Appendix G - Oare Parish Council€¦ · movements along the site access road adjacent to Oare...

WIE10435-100-170516-MM-EIAScrReqAA Page 35

Appendix G

Winter Bird Survey

at

Oare Creek, Faversham, Kent

East Kent Recycling Ltd.

Iceni Ecology Ltd.

April 2017

Iceni Ecology Ltd.

Company No: 9188908

19 Woods Green Cottages, Wadhurst, East Sussex. TN5 6QN

T: 01892 783656

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Conditions of Use

According to the purpose of the report, survey information supplied reflects the findings of the surveyor at the time of the visit. Species and habitats are subject to change over time, some species may not be apparent at certain times (for example: subject to seasonal variation) and some species may colonise a site after a survey has been completed. These matters should be considered when using this report. Iceni Ecology Ltd. takes no responsibility for ecological features present after the date of the most recent survey conducted by Iceni Ecology Ltd. Ecological information over two years old should be updated before being used in a decision making process. Ecological information more than five years old should be considered of historic interest only and not be relied on for decision making. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the information made available to Iceni Ecology Ltd. at the date of this document and on current UK standards and practices as at the date of this document. No liability is accepted by Iceni Ecology Ltd. for any use of this document, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. The normal practice of Iceni Ecology Ltd. is to issue a single draft version (Microsoft Incorporated, 2013) report for comment, incorporating those comments considered relevant into a revised final report, after which the final report will be issued in an electronic portable document format (PDF) (Adobe) with as many paper copies as agreed on instruction. If no further comments are received within two weeks Iceni Ecology Ltd. will issue final reports automatically. Following final delivery of this document to the Client, Iceni Ecology Ltd. will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this document.

Project Author / Checked Status Date

Oare Creek Winter Bird Survey

Ref: 16 0035

Author: Daniel Bennett BSc (Hons) MCIEEM Checked: Dru Hall BSc (Hons) MCIEEM CEnv

FINAL v1.0 April 2017

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1

Background ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Survey Aims, Location and Area Covered ........................................................................................ 1

LEGISLATION AND POLICY ............................................................................................................... 1

European Protection ......................................................................................................................... 1

National Protection ............................................................................................................................ 3

National Planning Policy Framework................................................................................................. 3

UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework.............................................................................................. 3

Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) ............................................................................................ 4

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 5

Desk-based study ............................................................................................................................. 5

Fieldwork ........................................................................................................................................... 5

Limitations ......................................................................................................................................... 7

RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................. 9

Desk-based Study ............................................................................................................................. 9

Designated Sites Information ........................................................................................................ 9

Literature search ......................................................................................................................... 11

Other planning applications ......................................................................................................... 12

Records held by Kent and Medway Biological Records Centre .................................................. 13

Fieldwork results ............................................................................................................................. 13

Additional records ....................................................................................................................... 17

Non-bird records ......................................................................................................................... 19

INTERPRETATION ............................................................................................................................ 20

General description ......................................................................................................................... 20

Notable Species .............................................................................................................................. 20

Annex 1 species .......................................................................................................................... 20

Species of Conservation Concern, principle importance and schedule 1 species. ..................... 22

POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................... 23

Conservation objectives of the SPA ................................................................................................ 23

Development proposals .................................................................................................................. 23

Potential impacts of the proposed development ............................................................................. 24

Proposed mitigation measures ........................................................................................................ 27

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 27

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................ 31

Appendix B ........................................................................................................................................ 41

1

INTRODUCTION

Background

Iceni Ecology Ltd. has been instructed by East Kent Recycling Ltd., ‘the Client’, to

undertake a baseline survey of the wintering birds present in the Oare Creek with

reference to a planning application for the upgrade of an existing waste recycling

facility at Oare Creek, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7TX (‘the application site’). Proposals

include improving the capacity of the existing site for handling waste material, with

new facilities for sorting and processing in the northern part of the site predominantly

under cover, and temporary storage of recycling materials towards the southern part

of the site. The application includes a proposal to increase the number of vehicle

movements along the site access road adjacent to Oare Creek.

Survey Aims, Location and Area Covered

This survey is intended to provide baseline information on the wintering bird

assemblages at the site in order to inform the Habitats Regulations Assessment

(HRA) of the proposal on the Swale Special Protection Area (SPA).

The application site is located approximately 1.75km to the north of Faversham town

centre. The approximate National Grid Reference for the centre of the site is TR 0110

6295. This survey covers the intertidal area of Oare Creek from the head of the creek

to the confluence with the Faversham Creek, and out towards the Swale Estuary. It

focusses on the wetland bird assemblages that form the qualifying features for the

Swale SPA. The survey also covers two intertidal lagoons to the south-west of the

application site and adjacent to the existing access road serving the application site

While these lie outside the designation boundary, they may act as supporting

habitats for the qualifying features of the SPA.

LEGISLATION AND POLICY

European Protection

The Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (“the birds

Directive”) sets a framework for the protection of wild birds. Under the directive, a

number of provisions are made including the designation and protection of ‘Special

Protection Areas’ (SPAs) – areas which support important bird populations, and the

legal protection of rare or vulnerable species. Together with ‘Special Areas of

Conservation’ (SACs), designated under the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the

Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (EC Habitats

Directive) they form a network across Europe of protected areas known as the

‘Natura 2000’ sites. Both of these Directives are implemented in the UK through the

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010), as amended, also

known as the Habitats Regulations.

2

The intertidal mud and saltmarsh habitats of Oare Creek and Faversham Creek, and

the grazing marshes and ditch network to the west of Oare Creek are designated as

part of The Swale SPA, The Swale Ramsar and The Swale SSSI designated sites.

Article 6 of the Habitats Directive states that:

“Any plan of project not directly connected with or necessarily to the management of

the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in

combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment

of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light

of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to

paragraph 4, the competent authority shall agree to the plan or project only having

ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned.”

The requirements of the Habitats Directive comprise four distinct stages:

1. Screening: the process which initially identifies the likely impacts upon a

European Site of a plan or project, either alone or in combination with other

plans or projects, and considers whether these impacts may have a likely

significant effect on the integrity of the site’s qualifying features. European

Court of Justice case law has determined that unless the likely significant

effects can be ruled out on the basis of objective information, then an

Appropriate Assessment must be undertaken.

2. Appropriate Assessment: Following a conclusion of ‘likely significant effects’ or

‘sufficient uncertainty’ in the screening stage, a more detailed ‘appropriate

assessment’ must be undertaken by the competent Authority. The aim of the

Appropriate Assessment (AA) is to determine whether the impacts of the plan

or project, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, will result

in any adverse effects on the integrity of the site, with respect to the site’s

conservation objectives. At this stage, mitigation measures are taken into

account to determine the residual effects.

3. Assessment of alternative solutions: This examines the alternative approaches

to achieve the objectives of the plan or project that would avoid adverse

impacts on the integrity of the site where they cannot be mitigated.

4. Where no alternative solutions exist and where adverse impacts remain: An

assessment to determine whether there are imperative reasons of overriding

public interest (IROPI) for the plan or project to proceed. This includes detailed

assessment of compensatory measures needed to maintain the overall

coherence of the Natura 2000 Network.

3

National Protection

Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981, all birds, their eggs and nests

are protected by law and it is an offence to:

• Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built.

• Take or destroy the egg of any wild bird.

• Disturb any bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at a nest with eggs

or young, or disturb the dependant young of any such bird. The Countryside and

Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000, which updates the WCA, makes it an offence to

‘recklessly’ disturb a place of rest or shelter of a protected animal or nest site.

The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006) places a

statutory duty on public bodies including planning authorities to take, or promote the

taking by others, steps to further the conservation of habitats and species of principal

importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England under Section 40.

The species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity for England

are listed on Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006. Section 41 currently lists 49 species

of bird.

National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012) sets out the Government’s

view on how planners should balance nature conservation with development and

helps ensure that Government meets its biodiversity commitments with regard to the

operation of the planning system.

The NPPF states that the wider benefits of an ecosystem should be recognised and

the presence of a protected species is a material consideration for a development

proposal (Circular 06/2005, 2005).

UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework

The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP), published in 1994, was the UK’s

response to the commitments of the Rio Convention on Biological Diversity (1992).

The plan outlined action for 59 species of bird of conservation importance/concern

(JNCC, 2012). The UK BAP was replaced by the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity

Framework. This framework covers the period 2011 to 2020 and forms the UK

government’s response to the new strategic plan of the United Nations Convention

on Biodiversity (CBD) published in 2010. This promotes a focus on individual

countries delivering targets for protection for biodiversity through their own strategies.

4

The most recent England biodiversity strategy, 'Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for

England's wildlife and ecosystem services' was published by Defra (2011), and a

progress update was provided in July 2013 (Defra 2013).

'Biodiversity 2020' builds on the Natural Environment White Paper for England – 'The

Natural Choice', published on 7 June 2011, and sets out the strategic direction for

biodiversity policy for the next decade.

Biodiversity 2020 deliberately avoids setting specific targets and actions for local

areas because Government believes that local people and organisations are best

placed to decide how to implement the strategy in the most appropriate way for their

area or situation.

In Kent, the themes identified as priorities in Biodiversity 2020 are carried forward by

the Kent Biodiversity Partnership that administers the Kent Biodiversity Action Plans

and Biodiversity Opportunities Areas. The Kent Local Biodiversity Action Plan LBAP

lists action plans for 11 priority bird species for Kent (Kent BAP, 2009).

Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC)

In 1996, the UK’s leading non -governmental bird conservation organisations

reviewed the conservation status of all bird species in the UK against a series of

criteria relating to their population size, trends and relative importance to global

conservation. These non-statutory lists, known as the ‘Red’, ‘Amber’ and ‘Green’ lists

(in order of decreasing concern) are used to inform key conservation policy and

decisions. The lists are reviewed every 5 years and are a useful reference for

determining the current importance of a particular site for birds. The most recent

review was undertaken in 2015 (Eaton et al, 2015), which provides an up to date

assessment of the conservation status of birds in the UK.

5

METHODOLOGY

Desk-based study

A review of existing information was undertaken including records from the Kent and

Medway Biological Records Centre, the citation for the designated sites, publically

available information on current planning applications within the vicinity of the site,

and an internet search for research papers on impacts of disturbance on wetland

birds.

Fieldwork

A field survey of the bird assemblages comprising monthly high-tide and low-tide

counts of the Oare Creek was undertaken by Daniel Bennett BSc (Hons) MIEEM,

between October 2016 and March 2017 inclusive. The survey visits were completed

within the period 1.5hrs before and after low or high tide. The dates of surveys were

dependant on suitable tides during daylight hours, and were made at various points

during the monthly spring-neap tidal cycle to account for changes in the distribution

of birds in response to this cycle and across a range of weather conditions, although

periods of high winds and rain were avoided since accurate bird observation

becomes difficult under these conditions.

The survey area covered the intertidal zones of the Oare Creek (Figure 1), from the

creek head downstream to the confluence with the Faversham Creek, and

Faversham Creek to the confluence with the Swale Estuary. Two tidal lagoons

adjacent to the application site were included in the survey area.

These areas were split into 5 sections, determined by the visibility of habitats from a

series of vantage points. The locations of the survey sections and a description of the

habitats they contain are presented in Table 1 and Figure 1. During each visit, the

same route was walked and vantage points visited. All birds observed were recorded

onto field maps in their approximate locations using standard BTO two-letter codes,

thus providing a ‘snapshot’ of the distribution of birds at that time. The general

behaviour of birds/bird groups was recorded under the following categories: foraging

(f), roosting (r), loafing (l) and flying (f).

The data was used to generate peak counts for high and low tides across the winter

season for each survey section and the survey area as a whole. These figures are

then used to estimate the importance of the survey area in the context of the Swale

SPA qualifying features.

Weather conditions and human disturbance/activity was subjectively recorded for

each survey visit.

6

Table 1: Principal bird habitats for each section of the transect route Transect

Section

Principal habitats and approximate National Grid References

1

Two interconnected intertidal brackish water lagoons (central National Grid References TR 0098 6289 and TR 0091 6278), deep water with gravel/cobble shores and semi-improved coastal grassland topped banks with scattered scrub. Connected to Oare creek via a tidal sluice. No sediments are exposed at low tide – lagoons are too deep and shores too steeply sloped. A belt of mature trees and scrub screen this habitat from the application site to the north and east. The access road serving the application site is aligned parallel to and between the western shore of these lagoons and the eastern edge of section 2.

2

The intertidal zone of Oare Creek from the head of the creek (TR 0075 6279) downstream to a point in line with the application site entrance (TR 0104 6320). The access road to the application site is aligned adjacent to the east shore of this section and separates it from section 1. Predominantly soft intertidal mud exposed at low tides with some encroaching Spartina sp. and fringing salt marsh towards the north where the creek opens out to a

wider expanse of intertidal mudflat habitat. Towards the (southern) creek head, the creek is narrow, deeply incised and congested with recreational boat moorings.

3

Oare Creek mid-section, from end of section 2 to confluence with Faversham Creek (TR 0104 63120 to TR 0168 6369). This section of the creek comprises a berm of fringing salt marsh on the western side, an incised channel with steeply banked intertidal mud exposed at low tide and a small flowing watercourse at the centre (at low tide). The east side of the creek is congested with permanent boat moorings including two large historical wherry/ coastal barge vessels.

4 Faversham Creek from confluence of Oare Creek downstream to KWT reserve boundary (TR 0168 6369 to TR 0174 6414). There are only two small boat moorings on this section located in the middle of the creek. The channel is fringed with flat berms of fringing salt marsh and sloping intertidal mud banks towards the central channel. It is approximately twice as wide as Oare Creek and has a flatter, more open vista.

5 Faversham Creek to confluence with Swale Estuary (TR 0174 6414 to TR 0221 6460). The Faversham creek progressively widens out to meet the Swale with large expanses of flat intertidal mud exposed at low tide. The creek is bordered by extensive grazing marsh and arable farmland to the east and the Oare Marshes Local Nature Reserve to the west. This is managed by the Kent Wildlife Trust and forms an important high tide roost site in the Swale Estuary SPA, supporting large numbers of wading birds and waterfowl.

7

Figure 1: Survey sections (yellow) in relation to the site (red)

Limitations

The survey fieldwork methodology is designed for rapid assessment and is not

intended for mapping accurately the position of birds using a given area since they

are liable to frequent movements. For practical reasons this survey was undertaken

by one observer moving along the survey area and as a consequence there is a risk

of some double counting as birds move from place to place as surveying progresses.

Every effort was made by the observer to reduce the risk of double counting birds by

undertaking counts in a single sweep before moving on to the next vantage point,

noting the direction of significant bird movements and accounting for them in

subsequent sections. On occasions where there were significant movements of birds,

such as in response to disturbance events, the observer paused surveying until birds

had settled back into ‘normal’ behaviour. Counts were then repeated in a single

sweep and the highest number for each species was then carried forward into the

results. The survey results are interpreted section by section and not summed to

provide figures for the creek overall to prevent inaccuracies through double-counting.

Many bird species may use a particular site intermittently, may be present for short

periods or a single one-off season and may not always be present during the survey

visits. For these reasons these results cannot be interpreted as a complete species

list for the site.

8

Habitats may change over time and bird populations also rise and fall. This survey

only represents the assemblage of breeding birds present at the time of the survey

visits and is estimated to be valid for a maximum of three years.

This report contains a short review of scientific research on disturbance impacts on

wintering shorebirds, based on a brief internet search for relevant papers. There is a

vast amount of material on this subject, much of which it was not possible to include

in the review and some new evidence may not have been considered.

9

RESULTS

Desk-based Study

Designated Sites Information The Swale SPA, based on The Swale SSSI, covers an area of approximately 6500ha

and is located towards the eastern end of the North Kent Marshes Natural Area,

separating the Isle of Sheppey from the mainland. The Swale comprises extensive

intertidal mudflats that encompass the entire northern and southern shores of the

Estuary and the largest expanse of grazing marsh habitat in Kent, with Elmley

National Nature Reserve (NNR) the best example. Areas of saltmarsh habitat border

the intertidal mudflats. The SPA includes several intertidal creeks feeding into the

estuary including Faversham, Oare, Conyer and Windmill Creek.

The wide diversity of coastal habitats found on The Swale SPA combine to support

internationally important populations of birds listed under Annex 1 of the Birds

Directive (79/409/EEC), see tables 2 and 3 below.

Table 2: The site qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Directive by supporting internationally important numbers of the following rare or vulnerable species (data reproduced from JNCC 2011).

Annex 1 species Peak count Percentage of the population

During the breeding season

Avocet Recurvirostra avocetta 103 pairs 17.5% of UK breeding population

(1996)

Marsh Harrier Circus

aeruginosus

24 pairs 15% of UK Breeding population

(1995)

Mediterranean gull Larus

melanocephalus

12 pairs 120% of breeding population (1996)

Wintering population

Avocet 89 7% of UK wintering population (5 yr

peak mean 1991/2 – 1995/6)

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa

lapponica

542 At least 1% of UK wintering

population (5 yr peak mean 1991/2 –

1995/6)

Goldern Plover Pluvialis apricaria 2862 1.1% of UK wintering population (5

yr peak mean 1991/2 – 1995/6)

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus 23 3.1% of UK wintering population (5

yr peak mean 1991/2 – 1995/6)

10

Table 3. The site qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive by supporting internationally important numbers of the following regularly occurring migratory species (data reproduced from JNCC 2011).

Annex 1 species Peak count Percentage of the population

On passage

Ringed Plover 683 1.4% of Europe/North African

wintering population (5 yr peak

mean 1991/2 – 1995/6)

Over wintering

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa

limosa

1755 2.5% of Icelandic breeding


1995/6)

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola 2862 1.1% of Eastern Atlantic population

(5 yr peak mean 1991/2 – 1995/6)

Knot Calidris canutus 5582 1.6% of NE Canada/ Greenland/

Icelandic/ NW Europe population (5

yr peak mean 1991/2 – 1995/6)

Pintail Anas acuta 966 1.6% of NW Europe population (5 yr

peak mean 1991/2 – 1995/6)

Redshank Tringa totanus 1640 1.1% of wintering Eastern Atlantic


1995/6)

Shoveler Anas clypeata 471 1.2% of wintering NW

Europe/Central Europe population (5

yr peak mean 1991/2 – 1995/6)

The area also qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) by

regularly supporting at least 20,000 waterfowl.

Over winter, the area regularly supports 65,390 individual waterfowl (5 year peak

mean 1991/2 - 1995/6) including the following species in addition to those listed

above: White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons albifrons, Cormorant Phalacrocorax

carbo, Curlew Numenius arquata, Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla,

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna, Wigeon Anas penelope, Gadwall Anas strepera, Teal

Anas crecca, Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus, Lapwing Vanellus vanellus,

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpine and Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis.

11

Literature search The effects of human activities on the conservation of wetland birds have been the

subject of a large volume of scientific research spanning several decades. Many

studies have demonstrated behavioural responses of birds to human disturbance

(e.g., Thomas et al., 2003). The concept of either alert distance (AD), defined as the

distance between the source of disturbance and the bird at the point of changing its

behaviour, or ‘flight initiation distance’ (FID) otherwise called ‘flush distance’, defined

as the point at which the bird moves away from an approaching source of

disturbance, are often used as a tool to establish buffer zones or safe working

distances. This measurement has been found to be highly variable depending on the

species (Blumstein et al., 2003, type and frequency of disturbance, state of the tide

and body condition of birds (Gill et al, 2001). In practice, buffer zones have often

been based on expert opinion and are not validated by empirical evidence due to this

variation (Ruddock & Whitfield 2007).

The study by Liley &Fearnley (2011) is of particular relevance to the current planning

application. This study focussed on the effects of human recreation disturbance in

the North Kent Marshes SPA network including Medway and Thames Estuary and

the Swale. Observations were made of potentially disturbing activities; the responses

of birds to these activities and the distance between them were recorded. Of the

3248 observations made within 200m of the subject birds, 74% resulted in no

response and 13% resulted in major flight initiation, the remainder resulted in an alert

response, walking or short flights away. Dog walking accounted for the majority of

major flight observations (55%) and a further 15% was attributed to walkers without

dogs. Only 3% of major flight responses were attributed to shore-based motor

vehicles. This is of particular relevance to the current planning application since it

proposes an increase in the number of HGV movements to and from the waste

recycling centre. The principle factor determining whether major flight would result

from a disturbance event was distance from the birds, which typically responded

within 50m. This distance did vary between species with curlew being notably

sensitive, teal and black-tailed godwit the least sensitive. The flight initiation distance

also depended on the tide, with major flight responses more likely around high tide.

The authors of this study stressed that it is difficult to draw conclusions on the impact

of these disturbance events at the population level, which is the most important

question regarding the maintenance of the qualifying features of the SPA.

In a different approach, Burton, et al. (2002) used data from the Wetland Bird Survey

(WeBS) low tide counts scheme to relate numbers of birds to the presence of

features such as roads, footpaths, man-made structures that are potential sources of

disturbance. In this way they were able to provide evidence that the presence of

these features could result in localised reduced densities of birds and that this

sustained displacement could potentially have population consequences by reducing

habitat quality.

12

The work by Goss-Custard spanning three decades provides a valuable insight into

the complexity of processes that determine population size in migratory bird species

and demonstrates the difficulties in measuring the importance of human impacts on

these species and their habitats (for example Goss-Custard et al 1995a, 1995b). This

has culminated in the development of conceptual models that have been used

successfully to predict the effects on survival in shorebirds of a variety of human

activities such as wind farms, shell fishing and disturbance at a population level

(Stillman & Goss-Custard 2010). More recently Goss-Custard raises concerns over

the over-enthusiastic application of the precautionary principle by conservation

practitioners and calls for better scientific validation of decision making regarding

development planning and SPA management (Goss-Custard, 2016).

Other planning applications The planning authority has highlighted a recent planning application for residential

housing on land adjacent to the application site for consideration with respect to

cumulative effects on the SPA with this proposal. Three documents were available on

the Swale Borough Council’s planning portals that are considered relevant to the

current application.

The Environmental Statement (SLR Consulting, 2014) describes winter and breeding

bird surveys of the Oare Lakes site undertaken by Lloyd Bore, the survey area of

which overlapped with section 1 of the current survey reported here. The surveys

found significant numbers of two of the regularly occurring migratory species listed in

the SPA citation; shoveler and redshank. The peak counts represents approximately

34% of the citation figures above for shoveler, and 3.4% for redshank for the entire

Oare Lakes survey area (peak counts 160 individuals in February and 55 in January

respectively). The shoveler duck was principally found in the flooded pits to the east

of the site and outside the current survey area. However, redshanks were primarily

found roosting on the western shore of the tidal lagoons covered by section 1 of the

current survey. For both species the numbers of birds occurring in other months was

significantly less and the importance of the site for supporting the SPA features is

probably not as significant as these figures indicate.

The second document “the Access and Habitat Management Plan” (EPR, 2014a)

sets out the proposed mitigation measures designed to minimise the risk of additional

impacts of human recreational disturbance potentially caused by construction of

residential housing at the site. These include measures to reduce public access to

‘more sensitive’ parts of the site and encourage use of other areas of the site by use

of fencing, screens and signage.

The third document “Information for Habitats Regulations Assessment” (EPR,

2014b), identifies the potential impact of the proposed development on The Swale

SPA / Ramsar and proposes avoidance and mitigation measures to ensure that there

would be no LSEs on the designated sites.

13

Records held by Kent and Medway Biological Records Centre A search for records held by the Kent and Medway Biological Records Centre was

undertaken in August 2016 for a search area extending to 3km radius of the

application site (KMBRC, 2016). The results include a large quantity of bird records

including 324 species of birds for the search area. A significant proportion of these

records represent vagrant individuals of species not normally resident or migrants to

the UK, recorded intermittently or as a one-off. The most famous example of this is

the tufted puffin Fratercula cirrhata, recorded for the first time in the UK in the Swale

at the mouth of Oare Creek in September 2009. Fourteen records relate to ‘escaped’

non-native exotic species. A high proportion of the records are located within the

‘Ham Road Pits (Faversham), Oare Marshes Nature Reserve and Oare Creek itself,

reflecting the popularity of these sites for recreational bird watchers. There are at

least 500 records or more for each of the ANNEX 1 species that are included in the

citation for the Swale SPA, for example there are 1227 separate records for

redshank, the closest of which are located at Ham Road Pits (Oare Lakes). However,

no records originate from the application site itself.

Fieldwork results

The results of fieldwork are presented in the following tables. Table 4 gives the

weather conditions during the survey visits. The weather conditions were fairly typical

for the time of year although there was a relatively long period of settled cold weather

with severe frosts between mid-January mid-February, spanning three survey visits.

The peak counts over the six survey visits (October 2016 to March 2017) are

provided for each species, in table 5 for low tides and table 6 for high tides. The

actual counts for each survey visit are presented in Appendix A.

Table 4: Weather conditions during survey visits Date

Tide

state

Human activity Time Weather

Start Finish Temp

/⁰C

Precipitation Wind Cloud cover

15th October

2016

High

Tide

EKR in

operation,

regular lorry

traffic, light dog

walking, no boat

movements

11:30 13:40 12 Light drizzle Moderate

breeze

100%

22nd

October

2016

Low

Tide

EKR in

operation,

regular lorry

traffic, light dog

walking, no boat

movements

11:50 13:40 16 None Light

breeze

0%

14

Date

Tide

state


Start Finish Temp

/⁰C


25

November

2016

High

Tide

EKR in

operation, plant

activity, regular

lorry traffic. No

walkers, no boat

movements.

09:00 11:30 10 None Strong

breeze

0%

25

November

2016

Low

Tide

EKR in

operation, plant

activity, regular

lorry traffic. No

walkers, no boat

movements.

14:15 16:20 11 None Moderate

breeze

0%

23

December

2016

Low

Tide

EKR closed. No

walkers, no boat

movements.

14:00 16:00 9 None Moderate

breeze

100%

27

December

2016

High

Tide

EKR closed. No

walkers, no boat

movements.

10:40 12:30 4 Heavy frost Light

breeze

0%

17 January

2017

Low

tide

EKR in

operation, plant

activity, regular

lorry traffic. No

walkers, no boat

movements.

09:00 11:10 -1.5 Heavy frost Still Mist

17 January

2017

High

Tide

EKR in

operation, plant

activity, regular

lorry traffic. No

walkers, two boat

movements.

14:30 15:50 2 None Still 0%

11 February

2017

High

Tide

EKR in

operation, plant

activity,

infrequent lorry

traffic. A few dog

walkers, several

boat movements.

11:30 13:20 1 Light

sleet/snow

Still 100%

19 February

2017

Low

Tide

EKR closed,

several dog

walkers and

walkers, no boat

movements.

10:40 12:40 11 None Light

breeze

5%

15

Date

Tide

state


Start Finish Temp

/⁰C


17 March

2017

Low

tide

EKR in

operation, plant

activity,

infrequent lorry

traffic. A few dog

walkers, no boat

movements.

08:30 11:00 10 None Mod

breeze

5%

17 March

2017

High

Tide

EKR in

operation, plant

activity,

infrequent lorry

traffic. A few dog

walkers, no boat

movements.

14:25 16:00 12 None Mod

breeze

95%

Table 5: Peak Counts for all species over the survey period for LOW TIDE. Survey Section→ 1 2 3 4 5

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna 0 0 0 0 142

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 10 0 16* 0 0

Wigeon Anas penelope 0 0 0 0 0

Teal Anas crecca 92 10 17* 19 52

Tufted duck Aythya fuligula 2 0 0 0 0

Little grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis 23 0 0 0 0

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo 3 0 0 0 0

Little Egret Egretta garzetta 3 4 4 1 0

Grey Heron Ardea cinerea 1 0 1* 0 1

Moorhen Gallinula chloropus 2 0 3* 0 0

Coot Fulica atra 0 0 1* 0 0

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus 2 2 0 0 2

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta 0 0 0 4 125

Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola 0 0 0 1 0

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus 0 0 0 0 200

Dunlin Calidris alpina 0 0 0 0 300

16

Survey Section→ 1 2 3 4 5

Little stint Calidris minuta 0 1 0 0 0

Redshank Tringa totanus 5 39 6 60 77

Greenshank Tringa nebularia 0 1 4 1 1

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa 0 1 0 10 50

Curlew Numenius arquata 0 0 0 5 11

Snipe Gallinago gallinago 2 3 0 0 0

Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus

ridibundus 14 50 22 41 3

Common Gull Larus canus 0 1 0 0 0

Herring Gull Larus argentatus 2 0 0 2 0

Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus 2 1 1 0 0

Kingfisher Alcedo atthis 1 1 1 0 0

Table 6: Peak Counts for all species over the survey period for HIGH TIDE. *indicates birds recorded on the grazing marshes and not the intertidal zone of Oare Creek.


Shelduck Tadorna tadorna 0 0 0 0 15

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 23 0 16* 0 29

Wigeon Anas penelope 0 0 0 0 9

Teal Anas crecca 42 17 25* 13 25

Tufted duck Aythya fuligula 2 0 0 0 0

Little grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis 14 1 0 1 0

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo 7 0 1 1 0

Little Egret Egretta garzetta 3 (25) 0 1 0 0

Grey Heron Ardea cinerea 2 0 0 0 0

Moorhen Gallinula chloropus 1 0 18* 0 0

Coot Fulica atra 1 0 1* 0 0

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus 0 0 0 5 0

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta 0 1 0 4 0

17


Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola 0 0 0 0 0

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus 0 0 0 0 0

Dunlin Calidris alpina 0 0 0 0 0

Little stint Calidris minuta 0 0 0 0 0

Redshank Tringa totanus 2 2 0 3 2

Greenshank Tringa nebularia 4 0 0 0 0

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa 0 0 0 0 0

Curlew Numenius arquata 0 0 4* 0 0

Snipe Gallinago gallinago 1 0 0 0 0

Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus

ridibundus 30 10 2 0 7

Common Gull Larus canus 0 0 1 0 0

Herring Gull Larus argentatus 0 0 0 3 1

Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus 2 0 0 1 0

Kingfisher Alcedo atthis 1 0 0 1 0

Additional records Table 7 lists the other notable bird species that were also recorded in addition to

wetland birds during the survey visits:

Table 7. Additional non-wetland bird species recorded. Species Habitat, section and months

recorded

Conservation status

Fieldfare, Turdus pilaris in scrub and trees around the tidal

lagoons of section 1 in January and

February 2017

Red-listed on the BoCC (Eaton et

al 2015) and listed on Schedule 1

of the Wildlife and Countryside Act

(1981) as amended.

Redwing Turdus iliacus in scrub and trees around the tidal

lagoons of section 1 and west of

section 3, in November, January

and February.

Red-listed on the BoCC (Eaton et

al 2015) and listed on Schedule 1

of the Wildlife and Countryside Act

(1981) as amended.

Cetti’s Warbler Cettia cetti in scattered scrub, bramble thicket

and reed fringes of ditches on

Listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife

and Countryside Act (1981) as

amended.

18

Species Habitat, section and months

recorded

Conservation status

grazing marshes to the west of

section 3, October and March.

Reed Bunting Emberiza

schoenichus

in scrub and reeds along ditches of

grazing marsh to the west of

section 3, 4 and 5, October,

November and February.

An Amber-listed species on BoCC

(Eaton et al. 2015).

Skylark Alaudia arvensis heard singing above grazing

marshes to the west of sections 3,

4 and 5 in March only.

A Red-listed species on BoCC


Stonechat Saxicola torquatus -– in scrub adjacent to sea wall in

section 3 and 4, November and

February

A very localised species in Kent

around the coast.

Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis Small flocks of up to 50 in grazing

marshes to the west of sections 3

and 4, October, November and

February. Displaying males

observed in the same area in

March indicating possible resident

breeding population.



Bearded Reedling Panurus

biarmicus

In reed-bed adjacent to sea

defences to the west of section 3

and 4, contact calls heard in

October, November and February.


(Eaton et al. 2015) and very

localised in Kent

Peregrine Falco peregrinus Over Oare Marshes LWR (Kent

Wildlife Trust Reserve) harassing

high tide roost and hunting in

January, and a rapid pass over

Faversham Creek in March.

Listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife

and Countryside Act (1981) as

amended.

Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Hunting over tall grassland along

sea defences in sections 2, and 3

in November, and at the tidal

lagoons in March.



Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus Hunting over grazing marshes and

Oare Marshes LWR (Kent Wildlife

Trust Reserve) in January and

March.


(Eaton et al. 2015). Also listed on

Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and

Countryside Act (1981) as

amended. Listed on Annex 1 of the

Birds Directive and the breeding

population is a qualifying species

for the Swale SPA.

19

Non-bird records Grey Seal Halichoerus grypus - recorded in Faversham Creek on 25/11and two in

the Swale off section 5 on 17/03, both records at high tide.

20

INTERPRETATION

General description

A total of 27 wetland bird species were recorded during the field surveys. Of these,

approximately 15 species were regularly occurring across all sections of the survey

area. The most numerous species were black-headed gull, redshank and teal, which

were present in all survey sections and on most survey visits. Some species, such as

shelduck, avocet, lapwing and curlew, tended to be restricted to the sections nearer

to the Swale itself and were not found further upstream near to the application site.

The highest numbers and diversity of birds were recorded at or around low tide, the

exposed intertidal mud providing suitable foraging habitat for wading birds and

waterfowl. A small number of some species lingered through high tide (e.g. redshank

and teal), but no significant roosting sites were found within the sections surveyed;

most birds seemed to have moved to roosting sites elsewhere in the Swale SPA and

away from the survey area.

Notable Species

Annex 1 species Of the qualifying species listed as features of the SPA, only redshank and avocet

were regularly recorded in the survey area. Redshank was recorded in all sections on

all low tide survey visits, and also frequently during high tide in the tidal lagoons.

Avocet was generally restricted to the Faversham Creek sections towards the Swale

itself (sections 4 and 5) at low tide, although stray individuals were recorded in

Section 2 at high tide in January and February. The black-tailed godwit was also

recorded towards the end of the survey period in February and March, and

predominantly in sections 4-5 at low tide. The only other Annex 1 species recorded

during the survey was grey plover, which was recorded as a single bird only once in

section 4.

Table 8 uses the population figures quoted in the citation for the Swale SPA to put

the numbers of birds recorded during this survey into context. This includes the

above three species and figures based on the total number of wetland birds recorded

across all species (see appendix B) for comparison with the SPA wintering bird

assemblage (Article 4.2).

21

Table 8. Importance of each survey sections for qualifying species relative to SPA population. Note that Avocet populations have increased markedly since these figures and the current population estimate (KOS 2015) has been used to illustrate this.

Annex 1 species Population

estimate on

SPA

Citation

(JNCC 2011)

LOW TIDE Peak count expressed as a percentage of the SPA

population estimate

1 2 3 4 5

Redshank 1640 0.3% 2.4% 0.4% 3.7% 4.7%

Avocet 89 (breeding

- 103 pairs)

0 0 0 4.5% 140% (61%)

Black-tailed godwit 1755 0 0.06% 0 0.6% 2.8%

Total wintering

wetland birds

assemblage (all

species)

65390 0.2% 0.1% 0.06% 0.1% 1%

Based on these figures, it can be deduced that, of the Annex 1 species, Oare Creek

and Faversham Creek is most important for the redshank and makes a relatively

small contribution to the Swale SPA wintering population for this species overall. The

value of habitats for redshank is strongly weighted towards the downstream part of

the creek and confluence with the Swale itself (sections 4 and 5), some distance

away from the application site. The tidal lagoons adjacent to the application site and

section 3 make the smallest contribution to this resource, while section 2, the upper

Oare Creek section has slightly higher contribution.

A similar pattern is found for the other two Annex 1 species recorded during the

survey, although the overall importance of Oare Creek for these species is

significantly less for these species than it is for redshank.

Overall, the figures indicate that Oare Creek does not contribute significantly towards

the total wintering bird assemblage of the Swale SPA as the total number of birds

recorded during the survey is a very small proportion of the wintering bird

assemblage numbers quoted in the citation.

However, these figures should be interpreted with caution. Firstly, the data used in

the SPA citation (JNCC 2017) is based on surveys carried out over 20 years ago and

bird populations may have changed considerably in that time. For example, the

national population of avocet has increased markedly in that time, particularly in the

south-east (Balmer et al., 2013). The Kent Bird Atlas (KOS 2015) estimates a

breeding population of 150-300 pairs in Kent as a whole with a stronghold in The

Swale Estuary. The figures for section 5 are therefore somewhat misleading. By

contrast, redshank winter populations have remained relatively stable while breeding

22

populations have declined (Balmer et al., 2013). Therefore the contribution of Oare

Creek to this feature of the SPA may be higher than these figures indicate.

Secondly, the number of birds recorded varies considerably between visits for some

species, and the peak count may be a result of a one-off occurrence of a large

number of individuals and not typical for the winter as a whole (as is the case for

avocet) which may not be significant in conservation terms.

Nevertheless, in accordance with the precautionary principle, these figures represent

the maximum potential value of each section and provide the best available

information placing Oare Creek in context with the conservation value of the SPA as

a whole.

Species of Conservation Concern, principle importance and schedule 1 species.

Four species recorded during the field surveys are red-listed on the BoCC (Eaton et

al. 2015): these are lapwing, curlew, black-tailed godwit and herring gull. A further ten

species are amber listed. The curlew and lapwing are ‘species of principle

importance’ (Section 41 NERC Act, 2006) and priority species for the Kent BAP. The

avocet, marsh harrier and kingfisher are afforded special protection from disturbance

during the breeding season, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule

1).

23

POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Conservation objectives of the SPA

The conservation objectives for the Swale SPA are set by Natural England (2014):

“to avoid the deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying features, ensuring the

integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving

the aims of the Birds Directive. Subject to natural change, the objectives are to

“maintain or restore:

1. The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features,

2. The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features,

3. The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely,

4. The populations of the qualifying features, and

5. The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.”

Development proposals

The following assessments are based on the Indicative Site Layout (Drawing number

WIE10435-100-AA-80-001A06) provided by the client. Details of the proposed

scheme are provided in the pre-application screening letter (Waterman, 2016) and

update letter (Waterman, 2017)

This plan shows that the development is contained within the existing recycling

centre site boundary and it is not envisaged that any existing trees or shrubs shall be

removed as part of the development. The proposal includes the construction of three

new buildings, a workshop for maintenance of the company’s vehicle fleet, a covered

tipping and bailing area, and waste reception and materials recovery facility. There is

also refurbishment of existing buildings into office block, canteen and toilet facilities

proposed. The southern part of the application site will be used for temporary storage

of recycled materials (stockpiles not to exceed 4m in height) and a screening facility

for aggregates. The main aims of the proposed development are to enable the

recycling centre to increase efficiency in waste processing to allow an increase in its

capacity to receive 45,000 tonnes of waste per year. This increased capacity would

result in a higher number of vehicle movements to and from the site to transport

waste in and recycled material out, with up to 160 per day expected. Noise bunds are

proposed around the south-east, south and south-west of the site perimeter to a

height of 4.5m.

24

Potential impacts of the proposed development

The following potential impact pathways should be considered in relation to the

proposed development:

Habitat damage

The proposed development is contained within the existing recycling site and no

direct loss of semi-natural habitats is predicted. The scheme does not encroach upon

any of the supporting habitats of the SPA.

Construction and operation of the proposed development has potential to result in

increased pollution of the air and water around the SPA. Air pollution sources include

the release of dust that could be deposited on vegetation within the SPA and vehicle

emissions leading to diffuse atmospheric pollution and nutrient deposition.

The potential impact of air pollution and dust deposition on the SPA is considered

highly unlikely to affect the supporting habitats of the qualifying species of the SPA,

which are not considered to be sensitive to this kind of pollution. The assessment of

this impact pathway is beyond the scope of this report and dealt with separately in

the air quality report submitted with respect to this planning application (Waterman

2017b).

There is potential for wind-blown waste material being distributed from the waste site

into the SPA. Wind-blown waste would impact on the visual amenity of the SPA and

could also impact on SPA qualifying species and other wildlife through entrapment

and reduced habitat quality (smothering feeding habitat and visual intrusion).

Human Disturbance

The construction and operation of the proposed development has potential to result

in increased noise levels and visual intrusion that could result in disturbance to the

SPA qualifying species and other wildlife. For the elimination of doubt, there will be

no public access to the proposed development and therefore no additional

recreational pressure on the SPA is expected as a result of the development.

EPR (2014b) identified that the only guidelines to assess noise impacts on bird

populations is the Environment Agency’s Air Quality Technical Advisory Group

Guidance 2004. Whilst this guidance is no longer available, the thresholds have been

recommended by Natural England for use in other HRA/EIA projects undertaken by

EPR. These guidelines indicate that continuous noise levels exceeding 55dB LAeq.hr

and loud but discontinuous noise events exceeding 85 dB LAmax may have adverse

effects on some breeding bird species. It should also be stressed that, from the

available information, it is unclear whether these thresholds are appropriate to

wetland birds.

25

Baseline measurements of ambient noise levels were undertaken by Watermans in

September 2016 at four locations. The average daytime ambient noise at three

points along the access road adjacent to Oare Creek was 58 dB LAeq (entrance to

application site), 60 dB LAeq (mid-point along access road) and 59 dB LAeq (entrance

to access track/Bretts Aggregates site). The current average maximum noise at these

same points was measured at 68 dB LAmax , 80 dB LAmax and 74 dB LAmax . These

values are close to the thresholds recommended by the Environment Agency/Natural

England but do not significantly exceed them. The noise modelling showed that the

predicted noise contours as a result of the proposed development at part of the

northern tidal lagoon (section 1) and part of the eastern shoreline 2 (closest point of

the SPA boundary to the application site) would be between 45 and 50 dB(A).

Furthermore, it would be 40-45 dB(A) or less for the majority of sections 1 and 2.

These values are below the thresholds recommended by the Environment Agency.

The noise report (Watermans 2017c) concluded that the proposed development

would not significantly change the current noise emissions above existing ambient

background levels along the access road and for the closest human receptors.

The proposed increase in HGV movements on the access road has potential to result

in visual disturbance in birds using the adjacent tidal lagoons and section 2 of Oare

Creek. However, observations of bird behaviour during the field survey response to

existing vehicle movements indicated that this is unlikely to be significant. Birds did

not respond to HGV movements and were much more likely to respond to the

presence of pedestrians on the access road. It is possible that individual birds that

regularly use this part of the SPA have become habituated to HGV movements,

which are already regular and predictable. The presence of pedestrians on this

access road is less predictable and therefore causes a stronger response.

This is supported by Liley & Fearnley (2011), who found that vehicle movements on

the shorelines of the SPA accounted for only a small proportion of the number of

disturbance events which resulted in major flight responses of birds. The most

important type of disturbance affecting behaviour of birds was dog walking. The

proposed development will not result in increases in this kind of human disturbance.

Taking into account the above conclusions on noise impacts and human disturbance

(visual disturbance) together with the field survey results that indicate that there are

few birds using the habitats within the zone of influence of the application site, it is

considered highly unlikely that the proposed scheme would result in any significant

disturbance effects on the qualifying features of the SPA.

The results of the field surveys at Oare Creek indicate that the tidal lagoons do not

generally support significant numbers of the bird species listed as a feature of the

SPA within the zone of influence. The change in noise levels and increased HGV

movements are therefore not considered likely to result in any significant adverse

effects on the features of the SPA.

26

In-combination effects and baseline disturbance levels

The existing active waste recycling site and adjacent boat moorings already act as

potential human disturbance and pollution sources. The current planning application

should be considered in combination with these background sources of disturbance.

The existing operation of the waste recycling site has permission for up to 80 vehicle

movements per day. The presence of a high density of moored recreational boats at

the head of Oare Creek (part of section 2) and on the east side of section 3, result in

significant visual intrusion on Oare Creek that may already significantly reduce

habitat quality for wetland birds. It has been shown that visual intrusion can reduce

the use of intertidal habitat by wetland birds, and increase perceived predation risk

(Burton et al., 2002) and this may explain the reduced number of wetland birds

recorded in section 3 during the survey. In addition, this facility includes occasional

boat movements and human activity.

The public footpath along the sea defences on the western side of Oare Creek is also

an existing source of disturbance. During the field surveys for this study, it was

noticeable that visitor traffic is high along this footpath with recreational activities

including dog-walking, general walking/rambling and bird watching along sections 2-5

of the survey area. Taking into account the conclusions of Liley & Fearnley (2011),

this is considered likely to contribute more to the existing background human

disturbance levels along Oare Creek than the proposed development.

The current application site lies adjacent to the Oare Lakes site which is subject to a

planning application for residential development. The future potential impact on the

SPA as a consequence of increased recreational pressure was considered in the EIA

for this residential development. Part of this site has been proposed for the

establishment of the Oare Lakes Country Park as mitigation for these potential

impacts, including physical separation between recreational users and the sensitive

receptors of the SPA (roosting redshank on the tidal lagoons). It was concluded that,

with these mitigation measures in place, there would be no significant impacts on the

integrity of the SPA site (EPR 2014b).

27

Proposed mitigation measures

The proposed development includes a number of general mitigation measures to

minimise the environmental impacts of the construction works:

• A series of operational measures to control noise from the waste recycling

site are proposed in the noise report (Waterman 2017c). These include the

construction of an earth bund around the south, east and west boundaries of

the site, to a height of 4m, enclosing elements of the waste reception and

sorting activity, optimisation of the site layout to maximise distance and

natural features for attenuation of noise, committing to speed limits on the

access road to 25mph, maintaining the access road surface to reduce traffic

noise and several other management measures to minimise noise output.

• Existing vegetation around the boundary of the site shall be retained and

protected with root protection zones in accordance with current standards.

The earth bund will provide some additional screening from visual intrusion of

new buildings and machinery.

• In order to mitigate against dust the proposed activities will be undertaken

using plant and equipment which is capable of performing to modern

standards, including being equipped with dust mitigation equipment.

Materials with the propensity to liberate dust or litter will be moved as little as

possible, mitigation techniques will include minimising drop heights;

dampening down dry surfaces; profiling stockpiles (to prevent wind shear).

• The earth bund will also reduce wind shear to prevent any litter being blown

into the SPA. Certain activities will be undertaken under cover and litter

fencing will be used where necessary to prevent the release of wind-bourne

litter.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the information provided in this report, it is considered that the competent

authority (KCC) should be able to conclude that there will be no likely significant

effect on the Swale SPA as a consequence of the proposed development, either

alone or in combination with other plans and projects, and that the proposed

development as approved will not adversely affect the integrity of this International

Site or influence the conservation objectives of the SPA.

28

REFERENCES

Balmer, D., Gillings, S., Caffrey, B., Swann, B., Downie, I., and Fuller, R. (2013) Bird

Atlas 2007-11: The breeding and wintering birds of Britain and Ireland. British Trust

for Ornithology. BTO Books, Thetford.

Blumstein, D. T., Anthony, L., Harcourt, R. Ross, G. (2003) Testing a key assumption

of wildlife buffer zones: is flight initiation distance a species-specific trait? Biological

Conservation 110, pp. 97-100.

Burton, N.H.K., Armitage, M.J.S., Musgrove, A.J. and Rehfisch, M.M. (2002) Impacts

of Man-made Landscape Features on numbers of estuarine waterbirds at low tide.

Environmental Management 30, pp. 857 864.

Circular 06/2005 (2005). Government Circular: Biodiversity and geological

conservation – statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.

Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act (2000). HMSO London.

Defra (2011) Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem

services. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/biodiversity-2020-

a-strategy-for-england-s-wildlife-and-ecosystem-services.

Defra (2013) Progress Update. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/biodiversity-2020-simple-guide-and-

progress-update-july-2013.

Eaton, M., Aebischer, N., Brown, A., Hearn, R., Lock, L., Musgrove, A., Noble, D.,

Stroud, D.,and Gregory, R. (2015) Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population

status of birds in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108 •

December 2015 • 708–746

EPR (2014a) Oare Lakes Environmental Statement – Chapter 5: Ecology and Nature

Conservation. Access & Habitat Management Plan Appendix 5.5. Available at

http://pa.midkent.gov.uk/online-

applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application. [Search reference

“KCC/PRE/SW/0218/2016:– file SW_14_0257-ENVIRONMENTAL_STATEMENT_-

_CHAPTER_5.2_-_ECOLOGY_AND_NATURE_CONSERVATION-1359413.pdf”].

EPR (2014b) Oare Lakes EIA – Chapter 5: Ecology and Nature Conservation.

Information for Habitats Regulations Assessment Appendix 5.6. Available at

http://pa.midkent.gov.uk/online-

applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application Search reference

“KCC/PRE/SW/0218/2016:– file SW_14_0257-ENVIRONMENTAL_STATEMENT_-

_CHAPTER_5.2_-_ECOLOGY_AND_NATURE_CONSERVATION-1359413.pdf”.

http://pa.midkent.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application




29

Gill, J., Norris, K., Sutherland, W.J. (2001a) Why behavioural responses may not

reflect the population consequences of disturbance. Biological Conservation, 97, pp

265-268.

Goss-Custard, J. (2016) Mud, birds and poppycock. Available at: e_law 96,

September to October 2016 [Accessed February 2017].

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and Defra (on behalf of the Four

Countries’ Biodiversity Group). (2012). UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework.

Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6189

JNCC (2011) Swale SPA citation. Available at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2041-

theme-default [accessed March 2017].

Kent BAP (2009). Available at: http://www.kentbap.org.uk/habitats-and-

species/priority-species/ [Accessed March 2017].

KMBRC (2016) Kent Bird Records Summary, Oare, Faversham for Iceni Ecology,

Dated 9th August 2016, Ref. ENQ/16/371.

KOS (2015) Kent Breeding Atlas. Kent Ornithological Society. ISBN 978-0-9565670-

5-5.

Liley, D & Fearnley, H. (2011). Bird Disturbance Study, North Kent 2010/11. Footprint

Ecology. Available at http://gtgkm.org.uk/documents/nk-bird-report-1317294981.pdf

[Accessed March 2017].

Natural England (2014) European Site Conservation Objectives for The Swale

Special Protection Area Site Code: UK9012011. Available from:

http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5745862701481984. [Accessed

March 2017].

Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Available at:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/contents.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012). Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2

[Accessed March 2017].

Planning Practice Guidance (2014). Available at:

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/ [Accessed March 2017].

Ruddock, M. & Whitfield, D.P. (2007) A review of Disturbance Distances in Selected

Bird Species. Report from Natural Research (Projects) Ltd. To Scottish Natural

Heritage. Available at: http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/renewables/BIRDSD.pdf

[accessed March 2017].

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2041-theme-default

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2041-theme-default

http://gtgkm.org.uk/documents/nk-bird-report-1317294981.pdf

http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5745862701481984

http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/renewables/BIRDSD.pdf

30

SLR Consulting (2014) Oare Lakes Environmental Statement – Chapter 5: Ecology

and Nature Conservation. Available at http://pa.midkent.gov.uk/online-

applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application. Search reference

“KCC/PRE/SW/0218/2016: ECOLOGY & NATURE CONSERVATION 5 –file

SW_14_0257-ENVIRONMENTAL_STATEMENT_-_CHAPTER_5.1_-

_ECOLOGY_AND_NATURE_CONSERVATION-1369789.pdf”.

Stillman, R. A. and Goss-Custard, J. D. (2010), Individual-based ecology of coastal

birds. Biological Reviews, 85: 413–434. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00106.x

Thomas, K. (2003) Effects of human activity on the foraging behaviour of sanderlings

Calidris alba. Biological Conservation 109, pp. 67-71.

Waterman (2016) Request for pre-application liaison and a screening opinion.

Redevelopment of an existing waste management facility and inclusion of additional

land into a waste management use at Oare Creek, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7TX.

Letter to KCC Planning Applications Group, dated 8 August 2016.

Waterman (2017a) Pre-application liaison Redevelopment of an existing waste

management facility and inclusion of additional land into a waste management use at

Oare Creek, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7TX Your reference: KCC/PRE/SW/0218/2016.

Letter to KCC Planning Applications Group, dated 8 March 2017.

Waterman (2917b) Air Quality Report. Submitted as part of planning application.

Waterman Infrastructure & Environment Limited Pickfords Wharf, Clink Street,

London, SE1 9DG www.watermangroup.com. Document ref: WIE10435-103-R-1-2-

1-AQ.

Waterman (2917c) Noise Report. Submitted as part of planning application.

Waterman Infrastructure & Environment Limited Pickfords Wharf, Clink Street,

London, SE1 9DG www.watermangroup.com. Document ref: WIE10435-102-

R.1.2.1.

Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended). HMSO, London.



http://www.watermangroup.com/

http://www.watermangroup.com/

31

Appendix A

The following tables present a full list of bird survey results. *indicates birds recorded on the grazing marshes and not the intertidal zone of Oare Creek.

Table A1. Counts for Section 1

Dates→

15

Oct

22

Oct

25

Nov

25

Nov

23

Dec

27

Dec

17

Jan

17

Jan

11

Feb

19

Feb

17

Mar

17

Mar

Tide state High Low High Low Low High Low High High Low Low High

Shelduck Tadorna

tadorna

Mallard Anas

platyrhynchos

6

8 23

9

8

10

5 6

Wigeon Anas

penelope

Teal Anas crecca 6 35 92 28 15 14 42 15 22 8 7

Tufted duck

Aythya fuligula

2

Little grebe

Tachybaptus

ruficollis 11

8

13

14 23 7 7

13

3

6

3

Cormorant

Phalacrocorax

carbo 2

1

1 7 3

2

2

Little Egret Egretta

garzetta 25

1

3

3 1

1

Grey Heron Ardea

cinerea 2

1

1

1 1

2

Moorhen Gallinula

chloropus

1

2

1

2

Coot Fulica atra 1

Oystercatcher

Haematopus

ostralegus

2

Avocet

Recurvirostra

avosetta

32

Dates→

15

Oct

22

Oct

25

Nov

25

Nov

23

Dec

27

Dec

17

Jan

17

Jan

11

Feb

19

Feb

17

Mar

17

Mar


Grey plover

Pluvialis

squatarola

Lapwing Vanellus

vanellus

Dunlin Calidris

alpina

Little stint Calidris

minuta

Redshank Tringa

tetanus

5

2

3 1 1

2

1

1

1 1

Greenshank

Tringa nebularia

4

2

4

Black-tailed

Godwit Limosa

limosa

Curlew Numenius

arquata

Snipe Gallinago

gallinago

1

2

Black-headed Gull

Chroicocephalus

ridibundus 7

3

9

8 9 11 4

1

3

3

14 30

Common Gull

Larus canus

Herring Gull Larus

argentatus

2

Lesser Black-

backed Gull Larus

fuscus

2 2

Kingfisher Alcedo

atthis 1

1

1

1

1

33


Dates→

15

Oct

22

Oct

25

Nov

25

Nov

23

Dec

27

Dec

17

Jan

17

Jan

11

Feb

19

Feb

17

Mar

17

Mar


Shelduck Tadorna

tadorna

Mallard Anas

platyrhynchos

Wigeon Anas

penelope

Teal Anas crecca 2 10 17

Tufted duck

Aythya fuligula

Little grebe

Tachybaptus

ruficollis

1

Cormorant

Phalacrocorax

carbo


garzetta

1

4 1

Grey Heron Ardea

cinerea

Moorhen Gallinula

chloropus

Coot Fulica atra

Oystercatcher

Haematopus

ostralegus

2

Avocet

Recurvirostra

avosetta

1

1

Grey plover

Pluvialis

squatarola

Lapwing Vanellus

vanellus

Dunlin Calidris

alpina

34

Dates→

15

Oct

22

Oct

25

Nov

25

Nov

23

Dec

27

Dec

17

Jan

17

Jan

11

Feb

19

Feb

17

Mar

17

Mar



minuta

1

Redshank Tringa

tetanus

6

39 27 20

2

14

3

Greenshank

Tringa nebularia

1

1

1

Black-tailed

Godwit Limosa

limosa

1

Curlew Numenius

arquata

Snipe Gallinago

gallinago

3

Black-headed Gull

Chroicocephalus

ridibundus

10

10

5 13 3 5

1

50

22 6

Common Gull

Larus canus

1

Herring Gull Larus

argentatus

Lesser Black-

backed Gull Larus

fuscus

1

1

Kingfisher Alcedo

atthis

1 1 1

35


Dates→

15

Oct

22

Oct

25

Nov

25

Nov

23

Dec

27

Dec

17

Jan

17

Jan

11

Feb

19

Feb

17

Mar

17

Mar


Shelduck Tadorna

tadorna

Mallard Anas

platyrhynchos

12* 16*

16*

14*

2*

5* 4*

Wigeon Anas

penelope

Teal Anas crecca 3* 25* 1, 6* 17* 2* 3, 7*

Tufted duck

Aythya fuligula

Little grebe

Tachybaptus

ruficollis

Cormorant

Phalacrocorax

carbo

1


garzetta

2

1

1 4

1*

1* 1

Grey Heron Ardea

cinerea

1*

Moorhen Gallinula

chloropus

3* 2*

18*

2 3*

Coot Fulica atra 1*

Oystercatcher

Haematopus

ostralegus

Avocet

Recurvirostra

avosetta

Grey plover

Pluvialis

squatarola

Lapwing Vanellus

vanellus

36

Dates→

15

Oct

22

Oct

25

Nov

25

Nov

23

Dec

27

Dec

17

Jan

17

Jan

11

Feb

19

Feb

17

Mar

17

Mar


Dunlin Calidris

alpina


minuta

Redshank Tringa

tetanus

3

4 6 6

1

1

Greenshank

Tringa nebularia

2 4

1

Black-tailed

Godwit Limosa

limosa

Curlew Numenius

arquata

4*

Snipe Gallinago

gallinago

Black-headed Gull

Chroicocephalus

ridibundus

2

2 7

2

22

4 1

Common Gull

Larus canus

1

Herring Gull Larus

argentatus

Lesser Black-

backed Gull Larus

fuscus

1

Kingfisher Alcedo

atthis

1

37


Dates→

15

Oct

22

Oct

25

Nov

25

Nov

23

Dec

27

Dec

17

Jan

17

Jan

11

Feb

19

Feb

17

Mar

17

Mar


Shelduck Tadorna

tadorna

Mallard Anas

platyrhynchos

Wigeon Anas

penelope

Teal Anas crecca 13 9 19 3

Tufted duck

Aythya fuligula

Little grebe

Tachybaptus

ruficollis

1

1

Cormorant

Phalacrocorax

carbo 1

1


garzetta

1 1

1

Grey Heron Ardea

cinerea

Moorhen Gallinula

chloropus

Coot Fulica atra

Oystercatcher

Haematopus

ostralegus

1

1

5

2 2

Avocet

Recurvirostra

avosetta

1 4

1

4

Grey plover

Pluvialis

squatarola

1

Lapwing Vanellus

vanellus

Dunlin Calidris

alpina

38

Dates→

15

Oct

22

Oct

25

Nov

25

Nov

23

Dec

27

Dec

17

Jan

17

Jan

11

Feb

19

Feb

17

Mar

17

Mar



minuta

Redshank Tringa

tetanus

60

1

14 9 1 7

1

3

19

17

Greenshank

Tringa nebularia

1

Black-tailed

Godwit Limosa

limosa

1 3

10

Curlew Numenius

arquata

2 5

Snipe Gallinago

gallinago

Black-headed Gull

Chroicocephalus

ridibundus

1

1

41

9

Common Gull

Larus canus

Herring Gull Larus

argentatus

2

2

2

3

Lesser Black-

backed Gull Larus

fuscus

1

Kingfisher Alcedo

atthis

1

1

39


Dates→

15

Oct

22

Oct

25

Nov

25

Nov

23

Dec

27

Dec

17

Jan

17

Jan

11

Feb

19

Feb

17

Mar

17

Mar


Shelduck Tadorna

tadorna

26

58 45 142

15

2

25

Mallard Anas

platyrhynchos

29

Wigeon Anas

penelope

9

Teal Anas crecca 23 25 52 14

Tufted duck

Aythya fuligula

Little grebe

Tachybaptus

ruficollis

Cormorant

Phalacrocorax

carbo


garzetta

Grey Heron Ardea

cinerea

1

Moorhen Gallinula

chloropus

Coot Fulica atra

Oystercatcher

Haematopus

ostralegus

1

2

Avocet

Recurvirostra

avosetta

54

72

125

8

Grey plover

Pluvialis

squatarola

Lapwing Vanellus

vanellus

2

200 106

40

Dates→

15

Oct

22

Oct

25

Nov

25

Nov

23

Dec

27

Dec

17

Jan

17

Jan

11

Feb

19

Feb

17

Mar

17

Mar


Dunlin Calidris

alpina

50

300 3

60


minuta

Redshank Tringa

tetanus

34

77 1 12

1

2

46

24

Greenshank

Tringa nebularia

1

Black-tailed

Godwit Limosa

limosa

50

4

Curlew Numenius

arquata

3

1

11 7 1

1

4

Snipe Gallinago

gallinago

Black-headed Gull

Chroicocephalus

ridibundus

7

3

2

1

Common Gull

Larus canus

Herring Gull Larus

argentatus

1

Lesser Black-

backed Gull Larus

fuscus

Kingfisher Alcedo

atthis

41

Appendix B

The following tables present a full list of bird survey results. *indicates birds recorded on the grazing marshes and not the intertidal zone of Oare Creek.

Table B1. Total numbers of wetland birds recorded in each section for each visit at LOW TIDE. 22 Oct 25 Nov 23 Dec 17 Jan 19 Feb 17 Mar

Section 1 26 117 76 30 50 37

Section 2 18 50 42 31 68 39

Section 3 7 10 36 29 44 15

Section 4 61 18 22 11 71 63

Section 5 169 69 629 365 287 117

Table B1. Total numbers of wetland birds recorded in each section for each visit at HIGHTIDE. 15 Oct 25 Nov 27 Dec 17 Jan 11 Feb 17 Mar

Section 1 48 70 13 74 37 50

Section 2 0 10 3 1 5 23

Section 3 0 2 0 42 42 23

Section 4 1 5 2 5 21 8

Section 5 0 9 1 54 28 15

Appendix G - Oare Parish Council€¦ · movements along the site access road adjacent to Oare...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix G - Oare Parish Council€¦ · movements along the site access road adjacent to Oare...