........................................................................................................................... 24

6.5 HPP Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 24

7.0 CHECKING AND CORRECTIVE ACTION .............................................................................................................. 24

7.1 Checking Procedures ................................................................................................................................. 24

7.2 Inspections.................................................................................................................................................. 24

7.2.1 Ecological Clerk of Works Inspection Report ........................................................................................ 24

7.2.2 Biodiversity Champions Weekly Inspection ........................................................................................... 25

7.3 Non-Conformance, Corrective and Preventative Action ............................................................................. 25

8.0 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................... 25


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 iii

TABLES

Table 1: BAP Species and Habitats Relevant to the Site ............................................................................................... 5

Table 2: Licences and Approvals .................................................................................................................................... 6

Table 3: Citations for LWS Formally Ecosites Located Within or Adjacent to the Site ............................................... 8

Table 4: Ecological Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 11

Table 5: Environmental Training .................................................................................................................................... 24

FIGURES

Figure 1: Environmental Team Structure........................................................................................................................... 23

APPENDICES

DRAWINGS Drawing No. 1 - Site Location Plan

Drawing No. 2 - Scheme Proposals Showing Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

Drawing No. 3 – Planting Plan

Drawing No. 4 – Planting/Fencing Details

Drawing No. 5 – Lagoon cross-section

APPENDIX A Features of Conservation Importance (Drawing 5)

APPENDIX B Phase I Habitat Survey (Drawing 2)

APPENDIX C Schedule of Environmental Works


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Project

The Habitat Protection Plan (‘the HPP’) has been developed in accordance with the granting of planning

permission reference R410/08CM038 on 17 November 2009 for the construction of a Climafuel

Manufacturing Facility (‘the Facility’) at the Rugby Fuel Preparation Plant Site (‘the Site’). Planning Condition

6 as detailed below defines this requirement as follows:

Condition 6: The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a Habitat Protection Plan has

been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The plan shall include:-

a) An appropriate scale plan showing the ‘Environmental Protection Zones’ where construction

activities are restricted and where protective measures will be installed or implemented;

b) Details of protective measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid

impacts during construction;

c) Specific details or fencing to avoid ingress of personnel and machinery in proximity to the badger

setts and other measures to avoid harm to badgers and;

d) Persons responsible for:

i) Compliance with legal consents relating to nature conservation;

ii) Compliance with planning conditions relating to nature conservation;

iii) Installation of physical protection measures during construction;

iv) Implementation of sensitive working practices during construction;

v) Regular inspection and maintenance of the physical protection measures and monitoring of

working practices during construction; and

vi) Provision of training and information about the importance of ‘Environment Protection Zones’

to all construction personnel on site.

All construction activities shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timing of the

plan unless otherwise approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to protect features of recognised nature conservation importance and to avoid impacts on

protected and notable species.

1.2 Objectives

General

The principal objective of the HPP is to mitigate the impact of the proposed scheme on the environment as

set out in the Environmental Statement and Appendices. The scheme mitigation measures take into

consideration current legislation, policy and best practice in order to deliver a scheme that:

Minimises adverse impacts on flora and fauna;

Integrates the Climafuel Facility within the existing Ecosite;

Minimises the impact on notable and rare species of flora and fauna within the Site;

Ensures that commitments made during the Environmental Impact Assessment process are

implemented;

Ensures that environmental commitments made to the local authority and all statutory and non-statutory

consultees are delivered; and


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 2

Implements all methods and controls to safeguard the environment and mitigate the effects of the

schemes construction.

1.3 Scope, Purpose and Structure of the HPP

1.3.1 Scope and Purpose

The HPP describes the way in which the project will be controlled to satisfy the general requirements to

safeguard the environment and mitigate the adverse effects of the project during construction. It also

addresses where appropriate, any beneficial measures that will be taken to enhance the nature conservation

value of the wider area surrounding the Site. The HPP may also fulfil environmental management systems

protocol such as the ISO14001 system.

The application of the procedures outlined in the HPP is obligatory to all staff on the project.

1.3.2 HPP Structure

In order to facilitate environmental management for the project the HPP will be structured in a standard

format, as follows:

Section 1 provides a general background to the project and outlines the framework for the document;

Section 2 provides an outline description of the project, proposals and construction programme;

Section 3 outlines the legislative requirements of the project, incorporates a schedule of licences and

approvals required, and highlights any relevant planning constraints which are applicable to the project;

Section 4 details the baseline conditions for the scheme and predicted impacts upon ecological

receptors. This section describes the ecological objectives based on the baseline conditions and

predicted impacts, and provides a structure by which ecological mitigation will be developed and

implemented;

Section 5 incorporates best practice method statements for the identified ecological receptors

(Environmental Protection Zones), detailing the construction control procedures to be followed. These

are illustrated where appropriate with suitably scaled plans showing where construction activities are

restricted and where protective measures will be installed or implemented. The following Method

Statements have been identified that are likely to be required:

Vegetation Clearance Birds and reptiles;

Fencing Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Receptors;

Earth Movement and Storage;

Inland Cliff Creation;

Calcareous Mound Creation;

Wetland Feature Creation and Mitigation;

Dust Control Contingency Plan; and

Pollution Control and Contingency Plan.

Section 6 covers the environmental management of the construction works outlining the management

structure established and training required to deliver the project; and

Section 7 describes the checking and corrective procedures for the project including inspection,

incident reporting and auditing processes.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 3

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Site Description

The Site (shown in Drawing 1) is located at National Grid Reference (NGR) SP 489761, approximately

1.6 km west of Rugby Town Centre, and covers a total area of approximately 14 ha. It borders the West

Coast Main Railway Line and residential land to the north, Parkfield Road and an industrial estate to the

east, the London to Birmingham Main Railway Line and CEMEX (Rugby Cement Works) to the south and

the River Avon to the west. The majority of the Site was previously a quarry operated by Rugby Cement,

which has subsequently been filled with Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) and covered with 300 mm of clay and

topsoil. A conveyor that will link the existing CEMEX facility with the new Climafuel facility runs north to south,

crossing the London to Birmingham Main Railway Line at 90o. The original ground elevations exist on the

Site, between the old quarry and Parkfield Road.

2.2 Project Overview

The proposed construction and operation of the Facility includes the following:

Construction of a new access road off the Malpass Roundabout;

The construction of the Facility and its associated infrastructure, such as environmental control and

management systems, surface and groundwater management systems;

The construction of a conveyor to link CEMEX’s Rugby Cement Works with the new Facility;

The operation of the Facility for the treatment and processing of waste to produce Climafuel; and

The import of Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) from other waste treatment facilities to blend and

manufacture Climafuel.

2.3 Construction Program

The following indicative Construction Program was issued during September 2012:

Pre-Commencement Works (habitat management): completed February 2013;

Site Establishment: August 2013;

Civil Works, drainage and foundations: February 2014 – July 2014;

Structural Steelwork and cladding: June 2014 – November 2014;

Machinery fit out: September 2014 – December 2014; and

Commissioning: January 2015 – February 2015.

3.0 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Species Protection

A level of statutory protection is afforded to specific species, largely as a consequence of dramatic declines

in populations caused by habitat loss and/or degradation (both direct and indirect impacts) and persecution.

The various statutes which provide this protection include the following:

The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended);




June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 4


3.1.1 Badger

The badger Meles meles is protected in the UK under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended).

The law offers considerable protection to both badgers and badger setts. Not only is it an offence to cruelly

ill-treat, kill or take badgers, but it is also illegal to damage or disturb the badger sett, obstruct the access or

entrance, or cause a dog to enter the sett while the sett is still occupied. The definition of ill treatment is no

longer limited to the direct killing of badgers, but can be taken to include the destruction or severance of

large areas of foraging territory.

Licences can be granted to disturb badgers in respect of development. Guidance from Natural England –

Interpretation of ‘Disturbance’ in relation to badgers occupying a Sett (Natural England, 2009) – provides

greater clarity of activities which may need a licence. Natural England advice identifies that badgers can be

relatively tolerant of moderate levels of noise and activity around their setts and that even moderate levels of

‘disturbance’ may not actually disturb the badger occupying the sett. Therefore licences should on ly be

sought were the activity will in fact disturb a badger, such as high levels of noise/activity around a sett,

damaging the sett or obstructing access to a sett.

Licences to disturb badger setts in respect of development may be issued by Natural England if the

applicants can convince the licensing authority of the necessity for the proposed action. Natural England

has produced useful guidelines for development activities within a given range of a sett which would require

a licence (English Nature, 2002). Notwithstanding the Natural England June 2009 guidance, these

guidelines remain useful:

Using very heavy machinery (generally tracked vehicles) within 30 m of any entrance to an active sett;

Using lighter machinery (generally wheeled vehicles), particularly for any digging operation, within 20 m;

and

Light work such as hand digging or scrub clearance within 10 m.

Some activities such as the use of explosives or pile driving may cause disturbance at greater distances and

require individual consideration. Penalties for offences under the Act are up to six months in prison and a

fine of £5,000 for each offence.

Full details of badger conservation measures are described in the Confidential Badger Mitigation Strategy,

Golder (2010) and also the Badger Survey and Ecology Walkover, Golder (2012b).

3.1.2 Reptiles

All four of the widespread British species of reptile; common lizard Lacerta vivipara, slow-worm Anguis

fragilis, grass snake Natrix natrix and adder Vipera berus are protected in Britain under Section 9 of the

Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This prohibits intentional or reckless killing, injury or taking

and trade of animals and/or parts of animals. It can be argued, that if the animals are disturbed or damaged,

whilst occupying their places of shelter (i.e. favourable habitat) then this would amount to intent to injure or

kill the animals.

3.1.3 Breeding Birds

All birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), making it an offence, with

certain exceptions (e.g. game birds), too intentionally:

Kill, injure or take any wild bird;

Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built; and

Take or destroy the egg of any wild bird.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 5

Schedule 1 of the Act contains a list of birds which are conferred extra protection and for which all offences

carry harsher penalties. Under the legislation it is illegal to: intentionally or recklessly disturb a Schedule 1

bird while it is building a nest or is in or near a nest containing eggs or young; and intentionally or recklessly

disturb dependent young of such a bird. Examples of species covered under Schedule 1 include: barn owl

Tyto alba, kingfisher Alcedo atthis and little-ringed plover Charadrius dubius.

3.2 Non-Native Plants

Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) it is an offence "to plant or otherwise cause to

grow in the wild any plant listed in Schedule 9, Part II”. This includes Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica,

giant hogweed Heracleummantegazzianum, Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera and rhododendron

Rhododendron ponticum. This could include cutting the plant or roots and disturbing surrounding soil if not

correctly managed.

In accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (s. 33, 34), Japanese knotweed and giant

hogweed contaminated material must be taken to landfill as ‘controlled waste’; and it must be accompanied

with a valid waste transfer note as per the provisions of the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care)

Regulations 1991 (as amended).

3.3 Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs)

In 1994, the UK Government published Biodiversity: the UK Action Plan, in response to the 1992 Rio

Convention (BRIG, 2007). The UK Biodiversity Action Plan describes the UK’s biodiversity and commits a

detailed plan for the protection of this. The UK Biodiversity Partnership conducts reviews of priority habitats

and species (a major review was completed in 2007). The UK BAP priorities are used at country based

through to local geographic levels to assist determination of local priority species and habitats and

conservation action. In England, the UK BAP is primarily delivered through the England Biodiversity

Strategy, which was launched in 2002 and regularly monitors changes in the state of the priority species and

habitats (Defra, 2002).

At the local level, action to promote biodiversity conservation is coordinated by the Warwickshire, Coventry

and Solihull Local BAP. Local BAPs work on the basis of partnership between statutory and non-statutory

conservation organisations to identify local priorities and to determine the contribution they can make to the

delivery of the national Species and Habitat Action Plan targets. The Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull

Local BAP outlines how landowners, land-managers and policy makers will protect the characteristic wildlife

and landscapes of this region. The plan contains 26 Species Action Plans that have been chosen because

of their threatened status or because important national strongholds occur. 24 Habitat Action Plans have

been described, covering farmland, woodlands, wetlands, grasslands, urban areas and post-industrial land.

Habitats and species that are included in the UK BAP and Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull Local BAP,

and are relevant to the Malpass Site, have been identified in Table 1.

Table 1: BAP Species and Habitats Relevant to the Site





Scrub

Broad-Leaved Semi-natural Woodland

Hedgerows

Roadside Verge

Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land

Quarries and Gravel Pits

Rivers and Streams

Swamp


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 6



Species UK BAP Priority LBAP

Otter

Bullfinch

Reed bunting

Song thrush

Dingy skipper

Grizzled skipper

3.4 Planning Policy

3.4.1 National Policy

In March 2012 the Government published a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which sets out

national planning policies for England and how they should be applied by local planning authorities. The

NPPF condenses over 1000 pages of national planning policy into a single 59 page document and replaces

the existing suite of national Planning Policy Statements, including Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity

and Geological Conservation (PPS9, 2005). A core principle of the NPPF is a clear “presumption in favour

of sustainable development” both in plan-making and decision-taking, putting the need to balance mutually

dependent economic, social and environmental goals at the heart of planning.

3.4.2 Regional and Local Policy

Regional planning policy is set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands published in

January 2008 (West Midlands Regional Assembly, 2008). At a local level, planning policy is set out in the

Rugby Borough Local Plan (Rugby Borough Council, 2006). Policies E2, E6, E7, E8, and E9 relate to Nature

Conservation and Geology. The Ecology Chapter of the ES (Golder, 2008b) provides further details on

these policies.

3.5 Licences and Approvals Table 2: Licences and Approvals

Approval/License Administering Authority Activity requiring Consent

Lagoon discharge consent/Leachate discharge consent to foul sewer

Environment Agency

Midlands Regional Office, Sapphire East, 550 Streetsbrook Road, Solihull, West Midlands, B91 1QT

Tel. 08708 506506

Overflow route from Lagoon discharge point and potential discharge of leachate from the existing CKD landfill to foul sewer. SITA and Principal Contractor to Agree application.

Badger Licence

Natural England

Wildlife Licensing Unit,

Burghill Road

Westbury on Trym

Bristol

BS10 6NJ

Tel: 0845 6014523

Licence to carry out necessary mitigation to enable work.

Please see the confidential Badger Method Statement, Golder (2010b) for details of statutory licence applications for this site.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 7

3.6 Planning Constraints

The production of the HPP relates to Planning Condition 6 of planning permission for the Climafuel

Manufacturing Facility (R410/08CM038), which is reproduced in Section 1.1 above. A Landscape and

Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) has been prepared by Golder as a requirement of Planning Condition 7

(Golder, 2012a) and a Badger Mitigation Strategy has been prepared as a requirement of Condition 8

(Golder2013?)). All of these reports should be read in conjunction with the HPP.

4.0 ECOLOGICAL BASELINE CONDITIONS

A detailed ecological survey of the Site was completed in 2008 and subject of an Ecological Impact

Assessment:

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2008a) Environmental Statement for Malpass Climafuel Facility:

Appendix 7-1: Ecology Baseline Report 07514290053.501, Version A.0, August 2008; and

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2008b) Environmental Statement for Malpass Climafuel Facility:

Chapter 7: Ecology and Nature Conservation, 07514290053.500, Version A.0, August 2008.

A separate ecological survey of the area to the south of the Site, around the proposed conveyor was also

carried out by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd in 2009 (Golder, 2009).

The following section summarises the relevant results from these reports, which will form the cornerstone

upon which the subsequent Method Statements will be based.

4.1 Survey Methodology

Establishment of the baseline environment involved a combination of desk based review, consultation and

site survey, as summarised below.

4.1.1 Desk Study

A full Desk Study was carried out in March 2008 to identify locally designated statutory and non-statutory

sites of nature conservation importance, and to identify recent records of protected or otherwise notable

species within the Desk Study Area.

4.1.2 Field Surveys

All field surveys identified as being pertinent to the production of the Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

process were undertaken during the optimal survey windows.

4.2 Results Summary

4.2.1 Sites of Nature Conservation Interest

4.2.1.1 Statutory Sites

There are no statutory sites local to the Site that are relevant to the production of the HPP.

4.2.1.2 Non Statutory Sites

A number of sites recognised for their nature conservation importance have been designated (and receive

protection) as non-statutory Ecosites1 for wildlife in the Rugby Borough Local Plan (Rugby Borough Council,

2006). A number of Ecosites, which are Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) or potential Local Wildlife Sites (pLWS’s),

have been designated on and adjacent to the Site. These are included in Table 3.

1Ecosites are now known as Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) within the County of Warwickshire


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 8

Table 3: Citations for LWS Formally Ecosites Located Within or Adjacent to the Site

Ecosite Name Description (summarised from WMFS, 2007)

05/47 (pLWS)

Malpass Quarry/ Victoria Quarry Rugby Portland Cement Works

It includes much of the Malpass Farm Site and the Victoria Quarry Cement Works site. The Malpass Site includes a mosaic of semi-improved neutral and calcareous grasslands, dense and scattered scrub areas, semi-natural broadleaved woodland; however, the main conservation interests of that have been identified at the Site relate to an old spoil bank that has re-colonised with calcicolous flora and regionally rare species of butterfly; dingy skipper, green hairstreak, green-veined white and marbled white. To the south, the Victoria Quarry has been reworked and an aftercare scheme established (the value of the site may re-develop in future years and there are pockets of interest remaining – needs additional monitoring and assessment).

4/47 (pLWS)

Rugby to Nuneaton Railway

Forms part of the Easenhall Railway Cutting, which has been selected as a potential Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (pSINC). This is an active railway line with limited survey information. Phase 1 survey in 1998 described the cutting as composed of broad-leaved woodland, dominated by pioneer tree species.

09/47(pLWS)

Parkfield Quarry

Site of district/county value and selected as a potential Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (pSINC) and a Regionally Important Geological Site (RIGS). Habitats include bare ground, cliff face, tall herb, scrub, open water and swamp. Notable for regional rare plants and diversity of invertebrates.

10/47(LWS)

River Avon

Potential Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. This site includes the river and its adjacent bank side habitat and associated tributaries which function as a valuable wildlife corridor.

71/47 (pLWS)

Parkfield Road Verge

Site of County Nature Conservation Importance and potential Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (pSINC). Contains plant species listed as county rarities.

91/47 (pLWS)

Railway - London to Birmingham Mainline

Site of high parish value for nature conservation, noted for its potential to support a notable assemblage of birds, invertebrates and mammals. Survey information is sparse due to access problems of an active railway.

4.2.2 Habitats and Flora

A Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map showing baseline habitat distribution is presented at Appendix B. A

description of the major habitat types as shown on the map is as follows:

Scrub - Dense scrub and scattered scrub, dominated by hawthorn Crataegus monogyna and dog-rose Rosa

canina is located across the study area, with the largest concentration on the clay mound, west of the

Application Boundary, and further patches to be found in proximity to the two railway lines that occur to the

north and south of the site.

Woodland - Broad-leaved semi-natural woodland dominated by willow trees covers the chalk spoil mound to

the south of the Planning Application Area. A sizeable portion of broad-leaved plantation is located to the

south of the London to Birmingham Mainline that will be traversed by the proposed conveyor.

Species-poor grassland - Species-poor semi-improved grassland covers the area between the Application

Boundary and the River Avon and is dominated by rank, species-poor grassland with areas of tall ruderal

vegetation. A large area of extensive species-poor unmanaged neutral grassland dominated by false oat

grass Arrenatherum elatius and encroached by hawthorn scrub (MG1 – Arrhenatherum elatius NVC

community type), occupies the great majority of the Planning Application Area.

Species-rich grassland - Discrete patches of species-rich unimproved neutral grassland grazed by rabbits

(resembles MG6 – Lolium perenne - Cynosurus cristatus) is located on the clay mound to the west of the

Planning Application Area. Small pockets of species-rich unimproved calcareous grassland are also present


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 9

on the clay mound to the west and the chalk mounds to the south of the Planning Application Area. This

habitat most closely resembles CG1 – Festuca ovina - Carlina vulgaris grassland NVC type.

Bare ground - Bare ground covers the majority of the eastern side of the Planning Application Area and a

steep bank to the south of the Site, beyond the railway line; this has some ephemeral vegetation present.

Hedgerows - A species-rich hedgerow marks an old field boundary that is to the west of Parkfield Road.

Watercourses - The River Avon flows in a southwest direction past the western boundary of the Site.

Abundant macrophyte vegetation includes emergent and floating plant species.

The Sow Brook meanders beneath an open canopy of hawthorn scrub with scattered willow, before flowing

into the River Avon.

4.2.3 Fauna

4.2.3.1 Mammals

Badger – Survey results are presented in the Confidential Badger Report, Golder (2010a) and the Badger

Survey and Ecology Walkover, Golder (2012b). This work has also been consolidated by the Badger

Mitigation Strategy Golder (2013).

Otter – There is evidence of otter to the north of the Site, on the River Avon. This was limited to an old

spraint that was observed at one of the railway bridges, located to the northwest of the Site boundary.

4.2.3.2 Birds

A total of 33 bird species were recorded from the Site during surveys undertaken in 2008. Of these, six were

Amber List species (green woodpecker Picus viridis, willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus, hedge accentor

Prunella modularis, swallow Hirundo rustica, house martin Delichon urbica and kestrel Falco tinnunculus)

and four were Red List and UK BAP species (starling Sturnus vulgaris, reed bunting Emberiza schoeniculus,

bullfinch Pryhulla pryhulla, and song thrush Turdus philomelos). All these species, except swallow, house

martin, kestrel and starling, were breeding at the Site. Areas of habitat within the Site particularly suitable for

breeding birds are the rank grassland, the areas of dense and continuous scrub and the areas of willow

scrub and marginal vegetation alongside the River Avon.

4.2.3.3 Amphibians and Reptiles

Surveys undertaken during September and October 2007 confirmed likely absence of reptiles. However,

during the badger survey of June 2010 a grass snake Natrix natrix skin or ‘slough’ was noted under a tin

within the rank grassland centrally on the Site. The closest desk based reptile record for adder Vipera berus

was from the Rugby to Nuneaton Railway, which borders the Site to the north. It is therefore considered that

a small population of reptiles (grass snake, a UK BAP species) occurs at the Site, at such a low level that

they are difficult to detect.

4.2.3.4 Invertebrates

During surveys undertaken in 2008, a total of 103 species of Coleoptera (beetles) were recorded, which

include nine locally distributed beetle species and one Nationally Scarce beetle species, Longitarsus

dorsalis, which is associated with flowers of the Asteraceae (daisy) family. Incidental recording of

Hymenoptera (sawflies, ants, bees and wasps) uncovered the nationally scarce red ant Myrmica shencki, a

subterranean species associated with flowers of calcareous habitats and regarded as nationally rare, that is

a new record to Warwickshire. One hundred and sixty five species of Lepidoptera (moths) were recorded,

with three nationally scarce and four locally distributed species. The majority of these are found in

calcareous districts. The Desk Study also revealed recent records of numerous regionally scarce species of

butterfly, including the grizzled skipper Pyrgus malvae, green hairstreak Callophrys rubi and marbled white

Melanargia galathea. Of particular note is the population of grizzled skipper, as this species is closely

associated with the plants and microclimate of the chalk and clay mounds at the Site.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 10

4.3 Ecological Constraints

A composite plan showing the main ecological receptors, relevant to the scheme is included in Appendix A.

4.4 Ecological Objectives

The ecological objectives listed in Table 4 are based on a précis of the key ‘baseline conditions’ and

‘statutory requirements’ described in the previous section, together with a summary of the proposed

mitigation for the Scheme, as identified in the ecology chapter of the ES (Golder, 2008b). Table 4 should be

read in conjunction with the Method Statements in Section 5.0.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 11

Table 4: Ecological Objectives

Ecological Receptor Impact on Baseline Conditions Objective Specific Mitigation Proposed Time Constraint

The Malpass Quarry Ecosite supports a rich diversity of both UK and Local BAP Habitats as follows: unimproved neutral grassland; unimproved calcareous grassland and species-rich hedgerow. The Ecosite also supports several birds listed on the UK and Local BAP, a number of regionally uncommon plants, and a host of nationally and regionally scarce invertebrates.

Loss of semi-natural habitat, including that within the Malpass Ecosite. From a broader perspective this will also result in the fragmentation of habitat connectivity.

Compensate loss of habitat through the creation of new habitats that are designed to mimic and complement the best habitats currently present at the Site.

Manage created habitats to encourage ecological value to be maintained and enhanced.

Create new habitats surrounding the Facility to promote habitat continuity, including calcareous grassland, inland cliff and freshwater lagoon (see Method Statements 5.4 and 5.6).

Manage habitats in accordance with the Landscape and Ecology Management Plan including the creation of glades to be planted with fescue grasses and bird’s-foot trefoil (see Golder, (2012a).

February/March 2014.

There is a potential risk of damage to sensitive ecological receptors outside the Planning Application Boundary in the absence of appropriate mitigation. Damage may take the form of direct habitat destruction through accidental movement of plant, or indirect impacts, including: shading and subsequent changes in microclimate, noise disturbance and dust pollution.

Implement measures to protect existing sensitive receptors of nature conservation value.

Manage existing, unaffected habitats outside the Planning Application Area, to enhance ecological value.

Fence sensitive receptors to prevent incursion by plant and keep minimum distances to restrict noise disturbance (see Method Statement 5.2).

Implement a dust control regime (see Method Statement 5.7).

Manage habitats in accordance with the Management Plan (see Golder, (2012a).

Fencing completed February 2013.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 12

Ecological Receptor Impact on Baseline Conditions Objective Specific Mitigation Proposed Time Constraint

The River Avon and Sow Brook are both Ecosites bordering the Planning Application Boundary. Rivers and Streams are both UK and local BAP habitats. Watercourses serve as natural commuting routes for an array of wildlife such as otter and grass snake (both UK BAP species). These watercourses are of value in their own right for the good diversity of flora and fauna associated with the aquatic and riparian margins.

Potential degradation of the water environment as a consequence of an increase in sediment laden run-off from areas of recently topsoil stripped land caused during construction, or release of contaminants during operation.

The release of sediment with high organic or chemical (e.g. hydrocarbon) loads would further exacerbate the degradation.

Minimise impact of scheme by adopting best practice for working near water.

Enhance existing conditions through the provision of surface water lagoon.

Produce and implement a Pollution Control and Contingency Plan (see Method Statement 5.8).

Develop a strategy for biological monitoring of the River Avon and Sow Brook to detect any changes in water quality (see Golder, 2010a).

On-going during Construction Phase of the Project.

Nesting birds. Harm to nesting birds caused by habitat management taking place during the nesting bird season.

Undertake habitat management outside of the nesting bird season.

Be sensitive to nesting bird constraint during any habitat works (see Method Statement 5.1).

Completed habitat management February 2013.

Badgers. Disturbance to badgers and their setts.

Avoid disturbance to badgers wherever possible.

See Confidential Badger Mitigation Strategy ( See Golder

2013)

See Confidential Badger Mitigation Strategy (see

Golder,2013).

Reptiles (grass snake) Harm to reptiles during habitat management in warmer months.

Undertake habitat management during winter when reptiles are likely to be absent.

Be sensitive to reptiles (grass snakes) during habitat management (see Method Statement 5.1)

Completed habitat management February 2013.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 13

5.0 METHOD STATEMENTS

The following Method Statements are supported by the programme of works illustrated in Section 2.3 and

the Schedule of Environmental Works, at Appendix C.

5.1 Vegetation Clearance, Birds and Reptiles

Rationale

The entire Site has the potential to support nesting birds and some areas may also support low numbers of

reptiles during the warmer months. Vegetation clearance (habitat management) will be necessary to enable

the construction of the Facility to proceed. Even simple operations such as driving vehicles or walking

regularly across the Site may potentially result in disturbance or damage to nests that are in use or individual

reptiles. All common reptiles and birds, including their nests are protected under the Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). In order to avoid impacts upon nesting birds and reptiles the following

approach is recommended:

Equipment/Machinery

Tractor mounted flail, strimmers and chainsaws.

Timing

The work was completed before March 2013 to avoid any issues with nesting birds being encountered. It is

not considered that the Facility construction footprint contains suitable habitat for over wintering reptiles

(hibernacula). As such work carried out during the cooler month of February will have avoided adversely

affecting reptiles. The vegetation will be kept in a state so as it is not suitable for nesting birds or reptiles

until the commencement of full Site Establishment.

Working Method

Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) gave a ‘Toolbox Talk’ to the Site Clearance team before works

commence;

Clearance of vegetation should take place across the development footprint as identified by the entire

Application Boundary shown on Drawing 2;

Woody material will also be removed from the ‘Calcareous Donor Site’ as shown on Drawing 2;

Any clearance that needs to take place during the bird nesting season (e.g. to enable access to install

the footings of the conveyor) must be preceded by an inspection for nesting birds by the ECoW. Should

nesting birds be present, then clearance in these areas should stop until young have fledged, which

may extend to the end of August 2013;

Once cleared the development footprint must be maintained in an unsuitable condition in order to

reduce the likelihood of birds nesting. This can be achieved through regular cutting or soil stripping until

full Site Establishment; and

Bird scaring techniques may also need to be applied, subject to the effectiveness of the cutting/stripping

and the relevant schedules. Such techniques would be recommended (if appropriate) by the ECoW

who will undertake fortnightly monitoring visits to check for nesting birds should the Site clearance work

extend into the bird nesting season.

Measurement of Outcome

No reptiles or birds are killed, injured or disturbed as a result of the development.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 14

5.2 Fencing Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Receptors

Rationale

The protection of existing features of ecological value particularly the more important raised areas of the

Malpass Ecosite is of paramount importance as underlined by Planning Condition 6 items B and C. As

illustrated in Drawing 2, existing features of ecological value must be protected by using a robust barrier to

prevent incursion and disturbance to sensitive habitats from outside these areas. Stock proof fencing

utilising high tensile wire and timber stakes has been specified for this barrier as specified in Drawing 4

(Ref. GA/951460074/P/002).

Equipment/Machinery

Tractor with post rammer, wire strainers, hand tools and high tensile wire.

Timing

This operation has been undertaken during February 2013

Working Method

ECoW delivered a ‘Toolbox Talk’ to the Fencing team;

Fenceline was erected as specified in Drawings 3 and 4, under the supervision of the ECoW; and

A small section of fencing will need to be finalised only once the chalk extraction has been completed

from the chalk mound (see Method Statements 5.4 and 5.5).


The installation of the fence was signed off by the ECoW once satisfied with the quality of work. The fence

will be monitored by the ECoW throughout the construction process. A Site inspection report pro-forma will

be compiled after each visit, which will indicate the condition of this fence in order to maintain an effective

barrier throughout the construction process.

5.3 Earth Movement and Storage

Rationale

Soils stripped from within the Site will have unique nutrient content and organic and non-organic

composition. Nutrient-poor soils with low organic content would be preferred for use in any of the mound

creation at the site (including the screening bund, the raised mounds, and the area of wildflower creation to

the south of the Site (see Drawing 3, Ref.GA/951460074/P/001). Accordingly, any soils re-used within the

Site must be the subject of stringent evaluation regarding their re-instatement location in order that the

opportunity to maximise the nature conservation value of the proposed ecological features can be achieved

wherever possible.

Equipment/Machinery

Tracked 3600 excavator – for excavation and loading of soils and sub-soils.

Articulated dump truck (ADT) – for bulk movement of soils to receptor sites or storage areas.

Timing

Movement of soils will be undertaken early in the Site Establishment Phase (see also Method Statements

5.4, 5.5 and 5.6).

Working Method

ECoW to give a ‘Toolbox Talk’ to the Earth Movement team before works commence;


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 15

Storage areas will be agreed with the ECoW, clearly signed and demarcated for accurate reinstatement

purposes. Considered placement of soil storage areas will include the assessment of prevailing winds,

proximity to ecological receptors and existing buildings in order to minimise impacts associated with

dust (see method statement 5.7 for further information);

Soil stripping and handling techniques are detailed below:

Topsoil will be stripped from within the construction zone under the supervision of the ECoW;

Excavators will work to strip the soil layers and transfer them to the previously demarcated storage

areas; and

Storage areas will be clearly signed and demarcated to prevent any mixing between different layers

or different soil types. The seed/root-bearing topsoil will be formed into a shallow mound of

approximately 1 m in height.

Topsoils will be reinstated in areas demarcated for woodland and woodland edge creation (see

Drawing 3, Ref.GA/951460074/P/001);

Surplus subsoils will be used in the creation of the screening bund (see Method Statement 5.6) and the

raised mounds (see Method Statement 5. 5), which will be blended with calcareous strata from the

chalk mound, as specified by the ECoW; and

A log will be maintained by the ECoW to clearly identify when soils are stripped, how they have been

stripped, how they have been stored and managed, and dates and methods when soils restoration

takes place.


The ECoW will be able to sign off this item once satisfied that the earth movement and reinstatement has

been completed to the required standard.

5.4 Inland Cliff Creation

Rationale

Development of the eastern Process Building is likely to permanently alter the microclimate of parts of the

chalk mound as a consequence of over shading. As such it is proposed to remove the shaded strata and

create raised calcareous mounds throughout the Site as described in Method Statement 5.5. The excavated

‘cliff face’ will be engineered to maximise the scope for south facing aspects. The resulting microclimatic

conditions would be ideal for a range of thermophilous (warmth-loving) invertebrate species.

Equipment/Machinery

Tracked 3600 excavator – for excavation and loading of the chalk strata.

Articulated dump truck (ADT) – for bulk movement of chalk to receptor sites or storage areas.

Timing

Movement of chalk will be undertaken early in the Site Establishment Phase (see also Method

Statements 5.3 and 5.5).

Working Method

ECoW to give a ‘Toolbox Talk’ to the earth movement team before works commence;

The excavation of the material will require temporary access through the line of the fencing, so all

activities in this area must be supervised for the duration by the ECoW to prevent damage to any

ecologically sensitive features;


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 16

Using excavators, chalk will be removed from the eastern face of the chalk mound to the extent of the

shading from the eastern Process Building. Scalloped edges must be created in order to provide a

diversity of aspects and gradients to enhance niche micro-habitats for invertebrate species. Retain

turves of any calcareous grassland vegetation and store in suitable condition for translocation to

calcareous mounds;

South facing aspects in particular will be favoured;

The eastern face should then be left fallow in order that shade-tolerant plant communities may colonise

through natural succession processes;

The apex of the remaining chalk should be engineered at a steep gradient to encourage burrowing

invertebrates into this part of the escarpment;

On completion, the fencing in the affected area of the works will be completed to the specification

detailed in Method Statement 5.2; and

Excavated chalk from the mound will be placed in areas of lower ecological value as identified on

Drawing 2 (‘Calcareous Receptor Areas’) and described in Method Statement 5.5.


The appointed ECoW will sign off this item once satisfied that the eastern escarpment has the physical

attributes defined in this scope of works. The ‘Species-Rich Grassland and Scrub Mosaic’ monitoring

program described in the Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (Golder, 2012a) will define the success

of the inland cliff creation.

5.5 Calcareous Mound Creation

Rationale

The construction of a number of raised mounds is proposed using calcareous strata removed from the donor

site (see Drawing 2). This will provide an opportunity for self-sown calcareous plants to colonise additional

areas of the Site, enhancing the species and structural diversity of grassland habitats at the Site and further

benefitting associated species, including butterflies such as the grizzled skipper, Pyrgus malvae.

Equipment/Machinery

Tracked 3600 excavator – for excavation and loading of the calcareous sub-strata from the chalk mound.

Articulated dump truck (ADT) – for bulk movement of strata to the receptor site locations.

Timing

It is envisaged that the raised mounds will be created early in the Site Establishment Phase, starting in

February 2013. This will take place at a similar time to the general earth movement operations, inland cliff

creation and lagoon creation (see also Method Statements 5.3, 5.4 and 5.6).

Working Method

ECoW to give a ‘Toolbox Talk’ to the earth movement team before works commence;

Under the supervision of the ECoW, calcareous strata will be removed from the existing chalk mound to

the extent of the predicted shading effect of the Eastern Process Building. This strata will be further

sub-divided and moved via Articulated Dump Truck (ADT) to create the raised mounds in the indicative

locations identified in Drawing 2. If the volume of calcareous stata is small, it will be blended with clay

derived from the construction of the lagoon to the north;

The gradients of these raise mounds will be such that they will facilitate a certain level of slippage and

erosion to perpetuate bare ground conditions on the south face;


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 17

To achieve an open habitat that will be naturally colonised by early pioneer species, the calcareous

growing medium will be compacted where possible; and

These mounds will be naturally colonised over time and no sowing will therefore take place as part of the landscaping specification. The appointed ECoW will undertake a watching brief for the duration of this task.


The construction of the mounds will be signed off by the ECoW once satisfied with the quality of work. The

‘Species-Rich Grassland and Scrub Mosaic’ monitoring program described in the LEMP (Golder, 2012a) will

define the success of the mound creation.

5.6 Wetland Feature Creation and Mitigation

Rationale

Rainwater collected from the roofs of the Facility will be drained directly into a lagoon which will be

constructed in the north of the Site. This feature has the potential to contribute as an area of high ecological

value for aquatic/semi-aquatic flora and fauna, in what was an area of species-poor, rank grassland. A

series of ledges or slopes will be incorporated into the lagoon in order to enable the establishment of a

structurally diverse plant community, which will in turn attract a range of birds, amphibians and invertebrates

(such as reed bunting and common toad, which are both Biodiversity Action Plan Priority species).

Whilst the design of the lagoon is essentially geared toward functionality as a reservoir it is also important to

understand the key ecological design features, such as the presence of a ‘drawdown zone’ in which the

water levels fluctuate.

Ponds are a UK and Local BAP Priority Habitat and reed beds are similarly designated. The following key

species would benefit from the construction of the lagoon within the Site confines:

Bats – Foraging habitat, particularly species such as the Daubenton’s;

Birds – Provision of nesting and foraging habitat for species such as reed bunting, increased habitat for

predatory birds such as the kingfisher;

Amphibians and Reptiles – Breeding habitat for amphibians and foraging habitat for all taxon; and

Invertebrates – A diverse array of aquatic invertebrates can benefit from wetland creation, especially

where it promotes the establishment of structural diversity both above and below the water-line.

Timing

It is envisaged that the lagoon will be created early in the Site Establishment Phase. The spoil generated by

its construction will be utilised to create the adjacent bund (see also Method Statements 5.3 and 5.5).

Planting will be undertaken in spring 2014, after water has started to naturally fill the lagoon.

Equipment/Machinery

Tracked 3600 excavator – for excavation and loading of topsoil and re-grading.

Tracked dozer - for re-grading.

Articulated dump truck (ADT) – for bulk movement of soils to the bund location or storage areas.

Spades and wheelbarrow - for movement of translocated material from the bank of the River Avon.

Working Method

ECoW to give a ‘Toolbox Talk’ to the Earth Movement team before works commence;


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 18

The lagoon will be created in the area as indicated in Drawing 2;

The lagoon profile should be designed to have a wide, gently sloping margin in order to provide a large

drawdown zone that will be favoured by a diverse range of specialised flora and fauna (Drawing 5).

This shallow incline should be engineered at the estimated mean water level and will be supervised by

the ECoW;

Clay extracted in the creation of the lagoon will be used to make the screening bund, immediately north

of the lagoon. Some of the clay may be blended with calcareous strata derived from the chalk mound

(see Method Statement 5.5), to increase the area of calcareous strata available for grassland habitat

creation;

A minimum of 250 mm of sand and gravel subsoil should be spread over the clay base to provide a

rooting substrate for aquatic and marginal plants;

Planting, to be undertaken in late spring 2014, will be undertaken using spades to dig out wetland

vegetation from the banks of the River Avon and transport the transplants using a wheelbarrow.

Material will be selected by the ECoW, to fit into one of the following zones within the lagoon as

specified in the Planting Specification (below);

An area of seasonally ‘wet’ grassland that sits close to the water table will be seeded with a native

grass seed mixture that is suited to the soils of the locality. A coir blanket would then be fitted to

prevent soil erosion until this grassland zone has become suitably established; and

A floating island would also be provided to offer instant cover and habitat that will be unaffected by

fluctuating water levels should these occur. A modular floating frame with pre-established coir pallets

would be used. Plants incorporated into the pallets would include purple loosestrife, yellow flag iris,

lesser pond sedge and reed sweet grass.

Planting Specification

Permanent Open Water. The areas of lagoon which will not dry out (i.e. areas lower than the anticipated

minimum water level). Planting in these areas will consist of occasional plants of yellow water lily Nuphar

lutea and broad-leaved pondweed Potamogeton natans.

Emergent Plant Ledge. This ledge will be planted with emergent plants that favour deep water. This ledge

will be located at the point where water will always be present, albeit shallow during particularly dry periods.

Species used will include arrowhead Sagitaria sagitifolia, common club-rush Schoenoplectus lacustris and

amphibious bistort Polygonum amphibium.

Marginal Plant Ledge. This marginal strip will be situated at the point where plants will remain saturated for

most of the year, although roots may be sat above the water line during periods of drought. The ground

surface will be undulating in order to maximise the spatial variation in water conditions. This ledge will be

planted with areas of common reed Phragmites australis and aquatic and marginal plants adapted to

submergence for the majority of the time, including brooklime Veronica beccabunga, amphibious bistort

Polygonum amphibium, fool’s watercress Apium nodiflorum, branched bur-reed Sparganium erectum, reed

sweet-grass Glyceria maxima and lesser pond sedge Carex acutiformis. There will be dense stands of

common reed in some areas, and more open areas with less marginal planting. Approximately 30% of the

area will be left unplanted in order to provide bare ground habitat (which is of value to species such as water

beetles and various ground beetles), and to allow some natural re-vegetation to take place.

Inundation Plant Ledge. This ledge will be positioned so as to be seasonally inundated. As with the

Marginal Ledge, the ground surface will be undulating in order to maximise the spatial variation in water

conditions, and likewise, there will be dense stands of vegetation in some areas, and more open areas that

will suit ground beetles of the drawdown zone. Plants will be selected from the following list of inundation

species: yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus, purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria, water forget-me-not Myosotis


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 19

scorpioides, false fox sedge Carex otrubae, meadowsweet Filipendula ulmaria, lesser pond sedge Carex

acutiformis and water mint Mentha aquatica.


The ECoW will be able to sign off this item once satisfied that the ground preparation has been completed to

the required standard and that lagoon is naturalising and fulfilling the role of a wetland feature and ecological

habitat. The ‘Waterbodies’ monitoring program described in the LEMP (Golder, 2012a) will define the

success of the lagoon creation.

5.7 Dust Control Contingency Plan

As discussed in Section 1.2 principle objectives for the HPP are to mitigate the impact of the construction

scheme on sensitive flora and fauna. When considering potential dust control and pollution, recent

guidelines in Planning Policy Statement 232 clearly set out the Government’s stance on pollution control with

regard to construction within the planning system. A series of measures will be required to ensure best

working practice is adhered to, as follows:

The construction scheme will operate under the London Best Practice Guidance3 which can be summarised

by stating three principles of:

Prevention;

Suppression; and

Containment.

Further to this:

The long-term stockpiling and storage of soils will be avoided where practicable;

Site access routes will be swept clean of debris and deposits and disposed of appropriately;

Cutting grinding and sawing operations should use water suppressant or suitable local exhaust

ventilation systems; and

Loading of skips should be undertaken with the minimum of ‘drop height’ to control the fall of materials.

‘Frisbee Gauges’ that comprise of an adhesive pad will be placed strategically around the Site in order to

determine the percentage contribution and prevailing direction of dust sources. This information will dictate

the requirement for preventative measures such as the use of misting systems to damp down haul routes

and exposed spoil heaps in times of low rainfall and/or high winds.

The Frisbee Gauges will be monitored and changed on a monthly basis by the ECoW. The extent and

distribution of deposited dust will indicate problem areas where additional dust prevention measures, such as

tarmac surfacing of haul roads or seasonal traffic restrictions may be necessary.

The monitoring of the Frisbee Gauges and appropriate dust management prescriptions outlined in this

Method Statement will be used to evaluate the effectiveness and long term compliance of the project.

5.8 Pollution Control and Contingency Plan

The River Avon is a particularly sensitive ecological receptor that is designated as an Ecosite in respect of

the fact that it supports diverse range of associated flora and fauna, including various key species such as

the white-legged damselfly and otter. In order to prevent any pollution from occurring that might potentially

cause the deterioration of the aquatic environment it is proposed that a series of measures are introduced,

2http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/planningpolicystatement23.pdf

3http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/guides/bpg/bpg_04.jsp


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 20

with the onus being placed firmly upon the adoption of the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention

Guidelines (PPG 05). Accordingly, to ensure best working practice is adhered to, the following will be

implemented:

The Biodiversity Champion (see Section 6.0) shall record all spills, leaks, incidents and complaints in a

“Foreman’s Logbook” and report all incidents immediately to the ECoW, regardless of magnitude.

Furthermore, oil interceptors will be fitted to the inflow of the lagoon in order to prevent hydrocarbon

pollution;

Excess ground water encountered during lagoon or any other construction operations shall never be

pumped directly into a watercourse or onto adjacent land without appropriate filtration measures having

been adopted. Silt fencing may be used along the western boundary on a discretional basis subject to

monitoring by the ECoW;

No materials intended for the works or arising from the works should be stored or disposed of in any

watercourse or in a position where it may enter the watercourse. In particular, the washout from

concrete mixing plant or lorries must not be allowed to flow into watercourses;

A ‘Hydrocarbon Spill Clean-up Kit’ will be held on the Site at all times – located within a suitably

waterproof container. The Principal Contractor shall maintain adequate supplies of pollution clean-up

equipment at the Site;

There shall be no bulk storage of hydrocarbons at the Site. If a requirement to store minimal amounts

of hydrocarbons on Site is identified, then it shall be within a secure location, clearly labelled, and within

secondary containment (with a capacity of 110% of the storage volume), a minimum of 30 m distance

away from the River Avon. To prevent spillages, refuelling should be carried out by pumping through a

trigger delivery nozzle. The designated area should be maintained in a secure and clean manner and

fenced appropriately to reduce risk of vandalism that might result in pollution;

Site roads should be regularly cleaned and kept free from deposits, to prevent these from entering

watercourses (see also Method Statement 5.7); and

There shall be no refuelling of plant and machinery within 5 m of the River Avon, and appropriate

signage will be used to identify designated refuelling areas.

In addition to the above, there will be regular monitoring of the discharge from the lagoon at a frequency, and

parameters agreed with the Agency, and implemented, controlled and monitored in line with the

requirements of the Site’s environmental permit. Further details of ecological monitoring (of the River Avon)

are provided in the LEMP (Golder, 2012a).

5.9 Landscaping

As specified within Appendix C Schedule of Environmental Works, Project Landscaping will commence in

January 2014. The landscape design is geared toward maximum biodiversity value by utilising considered

planting schemes such as the planting of buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica within the edge mixing around the

grassland areas.

Although small areas of the screening bund will be seeded with a suitable mix to include ragged robin

Cardamine pratensis and Lady’s smock Lychnis flos-cuculi, large areas within the north of the Site including

much of the screening bund will be vegetated by the natural succession processes. This reliance on

windblown and natural colonisation will ensure that provenance botanical assemblages feature in these

areas.

Native standard trees of local provenance have been selected to enhance the structural diversity of the site

and provide forage and commuting habitat for a range of species. A new buckthorn hedgerow will be

planted to the south of the office building. Buckthorn has been specified in order to provide egg laying

vegetation for the brimstone butterfly Gonepteryx rhamni.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 21

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND CONTROL

6.1 Roles and Responsibilities: Environmental Staff

The Golder Associates (UK) Ltd (GA) Environmental Team, illustrated at 6.2, will be headed up by

Environmental Manager Tim Fill. Freddy Brookes will be the nominated ECoW, who will be the central point

for all ecological/environmental issues, liaising as appropriate with the SITA Planning Manager Corrina

Scott-Roy, the nominated Principal Contractor Biodiversity Champion and statutory consultees in order to

deliver the short and long term Environmental vision for the Site. Roles and responsibilities of key personnel

are given in the following accounts:

Planning Manager: Corrina Scott-Roy (SITA)

Is responsible for:

Compliance with legal consents relating to nature conservation;

Compliance with planning conditions relating to nature conservation;

Managing and co-ordinating the Environmental Aspects of the scheme, including the Environmental

Design; and

Coordinating and overseeing the implementation of the Environmental Works (including the HPP).

Environmental Manger: Tim Fill (GA)

Is responsible for:

Assembling the GA Environmental Team;

Liaising, as appropriate with the Project Manager; and

Providing support to the ECoW.

ECoW: Freddy Brookes (GA)

Is responsible for:

Monitoring compliance with the HPP, and in particular the Method Statements. The ECoW will be

present at the start of works to ensure the delivery of the works in accordance with each of the following

items in the Method Statements, and towards the completion of works in order to certify the quality of

the work. It will be necessary for the ECoW to be present at other times in the interim period, although

this will be defined by the complexity of the task and the potential for disturbance to existing sensitive

features. Only once the ECoW is satisfied with the outcome of each item will they be considered as a

completed action;

Manage Site activities of environmental specialists;

Liaison with consultees;

Liaison and incident reporting to the Biodiversity Champion;

Liaison and incident reporting to the Planning Manager;

Site inspections and reporting;

Badger mitigation and monitoring; and

Provide training and information about the importance of ecologically sensitive receptors to all

construction personnel on Site through delivery of ‘Toolbox Talks’.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 22

Biodiversity Champion: (Appointed Principal Contractor)

Is responsible for:

Implementation of the environmental construction including the physical barrier (fence) in order to

protect all existing ecological receptors;

Ensure the HPP is adhered to on Site including checking the integrity of the fence line to protect

ecological receptors;

Ensure the implementation of environmentally sensitive working practices;

Site inductions;

Respond to environmental incidents, and ensure all reporting carried out correctly;

Review incidents with Environmental Team to prevent repeat occurrence; and

Liaise with environmental stakeholders as required.

6.2 Environmental Support Staff

The following Environmental Support Staff will advise on:

Ecology: Freddy Brookes ECoW (GA) and Adele Antcliff, Ecologist (GA)

Badger Issues: Freddy Brookes ECoW (GA)

Archaeology: Paul Wheelhouse (GA)

Noise, Water and Air Quality: Simon Waddell (GA), David Hybert (GA), Dr Samantha Arnold

(GA)

Protected Species Licence Holders: Natural England Licensee Freddy Brookes (GA).

6.3 Environmental Team Structure

The environmental team structure is shown diagrammatically overleaf.

6.4 Competence, Training and Awareness

Training constitutes a fundamental element in ensuring environmental performance improvement; indeed the

effectiveness of any system to improved performance is dependent on the adequacy of information held and

the application of that information by personnel. All personnel working for or on behalf of SITA should have

the appropriate awareness and competence to meet the requirements of the HPP.

The primary objectives of training are to ensure that:

Personnel are fully aware of the SITA Environmental, Sustainable Development and Energy Policies;

Personnel are fully aware of the potential environmental impact of their work and associated

environmental issues;

Individually and collectively, personnel are committed to the provision of a sound environmental

performance;

Activities of personnel do not expose SITA to criticism or legal/financial liability; and

Effective communication in respect of environmental issues exists within the corporate body.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 23

Figure 1: Environmental Team Structure

SITA

Corrina Scott-Roy Planning Manager

Golder Associates

Tim Fill

Environmental Manager

Principal Contractor

Biodiversity Champion

Golder Associates

Freddy Brooks

ECoW

Technical Support Staff

Golder Associates

Adele Antcliff (Ecologist)

Consultees

Butterfly Conservation

Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

Warwickshire County Council

Principal Contractor

Environmental Manager


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 24

6.4.1 Induction and Training

A Principal Contractor Site induction shall cover environmental issues specific to the Project and outline the

procedures that shall be taken to minimise the potential environmental impacts of construction activities

outlined within the HPP. The Principal Contractor Environmental Manager or Biodiversity Champion shall

administer this induction. The induction shall be supplemented with regular ‘Toolbox Talks’ which will be

undertaken by the nominated ECoW or Biodiversity Champion dependent on the nature and complexity of

the task. The Toolbox Talks and watching briefs must take place prior and during all Method Statement

operations as defined within the HPP. Table 5 summarises the environmental training that will be necessary.

Table 5: Environmental Training

Task Personnel Involved Provision

Induction containing an Environmental awareness briefing covering the requirements of the HPP

Operatives and Staff Biodiversity Champion

Toolbox Talks Operatives and Staff Provided by ECoW and the Biodiversity Champion dependent on the context of the task

Specific training following an environmental incident.

Operatives and Staff

Provided by the Principal Contractor Environmental Manager and Biodiversity Champion as directed by the SITA Environmental Manager

6.5 HPP Reporting

Environmental performance will be monitored against the objectives outlined in Section 1.2 of this document.

Performance against these objectives will be monitored continually and findings reported in a bi-annual HPP

review. The Principal Contractor Biodiversity Champion will oversee this process and the ECoW will review

this process.

7.0 CHECKING AND CORRECTIVE ACTION

7.1 Checking Procedures

In order to determine compliance with the requirements of the HPP, Site inspections and audits must be

undertaken regularly. These will be carried out by the following processes:

Regular Site inspections, carried out by the ECoW, in accordance with this report;

Audits, in accordance with the SITA and Principal Contractors environmental management systems;

Management Review with SITA environmental management and the Principal Contractors; and

All records of evaluation will be maintained and controlled in accordance with SITA and the Principal

Contractors environmental management systems e.g. ISO14001.

7.2 Inspections

7.2.1 Ecological Clerk of Works Inspection Report

The ECoW will undertake a detailed Site Inspection to measure environmental compliance with the HPP.

The inspection frequency will be determined by the occurrence of critical works at times of the year when

disturbance to sensitive environmental receptors is likely to be greatest. For the duration of the Project,

monthly inspections would be appropriate. However inspections would be more frequent, at fortnightly

intervals during the following Phases of the Project:


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2 25

Pre-Commencement Works (Vegetation Clearance);

Site Establishment; and

Civil Works relating to drainage and foundations.

7.2.2 Biodiversity Champions Weekly Inspection

The Principal Contractor nominated Biodiversity Champion will undertake an Environment inspection on a

weekly basis. The aim of routine workplace inspections is to detect and rectify the simple and mainly

obvious hazards that can often be the cause of accidents or environmental incidents.

7.3 Non-Conformance, Corrective and Preventative Action

All environmental non-conformances will be recorded on an Environment Incident Investigation and Report

form generated by the ECoW or the Principal Contractors Biodiversity Champion or Environmental Manager.

Dependent on the severity of the non-conformity differing actions may be required these range from the

adaptation of working practice, additional Tool Box Talks being required or in severe cases the involvement

of statutory bodies such as the Environment Agency as appropriate.

8.0 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Biodiversity Reporting and Information Group (BRIG) (ed. A. Maddock) (2007) UK Biodiversity Action Plan;

Report on the Species and Habitat Review [online].UK Biodiversity Partnership. Available from:

http://www.ukbap.org.uk/bapgrouppage.aspx?id=112 [Accessed, July 2010].

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd (2008a) Climafuel Manufacturing Facility.Malpass Farm, Rugby, Warwickshire.

Chapter 7.1 Ecology Baseline Report. Unpublished report by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd.

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2008b) Climafuel Manufacturing Facility. Malpass Farm, Rugby, Warwickshire.

Chapter 7 Ecology & Nature Conservation. Unpublished report by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd.

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2009) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), Environmental

Assessment Regulations 1999 (as amended), Regulation 19 – Additional Information Malpass Farm, Rugby.


Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2012a) SITA Malpass Farm, Landscape and Ecology Management Plan.


Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2012b) SITA Malpass Farm, Badger Survey and Ecology Walkover.

Unpublished report by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2013) SITA Malpass Farm Badger Mitigation Strategy. Unpublished report by



June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2



Adele Antcliff Freddy Brookes

Ecologist Ecologist

Author: Freddy Brookes/JF/AA/cr

Date: 6 June 2013

Company Registered in England No.1125149

At Attenborough House, Browns Lane Business Park, Stanton-on-the-Wolds, Nottinghamshire NG12 5BL

VAT No. 209 0084 92

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2

DRAWINGS Drawing No. 1 - Site Location Plan Drawing No. 2 - Scheme Proposals Showing Mitigation and Enhancement Measures Drawing No. 3 – Planting Plan Drawing No. 4 – Planting/Fencing Details Drawing No. 5 – Lagoon cross-section

®Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital mapdata © Crown copyright 2002. All rights reserved.

The Site

Scale

Project

Title

File No.

Status

Project No.

Drawing No. Rev

Client Created by Requested by Proj Manager Reviewer Date


Size

CEMEX


Site Location Plan

ECS FB - - -

518815

1:50,000

09514640074

Report Issue

1 -A4

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey photography on behalf of The Controller of Her majesty's Stationary Office © Crown Copyright 100017807 2009


Scale

Project

Title

File No.

Status

Project No.

Drawing No. Rev

Client


SizeA3

CEMEX


Scheme Proposals ShowingMitigation and Enhancement Measures

JW AA JA FB 03/05/13585398 12514190331

1:3,000 For Information

2 -

Legend


CEMEX Land Ownership

1:3,0000 60 120 180m




SL8 5AS+44 (0)1628 851 851

Lagoon

BundCalcereous Receptor Areas

Calcareous Donor Site

Environment Protection Zone5 Bar Timber Gate. (See Drawing 4for specificationStock Proof Fencing. (See Drawing 4for specification)

GENERAL NOTES

Figured dimensions only are to be used. This drawing is thesole copyright of Golder Associates. Any discrepanciesbetween this drawing and other information shall be reportedto Golder Associates.This drawing is based upon supplied survey / layout base.This drawing is to be read inconjunction with GolderAssociates Dwg No. GA/9514640074/P/002.This drawing is not issued for construction

LEGENDProposed Edge Mix Planting(Refer to planting schedules and Detail 1on GolderAssociates dwg no 4)

Proposed Native Woodland Transplant Planting(Refer to planting schedules and Detail 1 on Golder Associates dwg no 4)

Proposed Marginal Planting(Refer to planting schedules)

Proposed Standard Tree Planting(Refer to planting schedules and Detail 2 on Golder Associates dwgno 4)

Proposed Timber Post and Wire Mesh Stock Proof Fence(Refer to Detail 4 on Golder Associates dwg no 4)

Proposed Hedgerow Planting(Refer to planting schedules and Detail 3 on Golder Associates dwgno 4)

Existing Vegetation / Hedgerow Retained

EM 1

WM 1

Proposed Timber Gate(Refer to Detail 5 on Golder Associates dwg no 4)

Proposed Lagoon / Pond(Refer to engineers details)

Proposed Wildflower Planting(Refer to planting schedules)

Proposed Amenity Grass Seeding(Refer to planting schedules)

Proposed Screening Bund

M1

WF

S

H

Application Boundary

Not seeded - Natural SuccessionNS

PLANTING SCHEDULE

Size(cm) SpacingTypeSpecies

WOODLAND MIX

Corylus avellanaFraxinus excelsiorMalus sylvestris 1u1 BRPrunus avium

WM1

15

2m centres2m centres2m centres2m centres

1u1 BR40-60cm1u1 BR40-60cm

1u1 BR40-60cm40-60cm

Acer campestreBetula pendula

2m centres2m centres

1u1 BR40-60cm1u1 BR40-60cm

Quercus robur 2m centres1u1 BR40-60cm

15

15

30

5

15

35

Refer to Detail 1 on dwg no 4.


EDGE MIX

Corylus avellana

Ilex aquifoliumMalus sylvestris 1u1 BRPrunus spinosa

EM1

15

1u1 BR40-60cm

40-60cm

1u1 BR40-60cm40-60cm

Acer campestreBetula pendula

1u1 BR40-60cm1u1 BR40-60cm

Viburnum opulus 1u1 BR40-60cm

15

90

15

15

35

15

Corylus sanguinea 1u1 BR40-60cm 15

2 litre CGCrataegus monogyna 40-60cm 1251u1 BR

1.5m centres1.5m centres1.5m centres1.5m centres1.5m centres1.5m centres1.5m centres1.5m centres1.5m centres

EM2

14

14

70

14

14

28

14

14

98

EM3

22

22

110

22

22

44

22

22

154

EM4

22

24

110

24

24

38

24

24

158

EM5

12

10

65

12

10

25

12

10

85

EM6 EM7 EM8

9

9

45

9

9

18

9

9

63

EM9

5

5

20

5

5

10

5

5

25

EM10

5

5

30

5

5

10

5

5

20

WM2

10

10

15

30

5

10

35

WM3

10

10

10

20

5

10

15

WM4 WM5

25

25

30

65

15

25

80

WM6

5

5

5

10

3

5

12

WM7

1103m²775m² 630m² 1014m² 555m² 530m² 1020m² 422m² 180m² 205m²

250m² 230m² 150m² 240m² 535m² 85m² 75m²

139

139

134

715

978

136

134

278

136

360 280 440 480 241 235 450 180 85 90TOTAL No

10

10

60

10

10

25

10

10

90

25

25

115

20

20

45

20

160

20

130 115 80 60 265 50

6

6

6

15

3

6

18

5

5

5

8

2

5

10

40TOTAL No

Total

Total

76

76

86

178

38

76

135

Size(cm) SpacingTypeSpeciesH1

184Rhamnus cathartica 8 per linear metre. Double Staggard Row1u1 BR40-60cm23 Lin Mtrs

HEDGEROW


STANDARD TREES; WOODLAND AREAS

Fraxinus excelsior

Quercus robur

Acer campestre Std BR 250-300cm 3-4mGirth

8-10cm

Std BR

Std RB


Betula Pendula Std RB 250-300cm

250-300cm

250-300cm

8-10cm

8-10cm

8-10cm

MARGINALS (M) - See Method Statement 5.6

WM1 WM2 WM3 WM4 WM5 WM6 WM7 Total

TOTAL No


STANDARD TREES; EDGE MIX AREAS

Fraxinus excelsior

Quercus robur

Acer campestre Std BR 250-300cm

As Shown

As Shown

As ShownGirth

8-10cm

Std BR

Std RB

Betula Pendula Std RB As Shown250-300cm

250-300cm

250-300cm

8-10cm

8-10cm

8-10cm

TOTAL No

TotalEM1 EM2 EM3 EM4 EM5 EM6 EM7 EM8 EM9 EM10

3 - 3 5 2 - 16

3 4 3 5 3 3 24

5 - 3 7 - - 18

5 3 3 8 - - 22

16 7 12 25 5 3 80

3

3

3

3

12

9 5 11 15 8 3 5 5 6 -

3

-

3

3

- 3 3 - - 2 - - -

- 3 3 3 3 - 5 3 -

3 - 4 5 - - - 3 -

2 5 5 - - 3 - - -

11

20

15

18

Trees to be planted in random odd numbered groups of 3,5, 7 etc at 3-4m spacings within woodland block area, exact locations to be agreed with the ecologist.

Trees to be planted in random odd numbered groups of 3,5, 7 etc within edge mix areas at locations shown, refer to outline specification notes.

3-4m

3-4m

3-4m



Refer to Detail 3 on dwg noGA/9514640074/P/002.Refer to outline specification notes.

Refer to outline specification notes.




Buckthorn-Rhamnus Cathartica 40-60cm 1u1 BR 1.5m centres 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 00 0 32

Seed Mix

AMENITY GRASS SEED MIX (S)

British Seed House A4 Mix

Sowing Rate

25 grams per m²

NB. Refer to outline specification notes.Seed mixes are indicative and are dependant on soil and usage.

Seed Mix

WILDFLOWER PLANTING

WF: Seed mix to include Cardamine Pratensis and Lychnis flos-cuculi

Sowing Rate

5 grams per m²

NB. Refer to outline specification notes.Seed mixes are indicative and are dependant on soil and usage.

Lagoon

SCREENING BUND

MalpassRoundabout

ExistingHedgerowRetained

WeighbridgeOffice

Office

Sub Station

Car Parking

HGVParking

EM1

EM2

EM3

EM4

EM5

EM6

EM7

EM8

EM9

EM10

WM1

WM2

WM4

WM5

WM6

WM7

WM3

Area of BotanicalInterest

EXISTING GRASS RETAINED

Hard Standing / Vehicle Access

H1

Entran

ce

Proposed Timber Gate

S

S

S

S

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

Quercus robur 3no

Quercus robur 3no

Quercus robur 5no

Quercus robur5no

Quercus robur 3no

Acer campestre 3no

Fraxinus excelsior 3no


Betula pendula 3no

Acer campestre 3no

Fraxinus excelsior 4noBetula pendula 3no

Acer campestre 3no

Betula pendula 3no


Betula pendula 3no

Acer campestre 3no


Betula pendula 3no

Betula pendula 5no

WFWF

WF

WF


Project

Title

File No.

Status

Project No.

Drawing No. Rev

Client

SizeA1


Scale

CEMEX


Planting Plan

JW AA JA FB 03/05/13585398 12514190331

1:750 For Information

3 -1:750

0 15 30 45 60 75 90mGolder Associates (UK) Ltd

Cavendish HouseBourne End Business Park

Cores End RoadBourne End

BuckinghamshireSL8 5AS

+44 (0)1628 851 851

OUTLINE SPECIFICATION NOTES

NATIVE STANDARD TREESAll standard trees to be planted in-accordance with and as perDetail 2 on dwg noGA/9514640074/P/002 .

All trees are to be planted in random odd numbered groups of3,5,7 & 9 throughout the native woodland mix at an average of4m centres as instructed on site by the Ecologist. Allow fornative transplants to be planted between groups of trees. Treeswithin Edge Mixes to be planted at location shown. Avoid largeregular groups or straight lines. Refer to schedules for numbers.

NATIVE TRANSPLANTSAll native transplant to be planted in-accordance with and as perDetail 1 on dwg noGA/9514640074/P/002 .

NATIVE HEDGEROWSAll native transplant to be planted in-accordance with and as perDetail 3 GA/9514640074/P/002 .

All ground to be reinstated to existing levels. All track marks tobe made good and reinstated to existing levels.

WILDFLOWER MEADOWRefer to Wildflower Meadow schedule for seed mix.Wildflower meadow seed to be sown at a rate of 5 grams per m²in early September dependent on weather and groundconditions.All seed is to be of local provenance.

AMENITY GRASS SEED MIXBritishSeed Houses A4 Mix (or similar approved)and A3 (referto schedules for areas) Mix at 25 grams per m² in April - May orSept dependent on weather and ground conditions.

MAINTENANCEAll planting is subject to a five years maintenance and plantdefect guarantee. Any plant that fails within that period is to bereplaced with one of the same specification or of a larger size asto match the maturing planting to be advised by the CA.

NATIVE TREES, TRANSPLANTS & HEDGEROWAll planting shall be kept weed free throughout the season for aperiod of two years. Allow for a 500mm radius weed free area toeach transplant and tree throughout the season. Apply anapproved translocated herbicide a minimum of three times perseason.Allow for strimming all grass areas between plants withinplantations a minimum of three times during the season or asrequired to prevent grass growing above 75mm. Leave arisings.All hedgerows shall be kept in a weed free condition along itsentire length and a minimum of 500mm from the outer edge ofthe hedgerow line. Apply an approved translocated herbicide aminimum of three times per season.All Tubex guards / spiral guards are to be kept free from weedgrowth throughout the season by hand, removing arisings fromsite. All build up of soils within guards are to be cleaned out asrequired.All guards / ties / stakes are to be checked for damage at everyvisit or after strong winds.All guards should be straightened and broken stakes replacedas required.Tree ties shall be checked for damage or potential rubbing atevery visit.Hedgerows should be' topped' after their second season ifrequired to promote bushy growth. Remove arisings.Watering should be undertaken as required to allow for earlyand continued establishment of planting if there is a prolongedperiod of drought.All arisings from maintenance works to be removed from site.All fencing is to be checked for damage at every visit. Allow forrestraining and replacing any damage as required.

WILDFLOWER MEADOWYear 1; Sow in mid to early September. Allow to establish withinthe following season and cut once(topping growth) in lateAugust to approx 80mm leaving the arisings. Carry out selectiveherbicide spot treatment of weeds as required.Year 2: Allow to establish and cut to approx. 80mm in April andlate august leaving the arisings.Carry out selective herbicidespot treatment of weeds as required.Year 3:Allow to establish and cut in mid August, remove arisingsafer two weeks.

GENERAL

ALL PLANTINGAll planting is to be carried out during the next available plantingseason following completion of construction works subject toagreement.

ALL PLANTINGAll trees and shrubs shall be to BS3936 and handled inaccordance with BS4428. Sizes as indicated on drawing.Planting to be carried out in accordance with and as per detailsshown on the drawing. Regular monitoring of the planting shouldbe carried out, including straightening re-firming at every visit.

Break up bottom of pit to a depth of 150mm.

Soil level at nursery to be marked. Plant tree at a depth tomatch this level. Allow for watering hollow.

The age and height shall be to BS 3936 Part 1 and shall be one ofthe following as specified:

0 + 1 1 year cutting 10 -125cm high1 + 0 1 year seeding 10 -125cm high1 + 1 1 year seedling 10 -125cm high (transplanted for 1 year)1 + 2 1 year seedling 10 - 125cm high (transplanted for 2 years)Whips shall be a minimum height of 100-125cm.

1

2

3

Tree pit 300x300x300mm deep. Sides of pit loosened with forkprior to planting. Backfill with a mix of topsoil (to BS 3882) and 10 litresof peat free organic planitng compost with a pH of 6.5-7.5Incorporate'Sierrablen Flora' slow release fertilzer tablets (15+9+9NPK) at the rate of2 x15g tablets per pit

2 no.Pre-fitted releasable nylon ties, fitted about 350mm apart

Edge mix to be planted in tree shelter 600mm high (colour: Green)Nested in 5 diameters from 80mm to 120mm.Ilex species to be planted in Tubex shrub shelter (colour; Green)plus nested 144-200mm diameter guards .Whips to be planted in 600mm high Tubex Shrub Shelter (colour; Green)Nested 130-160mm diameters guards.Available from: Tubex Plant Care Products, or similar aproved.

DETAIL 1 WOODLAND / EDGE MIX / TRANSPLANT PLANTING DETAIL

Tree stake 750 x 32 x 32mm. CCA pressure treated softwooddriven a minimum of 300mm below ground level.

4

6

7

2

4

600m

m

750m

m

Base of guard firmly pressed into soilEarth up if necessary.Surface vegetation removed within at least 50cm of planting position.

5

6

7

150m

m

300mm

300m

m

1

3

5

150m

m


Planting trench 600widex300mm deep. Sides of pitloosened with fork prior to planting. Backfill with a mix of2 parts excavated material and 1 part planting compostcontaining trace elements incorporated at the specifiedrate. The compost shall have a pH of 6.5-7.5 and shallinclude an N.P.K. slow release fertiliser (16.10.10) at therate of 60 grams per plant.Backfill as specified and lightly consolidated.

DETAIL 3 HEDGEROW PLANTING DETAIL8 PER LINEAR METRE DOUBLE STAGGERED ROW

Soil level at nursery to be marked. Plant transplant at adepth to match this level. Allow for watering hollow.

A transplant shall have been transplanted or undercut atleast once. The age and height shall be to BS 3936 andshall be:

1 u 1 1 year seedling 400-600mm high (transplanted for 1 year)

Plants shall be guarded using 60cm Tubex Easy Wrapguards, staked with a single 4' cane 22/24mm diameter,hammered a minimum of 400mm with wider end belowground .

600mm

300m

m

PLAN PLANTING METHOD & SPACING

150150

600

SECTION

300m

m

450m

m15

0mm


Standard trees shall be 250-300cm high with a minimumgirth of 8-10cm. The trees shall conform to BS 3936 Part 1and shall have a well defined clear upright stem of1750-2000mm. The root shall be adequate size in relation tocrown (15 litre pot minimum if container grown).

Trees shall be securely tied by adjustable reinforced rubberbottle ties with spacers positioned to prevent any abrasionbetween stake and tree. Tree ties shall not be positioned morethan 50mm below top of stake.

Soil level at nursery to be marked. Plant tree at depth tomatch this level. Allow for watering hollow.

500m

m

The stake shall be peeled larch or chestnut previously treatedwith water based non CCA wood preservative to BS 1282. Thestake shall have a minimum diameter of 65mm and shallproject 500mm above finished ground level. Before planting itshall be driven a minimum of 300mm into firm ground below theexcavated tree pit or as necessary to secure the tree. Thestake shall be positioned to avoid disturbance to the rootsystem. If the tree is root balled or container grown stakes areto be angled at 45° and driven 300mm into the ground (awayfrom the prevailing wind).

DETAIL 2 STANDARD TREE PLANTING DETAIL

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

Tree pit 600x600x450mm deep. Sides of pit loosened with forkprior to planting. Back fill with a mix of topsoil (to BS 3882) and25 litres of peat free organic planting compost with a pH of6.5-7.5Incorporate 'Sierrablen Flora' slow release fertiliser tablets(15+9+9NPK) at the rate of 5 x15g tablets per pit.Each tree shall have a 600mm clear spiral guard, size to suitgirth of tree.

2100

50

650

7513

75

1270

80

170

3450

460

50

100

75

ST2 Concrete footing

NOTES1. All dimensions are in millimetres. All timber to be plained, pressure-treated softwood, as specified.2. All hinges, latches, drop bolts and misc hardware shall be galvanised to comply with BS729 and comply with Highways Agency document, Volume 3 Highway Construction Details, sheets H30 and H32..3. The gate shall be hung as shown for self closing and open into the owners property.4. All through tenons shall be pegged with 13 dia oak dowels

DESCRIPTION OF TIMBER MATERIALS

Hanging post 200x200x2100 longShutting Post 200x200x2100 longHanging stile 125x75Shutting stile 75x75Top Rail 125x75 tapering to 75x75All other rails 75x25Braces housed in top rail 75x25

1270

80

460

50

galvanised steel catch

DETAIL 5 TIMBER FIELD GATENOTESAll dimensions are in millimetres.All timber to be previously treated with water based non CCA wood preservative to BS 1282.All posts and stakes to be either, driven into ground, or inserted into excavated postholes and firmed in place with rammed backfill.All intermediate stakes to be spaced at 3.5m centres, or to follow ground contours where appropriate to ensure sufficient stock proofing.All arisings to be graded out to meet flush with adjacent levels.All timber struts to be notched or nailed to posts using 2No. 130mm sheradised nails.All galvanised spring steel linewires to be 3.15mm diameter and strained using a monkey-strainer to allow for re-tensioning.All linewires to be secured to posts and stakes using 37x4mm zinc-coated staples, driven in at an angle for maximum grip.Stock proof netting to be HT8/80/15 high tensile netting positioned to outside of planting area.All netting to be fixed to linewires with galvanised clips at 300mm centres, per linewire and stapled to each post, 3 times.Minimum standoff from any planting station 1.5m.

Intermediate Timber Posts:Round 1800 x 100mm top diameter

at 3.5m centres.

Timber Straining Post:2400x150mm top diameter,

at 150m centresor change of direction.

2400

100

800

Ground level

1200

50

Timber Struts: round 2100mm x 80mm min top diameterat ends of strain or acute changes of direction as required.Either: Butted against 150mm x 450mm x 50mm timber plate,dug in. Or: Butted against 1st intermediate post from straining post.

150

100

ELEVATION

Galvanised spring steel wire, 3.15mm diameter

650

Zinc-coated staple

Stock Netting: HT8/80/15 High tensile net. Bottomline wire normally 50mm from G.L.

Planting side

150

Twin strand of 2.5mm HT linewire

Ground level

Stock Netting

1200

DETAIL 4 TIMBER POST AND WIRE MESH STOCK PROOF FENCE

GENERAL NOTES

Figured dimensions only are to be used. Thisdrawing is the sole copyright of GolderAssociates. Any discrepancies between thisdrawing and other information shall be reportedto Golder Associates.This drawing is based upon supplied survey /layout base.This drawing is to be read inconjunction withGolder Associates Dwg No.GA/9514640074/P/001.This drawing is not issued for construction


Project

Title

File No.

Status

Project No.

Drawing No. Rev

Client

SizeA1


Scale

CEMEX


Planting / Fencing Details

JW AA JA FB 03/05/13585398 12514190331

1:20 For Information

4 -1:20

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4mGolder Associates (UK) Ltd

Cavendish HouseBourne End Business Park

Cores End RoadBourne End

BuckinghamshireSL8 5AS

+44 (0)1628 851 851

Floating Island

InundationPlant Ledge

MarginalPlant Ledge

EmergentPlant Ledge

Permanent Open Water

Maximum Water Level

Mean Water Level

Minimum Water Level

Legend

250mm sand / gravel subsoil

File No.

Status

Project No.

Drawing No. Rev

Project

Title

Client

SizeA4


Scale

CEMEX


Lagoon Cross Section

JW AA JA FB 03/05/13585398 12514190331

NTS For Information

5 -© Golder Associates (UK) Ltd


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2

APPENDIX A Features of Conservation Importance (Drawing 5)

Malpass QuarryEcosite

Chalk Mound

Railway - London toBirminghamMainline Ecosite

Clay Mound

Sow Brook Ecosite

River Avon EcositeRiparian Wildlife Corridor

Parkfield RoadVerge Ecosite

Rive

r Avo

n

Rugby to NuneatonRailway Ecosite

Scale

Project

Title

File No.

Status

Project No.

Drawing No. Rev

Client


SizeA3

CEMEX


Features of Conservation Importance

ECS FB SJS JF 06/05/11518819 09514640079

1:2,500 Report Issue

5

Notes

Legend


Feature 1 - Malpass Quarry Ecosite.Areas in dark green of greatest valuefor plant and invertebrate communities

© Golder Associates (UK) Ltd1st Floor

Clyde HouseReform RoadMaidenhead

BerkshireSL6 8BY

+44 (0)1628 586 200

CEMEX Land Ownership Boundary

Feature 2 - River Avon and Sow Brook

Note: Entire Site is of Potential Interest forTerrestrial Invertebrates

1:2,5000 50 100 150m


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2

APPENDIX B Phase I Habitat Survey (Drawing 2)

pSI

pSI

pSI

pSI

Sow Brook

River Avon

Parkfield Road

Birmingham to London Railway

West Coast Mainline Railway

12

3

4

5

6

8

12

13

pSI

7

15

9

10

14

Chalk MoundClay Mound

11

Broad-leaved Semi-natural Woodland

Tall Ruderal

Scattered Broad-leaved Trees

Dense Scrub

Scattered Scrub

Ephemeral / Short Perennial


Poor Semi-Improved Grassland

Bare Ground

Species-poor Hedgerow (Intact)

pSI

Species-rich Hedgerow and Trees

Running Water

Swamp

Target Note


1


CEMEX Land Ownership Boundary

Fence

NVC Survey Quadrats

Marginal Vegetation11

Scale

Project

Title

File No.

Status

Project No.

Drawing No. Rev

Client


SizeA3

SITA

Malpass

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Surveyand NVC survey

TJ/TS FB TF JF 29/08/12519512 12514190331

1:2,500 Report Issue

02 -

Legend

1:2,5000 50 100 150m




SL8 5AS+44 (0)1628 851 851


June 2013 Report No. 12514190331.500/A.2

APPENDIX C Schedule of Environmental Works

APPENDIX C Schedule of Environment Works

1/1

Task 2013

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Vegetation Clearance and Birds (Method Statement 5.1)

Fencing and Protection of Environmental Receptors (Method Statement 5.2)

Earth Movement and Storage (Method Statement 5.3)

Inland Cliff Creation (Method Statement 5.4)

Calcareous Mound Creation (Method Statement 5.5)

Wetland Feature Creation and Mitigation (Method Statement 5.6)

On-going ECoW Site Inspections (Method Statements 5.1 - 5.8)

Task 2014

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec On-going ECoW Site Inspections (Method Statements 5.1 - 5.8)

Landscaping Method Statement (5.9)

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd Cavendish House Bourne End Business Park Cores End Road Bourne End Buckinghamshire SL8 5AS UK T: [+44] (0) 1628 851851

REPORT€¦ · WLM-2010-1621 and WLM/2011/1788 during 2010 and 2011 (Golder Associates 2010b)....

Documents

Transcript of REPORT€¦ · WLM-2010-1621 and WLM/2011/1788 during 2010 and 2011 (Golder Associates 2010b)....