AN INITIAL ECOLOGICAL REVIEW OF DRAFT MASTERPLANS FOR … · 2016. 7. 6. · Vincent and Gorbing...

Vincent and Gorbing

ESL (Ecological Services) Ltd, 1 Otago House, Allenby Business Village, Crofton Road, Lincoln, LN3 4NL

AN INITIAL ECOLOGICAL REVIEW OF DRAFT

MASTERPLANS FOR FOUR SITES AT

BALDOCK, HERTFORDSHIRE

Version 1

JULY 2008

Vincent and Gorbing


An Initial Ecological Review of Draft Masterplans for Four Sites at Baldock, Hertfordshire

DOCUMENT CONTROL

TITLE: An Initial Ecological Review of Draft Masterplans for Four Sites at Baldock, Hertfordshire

VERSION: Version 1 DATE: July 2008 ISSUED BY: Dave Hughes AUTHOR: Claire Denard CHECKED BY: Andrew Malkinson APPROVED BY: Dave Hughes ISSUED TO: Ruth Gray Vincent & Gorbing Sterling Court Norton Road Stevenage Hertfordshire SG1 2JY This report has been prepared by ESL with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, within the terms of the contract with the Client. The report is confidential to the Client. ESL accepts no responsibility of whatever nature to third parties to whom this report may be made known. No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written approval of ESL.

Vincent and Gorbing



CONTENTS

Page 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 SITE 1 1 Recommendations from Initial ESL Survey 1 Comments on Masterplan 2 3 SITE 2 3 Recommendations from Initial ESL Survey 3 Comments on Masterplan 4 4 SITE 3 5 Recommendations from Initial ESL Survey 5 Comments on Masterplan 5 5 SITE 4 6 Recommendations from Initial ESL Survey 6 Comments on Masterplan 6 6 REFERENCES 7 APPENDIX 1 Draft Masterplans

Vincent and Gorbing



1

AN INITIAL ECOLOGICAL REVIEW OF DRAFT MASTERPLANS FOR FOUR SITES AT BALDOCK, HERTFORDSHIRE

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 ESL (Ecological Services) Ltd was commissioned by Vincent and Gorbing on behalf of

Hertfordshire County Council to carry out an initial ecological survey of four sites at Baldock,

Hertfordshire. The sites are owned by the County Council and will be promoted for residential

development as part of the emerging local development framework. Detailed Phase-1 survey

reports are given in ESL 2008 a-d.

1.2 Four draft masterplans of the sites were provided to ESL by Vincent and Gorbing on 10 July

2008 with an instruction to review each masterplan in light of the initial survey reports and

make comments accordingly. This report deals with each site in turn and sets out the original

recommendations and comments upon the draft masterplans (given in Appendix 1).

2 SITE 1 2.1 This site is divided into three parcels. Site 1A is located off Clothall Road and Sites 1B and

1C are located south of Clothall Common. Full descriptions of these sites are given in ESL

2008a.

2.2 Draft masterplans have been provided for Sites 1A and 1B with two alternatives provided for

Site 1B. The plan for Site 1C is dependant on the final plan for site 1B.

Recommendations from Initial ESL Survey 2.3 The initial survey of these sites identified suitable habitat for reptiles, trees, buildings with

potential to support roosting bats and breeding birds, and the following recommendations

were made.

2.4 Bats are highly mobile creatures and can occupy a number of different roost sites and the

smallest of niches that are not always possible to survey accurately. Should any works be

proposed to the trees or buildings identified as having some potential for use by bats, it is

recommended that a more detailed inspection be carried out by a licensed bat ecologist in

accordance with English Nature guidelines 2004. If this identifies signs of use, it may be

necessary to carry out an emergence watch on the trees (English Nature, 2004). This should

be carried out during the summer months for a period of up to 2 hours after sunset. Bat

feeding transects using electronic detectors would also be carried out on these visits.

Vincent and Gorbing



2

2.5 It is recommended that the road embankment along the south eastern boundaries of Sites 1B

and 1C be surveyed for the presence of reptiles as per HGBI Guidelines 1998. This would

require a combination of direct observation techniques and the placing and inspection of

artificial cover objects or tins. A minimum of seven survey visits are required to determine

presence/absence, but a further 13 visits may be required to determine likely population

estimates. The optimal survey period is between mid-March and early October, ideally during

May to June, or September when the air temperature is low but there is sufficient sunlight.

2.6 In order to avoid damaging or destroying bird nests, site clearance should be undertaken

outside the breeding season, which typically runs from the beginning of March to the end of

August. If this is not possible then a check must be made for nests by a suitably experienced

individual prior to any clearance works. Any nests thought to be active should be identified

and protected until the eggs have hatched and young have fledged. Active nests can be

present outside this time and any found at any stage should be protected in the same way.

Comments on Masterplan 2.7 The recommendations for all three sites still stand.

2.8 It is clear from plan number 4444/261, the draft masterplan for site 1A, that buildings identified

as having potential for roosting bats will be lost during the development of this site. Should,

during the recommended further surveys of the buildings on this site, a bat roost be

discovered, then a mitigation plan will need to be prepared to safeguard the bats on the site.

Ideally, depending on the species and size of colony that might be present, the buildings

should be retained on the site to avoid any disturbance or destruction of the roost. If this is

not possible then appropriate compensation will be required within the masterplan and carried

out under licence.

2.9 It would appear from the masterplan that the trees identified as having suitable features for

bats will be retained as part of the development. It is still necessary to carry out emergence

surveys to determine if the trees are in use and by which species. If trees are found to be in

use then a suitable stand-off will be required in order to avoid disturbing any bats that might

be present. The masterplan indicates that houses will not be built right up to the existing

boundaries and this will be advantageous if any bat roosts are found to be present.

2.10 Plan numbers 4444/262 and 4444/263, both relating to Site 1B show the landscaping along

the south eastern boundary of the site finishing at the top of the existing road embankment.

Recommendations were made for reptile surveys along the road embankment and should

reptiles prove to be present then the presence of structurally suitable vegetation for these

species (i.e. open areas for basking with more dense areas providing cover from predators

Vincent and Gorbing



3

etc) on the development site will be more beneficial to any animals present than the current

arable land. This would also apply to site 1C.

2.11 Some of the buildings on site 1A have potential for use by barn owl which is specially

protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and as amended. Should they be

found to be present in any of the buildings to be lost during the development, then suitable

alternative nesting sites will need to be provided within the masterplan ahead of works. This

can take the form of the provision of nest boxes in suitable locations. The provision of

parkland and additional planting on both sites will provide suitable habitat for other breeding

birds identified during the initial surveys.

2.12 Plan numbers 4444/262 and 4444/263 for site 1B show two infiltration basins/swales in the

open space north of the site (Clothall Common). While land use here was noted as part of the

initial survey of the sites, a detailed habitat and protected species survey was not carried out.

Should any development be proposed for this area then a walkover survey will need to be

carried out prior to works commencing to identify habitats and any protected species that

might be present.

3 SITE 2 3.1 This site is divided into two parcels. Site 2A is located north of Bygrave Road and Site 2B is

located south of Bygrave Road. Full descriptions of these sites are given in ESL 2008b. A

draft masterplan has been provided for both sites together.

Recommendations from Initial ESL Survey 3.2 The initial survey of these sites identified suitable habitat for reptiles and trees and buildings

with potential to support roosting bats and breeding birds and the following recommendations

were made.

3.3 It is recommended that the railway embankment along the southern boundary of Site 2B be

surveyed for the presence of reptiles as per HGBI Guidelines 1998. This would require a

combination of direct observation techniques and the placing and inspection of artificial cover

objects or tins. A minimum of seven survey visits are required to determine

presence/absence, but a further 13 visits may be required to determine likely population

estimates. The optimal survey period is between mid-March and early October, ideally during

May to June, or September when the air temperature is low but there is sufficient sunlight.

3.4 Bats are highly mobile creatures and can occupy a number of different roost sites and the

smallest of niches that are not always possible to survey accurately. Should any works be

Vincent and Gorbing



4

proposed to the trees or buildings identified as having some potential for use by bats, it is

recommended that a more detailed inspection be carried out by a licensed bat ecologist. If

this identifies signs of use, it may be necessary to carry out an emergence watch on the trees

(English Nature, 2004). This should be carried out during the summer months for a period of

up to 2 hours after sunset. Bat feeding transects using electronic detectors would also be

need to be carried out on these visits.







Comments on Masterplan 3.6 The recommendations for both sites still stand.

3.7 Plan number 4444/305 shows a strip of proposed vegetation along the southern boundary of

Site 2B. It is recommended that the railway line be surveyed for the presence of reptiles and

should they be found then suitable vegetation provided here would partially compensate for

the loss of the pasture land.

3.8 On both Sites 2A and 2B a number of buildings identified as having potential for roosting bats

will be lost during the development. A survey will be needed to determine if bats are present

and as with Site 1 if bats are found to be present then the buildings will need to be

accommodated within the masterplan or suitable mitigation and compensation for the loss of a

roost site be made. Again it appears that the trees identified as having potential for bats are

retained as part of the development. However, the residential development proposed for

parcels A, B and G of Site 2A will be very close to the identified trees. Again further surveys

will need to be carried out to ascertain use by bats and appropriate mitigation employed if

they are found to be present. If no bats are found then development can proceed as per the

masterplan.

3.9 Some of the buildings on Site 2 have potential for use by barn owl which is specially protected

under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and as amended. Should they be found to be

present in any of the buildings to be lost during the development, then suitable alternative

nesting sites will need to be provided within the masterplan. This can take the form of the

provision of nest boxes in suitable locations. The provision of additional planting on both sites

will provide suitable habitat for other breeding birds identified during the initial surveys.

Vincent and Gorbing



5

3.10 The plan shows additional vegetation planting to the north and east of Site 2A and to the east

of Site 2B. These areas were not surveyed in detail as part of the original walkover of the site

but were noted as adjacent land. The land north and east of Site 2A is arable/ley and the

provision of vegetation here will benefit wildlife in the long term after the development. Land

to the east of Site 2B is improved grassland but the plan also shows proposed vegetation in

an area where buildings are at present. These buildings were not surveyed during the initial

walkover as they are outside the site boundary and it is possible that they also have potential

to support roosting bats and barn owls. If this area is to be included in the final masterplan for

the site then it will require a full survey to determine if any protected species are present.

4 SITE 3 4.1 This site is located off North Road and abuts the north western corner of Site 2A. A full

description of the site is given in ESL 2008c and a masterplan has been produced for this site.

Recommendations from Initial ESL Survey 4.2 The initial survey of these sites identified suitable habitat for breeding birds and the following

recommendations were made.







Comments on Masterplan 4.4 The recommendation for this site still stands.

4.5 The draft masterplan number 4444/355 shows proposed new vegetation and woodland

planted to the north and east of the site. As with Site 2A the surrounding land was not

surveyed in detail but it is again all arable land and additional planting will be more beneficial

to wildlife following the development.

Vincent and Gorbing



6

5 SITE 4 5.1 This site is the reserve school site located adjacent to Clothall Common. A full description of

the site is given in ESL 2008d and two alternative masterplans have been prepared for this

site, numbers 4444/405 and 4444/406.

Recommendations from Initial ESL Survey 5.2 The initial survey of these sites identified suitable habitat for reptiles and breeding birds and

the following recommendations were made.

5.3 It is recommended that the site be surveyed for the presence of reptiles as per HGBI

Guidelines 1998. This would require a combination of direct observation techniques and the

placing and inspection of artificial cover objects or tins. A minimum of seven survey visits are

required to determine presence/absence, but a further 13 visits may be required to determine

likely population estimates. The optimal survey period is between mid-March and early

October, ideally during May to June, or September when the air temperature is low but there

is sufficient sunlight.







Comments on Masterplan 5.5 All recommendations for this site still stand.

5.6 Should reptiles be recorded on the site as a result of the recommended surveys for this

species then the provision of structurally diverse planting around the perimeter of the site, as

shown on both plans, would be beneficial to these species.

5.7 Both the draft masterplans show infiltration basins/swales and additional planting located in

land to the east of the site, on Clothall Common. Plan number 4444/406 also shows an

additional area to be used as residential development immediately east of the site. As with

previous sites, adjacent land was not surveyed in the same level of detail as the site itself and

should either of these plans be adopted then further survey work will need to be carried out in

this area to determine the presence of protected species. Reptile surveys would also be

Vincent and Gorbing



7

recommended for this area given the suitability of the habitat and proximity to Site 4 and Site

1B. Vegetation here comprises rough grassland similar to that found on Site 4 and this area

adjoins Site 1B in the south and reptiles have been recorded in this general area in the past.

7 REFERENCES

English Nature. 2004. The Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough.

ESL. 2008a. Ecological Survey of Land off Clothall Road and Land South of Clothall

Common, Baldock, Hertfordshire. Unpublished report to Vincent and Gorbing.

ESL. 2008b. Ecological Survey of Land North and South of Bygrave Road, Baldock,

Hertfordshire. Unpublished Report to Vincent and Gorbing.

ESL . 2008c. Ecological Survey of Land off North Road, Baldock, Hertfordshire. Unpublished

Report to Vincent and Gorbing.

ESL. 2008d. Ecological Survey of Reserve School Site, Baldock, Hertfordshire. Unpublished

Reprt to Vincent and Gorbing.

Herpetofauna Groups of Britain & Ireland (HGBI). 1998. Evaluating local

mitigation/translocation programmes: maintaining best practice and lawful standards.

Advisory notes for Amphibian and Reptile Groups. Froglife. Halesworth. Suffolk

Vincent and Gorbing


APPENDIX 1 Draft Masterplans

AN INITIAL ECOLOGICAL REVIEW OF DRAFT MASTERPLANS FOR … · 2016. 7. 6. · Vincent and Gorbing...

Documents

Transcript of AN INITIAL ECOLOGICAL REVIEW OF DRAFT MASTERPLANS FOR … · 2016. 7. 6. · Vincent and Gorbing...