ETHOS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING...2015/12/14 · Ethos Environmental Planning (Ethos) have undertaken...

Ethos Environmental Planning

Ecological Appraisal The Paddocks, Bushey Heath

September 2014

Ethos Environmental Planning Unit 3, Western House 2 Rush Hill Bath BA2 4QZ T: 01225 571 240 E: [email protected]

The Paddocks Ecological Appraisal September 2014

1 | P a g e

CONTENTS Page(s)

PART I – PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL SURVEY 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Methodology 3.0 Background data search 4.0 Habitat survey 5.0 Assessment for protected species PART II – BAT SURVEY 1.0 Introduction

2.0 Methodology 3.0 Results 4.0 Conclusions PART III – MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENTS 1.0 Evaluation of ecological features and identification of potential impacts 2.0 General mitigation and enhancements 3.0 Legislative and planning context

2 – 4 5 – 6 6 – 12 13 – 18 19 – 21 22 23 24 – 26 26 27 – 28 28 - 29 29 - 33

Author Rachel Godden, BSc (Hons)

Checked Jim Phillips, (BSc Hons), MA, MCIEEM


2 | P a g e

Part I – PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL SURVEY

1.0 INTRODUCTION Ethos Environmental Planning (Ethos) have undertaken this ecological survey of land at The Paddocks, Elstree Road, Bushey Heath, Hertfordshire (central grid reference: TQ 15217 94781) – see figure 1. The total area surveyed was 0.52 hectares and includes hedgerows, mature trees, poor semi-improved grassland and dense scrub.

1.1 Aims and objectives of the appraisal The survey has followed the JNCC Phase 1 Habitat Classification and associated field survey techniques. The overarching aim of the survey was to assess the likely impacts of a proposed development on the site (see section 1.3). The survey has the following objectives:

to identify the existing habitats on site;

to assess the potential for notable species;

to establish baseline conditions and determine the importance of ecological features present (or those that could be present) within the specified area;

to establish any requirements for detailed/ further surveys;

to identify key constraints to the project and make recommendations for design options to avoid significant effects on important ecological features/resources at an early stage;

to identify the mitigation measures as far as possible, including those that will be required, and those that may be required (based on results of further surveys or final scheme design); and

to identify enhancement opportunities.


3 | P a g e

1.2 Site location The site is located to the east of the town of Bushey Heath in Hertfordshire. It is bordered by Elstree Road to the south, Caldecote Gardens (street) to the west and residential dwellings to the north and east. The wider environment consists of residential dwellings with some areas of open field and small patches of woodland to the north and east, and the M1 is located 750m to the north of the site. Figure 1 Site location


4 | P a g e

1.3 Development proposals The current development proposals include the construction of 5 apartment blocks with road access. The current proposal includes retention of trees, boundary hedgerows and an open space in the northern section of the site. Figure 2 Proposed site layout

1.4 Structure of the report The following is included within this section of the report:

Methodology;

Background data search and summary of previous surveys;

Habitat map, survey and description;

Assessment for protected species;

Recommendations for further surveys.


5 | P a g e

2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1 General The appraisal has followed the Guidelines for preliminary ecological appraisal (CIEEM 2013). The habitat survey and mapping has followed guidance provided in the Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC 2010).

2.2 Background data search Background data was drawn from a previous ecological survey carried out by Aspect Ecology in November 2011 and a data search by the Hertfordshire Environmental Records Centre.

2.3 Protected Species The preliminary appraisal has considered the potential for protected species drawing on information gathered from the background data search, an assessment of habitat suitability and where feasible specific surveys.

The potential for the site to support protected species is based on the results of the field survey assessment and desktop study. The potential for on-site habitat to support badger, breeding birds, reptiles, great crested newt, otter and water vole is based upon the following criteria: Species Present – In some instances, the presence of a protected species can be confirmed by the presence of recorded evidence, for example badger hairs or latrines and hazel nut gnawed in the characteristic style by dormice. In these instances further Phase 2 surveys will be required in order to establish the statuses of the respective species. High Potential - Species confirmed as present during the field survey and/or on site or local records confirmed from the desktop study. The on-site habitat is of high quality for a given species/species group. The site is located within or adjacent to a national or regional stronghold. Good quality surrounding habitat and good connectivity. Further Phase 2 surveys will be required to assess the presence/absence of the species. Medium Potential - The on-site habitat is of moderate quality, providing most or all of the known key requirements of a given species/species group. The desktop study reveals local records for the species/species group, within the national distribution and with suitable surrounding habitat. Factors limiting the potential of occurrence may include small habitat area, habitat severance and disturbance. Further Phase 2 surveys will be required to assess the presence/absence of the species. Low Potential - On-site habitat is of poor to moderate quality for a given species/species group. Few or no records from the desktop study, although presence cannot be discounted on the basis of national distribution, nature of surrounding habitats, habitat fragmentation, recent on site disturbance etc. Further Phase 2 surveys may be required to assess the presence/absence of the species.


6 | P a g e

Negligible Potential - Although presence cannot be absolutely discounted, the site includes very limited or poor quality habitat for a particular species/species group. There were no records from the desktop study and the surrounding habitat is considered unlikely to support wider populations of a species/species group. The site may also be outside or peripheral to known the national range for a species. Further Phase 2 surveys are unlikely to be required to assess the presence/absence of the species.

2.4 Personnel The preliminary ecological appraisal was undertaken by Charlie Fayers, BSc (Hons) and Rachel Godden, BSc (Hons). Charlie is a Consultant Ecologist with 3 years’ experience in environmental field work. Rachel is a Consultant Ecologist with 3 years’ experience in the ecology and conservation field.

2.4 Limitations The survey was carried out at an optimal time of year for phase 1 and protected species surveys.

3.0 BACKGROUND DATA REVIEW

3.1 Notable sites and species

3.1.1 Notable Sites There are four Local Wildlife Sites within a 1km radius of the site, one of which (Hilfield Park Reservoir) is also a Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and a Herts. and Middlesex Wildlife Trust Nature Reserve. The Local Wildlife Sites are described in Table 1, below: Table 1 Local Nature Reserves within 1km of the site

Site Name & Grid Ref

Area (ha)

Description Distance (m)

Hilfield Park Reservoir TQ157959

75.74 A large reservoir of county importance for its wintering water birds. It is one of only two regular sites in Hertfordshire for moulting Pochard (Aythya farina) and Tufted Duck (Aythya fuligula). It supports one of only two winter gull roosts in Hertfordshire. Only breeding site in Herts. for the Black-necked Grebe (Podiceps nigicollis), a Schedule 1 bird.

840

King George Recreation Ground TQ143948

2.01 Grassland on neutral/acid soils with some ridge-and-furrow evident. The sward is relatively unimproved in character with a diverse range of species recorded.

730

Elstree Road Pastures

4.22 Fields supporting moderately species-rich semi-improved neutral grassland which is crossed by a wet ditch.

560


7 | P a g e

Figure 3 Location of notable sites within 1km of the site

3.1.2 Protected Species Of the protected or notable species records provided in the 1km radius data search, the following are of relevance to the site: Herptiles: Grass Snake (Natrix natrix); Common Toad (Bufo bufo); Common Frog (Rana temporaria); and Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus).

Invertebrates: Various Lepidoptera species (moths and butterflies) including the Pale Shining Brown moth (Polia bombycina): a red data book species which is known from less than fifteen 10km2 squares. Mammals: West European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus);

TQ158949

Fields by Heathbourne Road TQ157944

2.81 Site comprising two fields of old unimproved acidic grassland with a diverse flora. There is some scrub encroachment. The sward is variable in height with many grassland indicators recorded and the site is bordered by ancient hedgerows and woodland.

630


8 | P a g e

Daubenton’s Bat (Myotis daubentonii); Noctule Bat (Nyctalus noctula) Common Pipistrelle Bat (Pipistrellus pipistrellus); and Soprano Pipistrelle Bat (Pipistrellus pygmaeus).

3.2 Summary of previous ecology surveys An ecological assessment was carried out by Aspect Ecology in November 2011. A summary of the key findings of these survey reports is outlined below. 3.2.1 Phase 1 habitat survey The following habitats/ecological features were identified within the site:

· Hard-standing · Trees · Hedgerow · Scrub, Bramble and Amenity Planting · Semi-improved Grassland · Tall Ruderal

Hard-standing Two small areas of concrete hard-standing were identified close to the locked access gates off Elstree Road. It was noted that plants are recolonizing in places and the hard-standing was partially covered with a few grass species. Trees Several species of mature trees were recorded on site, predominantly along the southern and western boundaries. The southern boundary comprised species including Ash Fraxinus excelsior, Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, and Oak. Many of these trees were partially covered in Ivy Hedera sp., and at the time of survey, two mature trees from this line had been recently felled, and left in situ. The line of semi-mature predominantly multi-stemmed trees running along the western boundary comprised solely of Ash, many of which had ivy covering the trunks. The north-east of the site was dominated by a large Oak which was approximately 25m in height and partially surrounded by young silver birch trees. The eastern site boundary contained a number of young and semi-mature trees including species such as Oak, Holly Ilex aquifolium, Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, Sycamore, Willow Salix sp., Silver Birch and Ash and Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus was also present. Hedgerow A short stretch of Blackthorn Prunus spinosa hedgerow less than 1.5m in height and approximately 20m in length was present on site, located along the southern site boundary. It was noted that the hedgerow appeared to be relatively young and regularly managed. Scrub, Bramble & Amenity Planting There were a number of areas of scrub; mainly concentrated around the western, northern and eastern boundaries but also in three central patches surrounding small trees. Species


9 | P a g e

found in these central scrub patches included Hawthorn, Apple Malus sp., Pear Pyrus sp., and holly, ash and sycamore saplings. The scrub along the northern and eastern site boundaries, contained areas of dense tall ruderal and Bramble and there was a small patch of Cherry Laurel Prunus laurocerasus located approximately half way along the northern site boundary. Semi-improved Grassland The site was dominated by well-managed semi-improved grassland exhibiting a more tussocky structure adjacent to site boundaries, and a homogenous species assemblage throughout. Species present included Perennial Ryegrass Lolium perenne, Red Fescue Festuca rubra, Yorkshire Fog Holcus lanatus, Cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata, Ribwort Plantain Plantago lanceolata, Dandelion Taraxacum officinale, Dove’s-foot Crane’s-bill Geranium molle, Meadow Buttercup Ranunculus acris, Docks Rumex sp., Hairgrass Deschampsia sp., and the bryophyte Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus. Localised patches of Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens and Clover Trifolium sp. were also present. There were a number of existing decaying log piles present on the edge of the grassland towards the east of the site in addition to the new log piles created by recently felled trees at the southern site boundary. Tall Ruderal Two main areas of tall ruderal vegetation were present within the site; one to the north-eastern corner of the site and one running alongside the western boundary hedge. Species present across both areas included Garlic Mustard Alliaria petiolata, Cleavers Galium aparine, Common Nettle Urtica dioica, Yew seedlings Taxus baccata, Holly seedlings, Bramble, planted Daffodil Narcissus sp., Wood Avens Geum urbanum, Cow Parsley Anthriscus sylvestris, Hedge Parsley Torilis japnoica, and Hedge Woundwort Stachys sylvatica Invasive species During the course of the survey work undertaken at the site, no evidence for the presence of any exotic invasive plant species was recorded. 3.2.2 Protected species surveys Protected species surveys were carried out for the following species:

Bats

Breeding birds

Reptiles

Amphibians

Terrestrial mammals (including badgers and dormice).

Riparian mammals (including otter and water vole). The following provides a summary of the key findings: Bats Foraging/commuting: It was concluded that the trees and scrub within the site offered some limited potential foraging / commuting opportunities for bats, particularly at the site boundaries where they provided possible connection between off-site existing gardens. Despite the loss of trees and scrub from the site boundaries during development, it was


10 | P a g e

concluded that replacement planting would ensure the same boundaries remain vegetated post development. Accordingly, it was considered that any potential for foraging and commuting bats at the site would not be affected by the proposals. Roosting: An assessment of the trees for their roosting potential was undertaken in February 2011 and found there were a number of semi-mature and mature trees present on site. These trees were assessed for their potential to support roosting bats and rated according to BCT guidelines as either Category 1 – a confirmed roost, Category 2a – high potential, Category 2b – moderate/low potential or Category 3 – negligible potential. The results of the tree assessment work undertaken at the site are shown in the Table 2 below: Table 2 – tree assessment results Aspect Ecology

Tree no. Species Age Features to support roosting bats BCT Category

T5 Ash Mature Dense covering of ivy around the trunk 2b (moderate/low)

T15 Oak Mature A number of split limbs and rot holes 2a (high)

The remaining trees were found to have no features of potential interest to bats, were ranked Category 3 trees, and were therefore considered to have negligible potential to support roosting bats. As proposal planned to retain the mature oak (T15) identified as high bat potential; it was concluded that no further surveys were required and mitigation should include a lighting scheme to minimise light spill onto the tree. The proposal sought to fell the ash tree (T5) identified as moderate/low bat potential; and it was recommended that T5 be “soft-felled” using lowering and cushioning techniques during the felling of the limbs and trunk to safeguard for bats. It was concluded that the loss of this tree and others on the site would result in no net loss to bats because the trees would be replanted. Breeding Birds Several birds were recorded on site during the survey in February 2011 including Dunnock Prunella modularis, Robin Erithacus rubecula, Great Tit, Parus major, Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus, Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs, Blackbird Turdus merula and Song Thrush Turdus philomelos which were observed singing from the trees and scrub at the eastern site boundary. Carrion Crow Corvus corone, Magpie Pica and Wood Pigeon Columba palumbus were also recorded flying over the site. It was concluded that although the trees and scrub at the eastern site boundary offered some potential nesting and foraging opportunities, it was unlikely there would be significant loss to these resources. The report recommended that any removal of potential nesting habitat should be undertaken outside of the bird breeding season. Reptiles It was concluded that the unmanaged margins of the grassland and the log piles in the east of the site offered some limited value to reptiles but the majority of the site was suboptimal for


11 | P a g e

reptiles, and as such was unlikely to support a reptile population. However, due to adjoining semi-natural habitats in the form of residential gardens it was noted that there was a possibility that reptiles may pass through the site on occasion. The survey concluded that, as a precaution and in accordance with best practice, suitable proportionate measures should be undertaken to safeguard any reptiles present or that may pass through the site. The measures outlined by the survey are as follows:

A phased strimming of suitable vegetation, under the supervision of a suitably experienced ecologist. A suitable cutting path will be utilised, running from the south-west corner of the site towards the north-east corner in a rotational manner, so that reptiles are encouraged to move northwards into suitable adjacent habitat.

The vegetation will first be strimmed to a height of approximately 150mm, and the arisings carefully raked off whilst searching for any reptiles.

The strimming will then be repeated to a height of approximately 20mm and the arisings again raked off, thereby removing any suitable foraging/sheltering habitat.

All potential reptile refugia will be removed by hand where possible, and the log piles located in the east of the site carefully dismantled under the supervision of an ecologist.

Amphibians The amphibian survey concluded that there was no suitable habitat for foraging or hibernating amphibians, there were no ponds on site and the nearest pond (0.5km to the south) was separated from the site by residential development. It was concluded that it was reasonable unlikely that any protected amphibians inhabit the site. Terrestrial mammals No Badger setts were found within the site, nor were any latrines or dung pits recorded. There were no recorded signs of Badgers foraging in, or commuting through, the site. Evidence of fox Vulpes (in the form of droppings) and rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus (in the form of two small burrows) were found on site. No evidence of any other protected, rare of notable mammal species was recorded within the site. It was concluded that the semi-improved grassland on the site could offer limited foraging opportunities for hedgehogs and the log piles to the east of the site were suitable for nesting or hibernating hedgehogs. Invertebrates The survey concluded that the habitats on site could support a limited range of common invertebrates, however, the absence of any wildlife site designated for its invertebrate interest within the site, or adjacent to it, suggested that it was unlikely that any protected, rare of notable invertebrate species inhabit the site.


12 | P a g e

3.3 Summary of desk top study There are four Local Wildlife Sites within 1km of the development site, one of which is also designated as a Local Nature Reserve. However, the development site is separated by existing residential housing and is at a small enough scale to have no impact on the sites. There are relatively few records of notable species within 1 km of the site, (with the exception of several hundred records of moth and butterfly species) and of particular note are several records for grass snakes. Several species of bat have been recorded within 1km, Daubenton’s, Noctule, Common Pipistrelle and Soprano Pipistrelle. Due to the suitability habitat and the presence of these records, potential for reptiles and bats should be considered. A previous survey (Aspect Ecology November 2011) concluded the site had limited potential for bats, reptiles and breeding birds and it was unlikely the site is inhabited by protected amphibians or rare invertebrates. No other evidence of protected species was found.

4.0 HABITAT SURVEY

4.1 Methodology An initial field survey was undertaken on the 23rd June 2014 by the survey team. The survey incorporated detailed assessment of the land within the development boundary, including a description and mapping of all key features and habitat types1. The survey was carried out to identify the range of habitats within the site and the predominant and notable species of flora.

4.2 General site description The site is located to the east of the town of Bushey Heath, Hertfordshire. It is bordered by roads on the south and west and by residential dwellings on the north and east. The surrounding habitat is made up of residential dwellings with associated gardens and roads and some areas of open field and woodland. The M1 runs from north-west to east approximately 750m from the site. The site itself consists of a field with patches of scrub/small trees in the middle. The field is surrounded by species-rich hedgerows and areas of dense and scattered scrub. There are a number of mature trees on site and a particular feature is a large mature oak tree in the north-eastern corner of the site.

4.3 Habitat description Figure 4 shows the key habitats using the phase 1 habitat classifications. The key habitats on site are:

Poor semi-improved grassland;

Species rich hedgerows with trees;

Species-poor hedgerows with trees;

Dense scrub; and

1 Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC 2010)


13 | P a g e

Scattered scrub. Figure 4 Phase 1 habitat map

The key habitats are described in more detail in the following section: 4.3.1 Poor semi-improved grassland The site is dominated by a large area of poor semi-improved grassland which is located in the centre of the site. The poor semi-improved grassland could provide suitable foraging grounds for reptiles, invertebrates, amphibians and small mammals. A full botanical species list is detailed in table 3 below.


14 | P a g e

Table 3: poor semi-improved grassland species list Species Latin name Abundance

Birds foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus O

Bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta O

Bramble Rubus fruticosus O

Broad leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius O

Cherry sp. Prunus sp. R

Common knapweed Centaurea nigra R

Common mouse ear Cerastium fontanum O

Compact rush Juncus conglomeratus R

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale O

False oat grass Arrhenatherum elatius F

Hedge bedstraw Galium album F

lesser stitchwort Stellaria graminea O

meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris F

Oak Quercus robur R

Perennial rye grass Lolium perenne F

Plum tree Prunus sp. R

Ragwort Jacobaea vulgaris R

Raspberry Rubus idaeus O

Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata O

Rough hawkbit Leontodon hispidus R

Soft rush Juncus effusus R

Common sorrel Rumex acetosa R

Sweet vernal grass Anthoxanthum odoratum A

Common tormentil Potentilla erecta R

White clover Trifolium repens O

Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus F


15 | P a g e

4.3.2 Hedgerows Figure 5 Numbered hedgerows on site

There are 4 distinct hedges (see figure 5) within the survey site and their species compositions are listed below: Hedge 1 An intact, species-rich hedge with good species diversity including ash, blackthorn, crab apple, English oak, hawthorn, holly and hornbeam. The understory contained several species including honeysuckle, ivy, bramble and a small section dominated by rose bay willow herb. Cherry laurel and sycamore are also occasionally present. The hedge runs from east to west along the southern boundary between the site and Elstree Road.

Hedge 2 This is an intact, species-poor hedge, with three woody species (ash, hawthorn and holly) and a limited understory dominated by bramble with some ivy, goosegrass, stinging nettle and broad-leaved dock. The hedge runs from north to south on the western boundary, separating the site from the quiet residential street: Caldecote Gardens. Hedge 3 This is an intact, species-poor hedgerow, dominated by a section of cherry laurel in the north-eastern section. There are just two woody species (ash and hawthorn) and a limited number of plants in the understory including raspberry, bramble, stinging nettle and ivy. This hedgerow runs from east to west on the northern boundary, separating the site from neighbouring houses. Hedge 4 An intact, species-poor hedgerow running from north to south along the eastern boundary, separating the site from residential dwellings. There is limited species


16 | P a g e

diversity with only two woody species present (hawthorn and oak) and the understory is composed of raspberry, herb Bennett, bramble and ivy. Other trees present include sycamore and silver birch.

Hedge 2 Hedge 4

Hedge 1 Hedge 4

4.3.3 Dense Scrub There are several areas of dense scrub around the site boundaries but also in 3 patches within the poor semi-improved grassland. The scrub around the site boundaries has a limited species diversity and is largely dominated by bramble with some raspberry, stinging nettle and goosegrass. These three patches of dense scrub have formed around the base of young/semi-mature trees including apple, sycamore, hawthorn, silver birch, holly, oak and ash. Honeysuckle is growing over the top of the trees in some places and other plants found in these areas include ivy, bramble, raspberry and goosegrass.


17 | P a g e

Dense scrub patches within the poor semi-improved grassland 4.3.4 Scattered Scrub There are several areas of scattered scrub both around the site edges and beneath the canopy of a large oak tree which is located in the north-eastern corner of the site. Species present in this area include bluebell, bramble, stinging nettle, Yorkshire fog and common bent.

Scattered scrub beneath oak tree in north east corner


18 | P a g e

5.0 ASSESSMENT FOR PROTECTED SPECIES

5.1 General approach The assessment for protected species has focused on the type and suitability of habitats on site for protected species. This is considered alongside the development proposals for the site, and used to assess the need for further survey to fully determine the ecological impact assessment.

5.2 Potential for protected species 5.2.1 Bats The majority of the habitats on site (especially the intact hedgerows and poor semi-improved grassland) are likely to provide opportunities for foraging and commuting bats. There are no buildings on site and so the main consideration for roosting bats are the mature trees. There are a number of large ash trees within hedgerows 1 and 2 which are covered with dense ivy which provides roosting opportunities for a number of bat species. The main feature for bats, however, is the large mature oak tree in the north east corner of the site. This tree has a number of features which are suitable for roosting bats including major cracks and splits where branches have broken off.

The background data search returned records of common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, noctule and Daubenton’s bat. Overall, the potential for bats to be present is considered to be ‘moderate’ and the results of further surveys for bats is presented in section II of this report. 5.2.2 Reptiles A previous survey in 2012 concluded that there was a potential for reptiles to pass through the site occasionally, although none were observed during any surveys. The poor semi-improved grassland, scrub and hedgerows are all potential foraging and sheltering habitat for reptiles and there are several log piles alongside Hedgerow 1 which offer suitable refugia. However, the poor semi-improved grassland on site is cut on a regular basis which, therefore, reduces the chance of reptiles remaining on site throughout the year. The site is connected locally to existing gardens and is separated from other habitats by the two roads on south and western boundaries. Overall, although the habitat on site has some suitability for reptiles, the


19 | P a g e

regular cutting of the grass reduces the likelihood of reptiles being present, the two roads on the south and west boundaries are a barrier to reptiles and therefore, the potential for reptiles is ‘Low - Medium’. Further recommendations are made in relation to reptiles in part III, section 2.0.

Potential reptile habitat in scrub

Log piles by Hedgerow 1

5.2.3 Breeding birds The boundary hedgerows and dense scrub patches offer potential nesting sites for a range of bird species. The hedges, dense scrub and poor semi-improved grassland also offer a place to forage. The mature oak tree in the north east corner offers potential nesting and foraging sites for a range of bird species, and holes consistent with great spotted woodpecker were observed during the survey. A previous survey in February 2011 recorded several species within the site, including Dunnock Prunella modularis, Robin Erithacus rubecula, Great Tit, Parus major, Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus, Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs, Blackbird Turdus merula and the red listed Song Thrush Turdus philomelos which was observed singing from the trees and scrub at the eastern site boundary. Overall it is considered that the site has ‘Medium’ potential for breeding birds. 5.2.4 Badger Some of the habitat on site has potential for foraging badgers, such as the species-rich hedgerow and especially the area of bluebells beneath the large oak tree in the north eastern corner. However, no signs of badger was found on the site during the survey, a previous survey in 2012 also failed to find badger evidence and the data search did not yield any records of badger. Overall the potential for badgers to be present on site is considered to be ‘Low’.

5.2.5 Hedgehog The poor semi-improved grassland, species-rich hedgerows and scrub provide potential foraging and nesting habitat for hedgehog (Erinaceous europaeus). The data search returned records of hedgehog within a 1km radius of the site and the wider environment of residential dwellings and gardens is also suitable. Overall, the potential for hedgehogs to be present on site is considered to be ‘Medium’.


20 | P a g e

5.2.6 Hazel Dormouse The species-rich Hedgerow 1 and the adjoining area of dense scrub provides the only suitable habitat for dormouse (Muscardinus avellenarius) with abundant bramble present as well as hawthorn and honeysuckle. However, there have been no reports of dormice from the local area and the site is isolated from other suitable habitat as it is located within a residential area and separated by roads. Overall, the potential for dormice to be present is considered to be ‘Low’. 5.2.7 Great Crested Newt There are no water bodies located on the site and as such there is no potential for breeding great crested newts. There is some suitable shelter on site for great crested newts, such as the log piles along Hedgerow 1 and the dense scrub. The poor semi-improved grassland is suitable for foraging amphibians and a common frog was recorded in this habitat during the phase 1 survey. The data search returned 2 records of great crested newt, however they were both located to the south of Elstree Road which is a significant barrier for amphibians to cross. The records were also from 15 years ago and were 600m away from the site. Overall, the potential for great crested newts to be present is considered to be ‘Low’. 5.2.8 Water Vole & Otter There are no water bodies on site, no evidence of water vole or otter and the data search returned no records of either species within a 1km radius. Overall, the potential for water vole and otter to be present is ‘Negligible’.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER SURVEYS

6.1 Bats

It is recommended that passive bat detectors are deployed at the site to determine if bats are using the site and which species are present. Following the results of the passive bat detector, bat activity surveys will be carried out as required in order to determine the extent of use of the site by bats, and to fully inform any mitigation measures that may be required. The results of the bat survey are included below in Part II of this report.


21 | P a g e

Part II – BAT SURVEY

1.0 INTRODUCTION The bat survey includes an assessment of the habitats and trees on site for their potential for bats. The following are included within this section:

Methodology

Results

Discussions and conclusion

1.1 Objectives The objectives of the survey were to:

Identify if bats are roosting on site or have potential to roost on site;

Identify the presence or potential presence of bats, a protected species whose disturbance may require consent under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended) or The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, 2010;

Identify the need for further targeted surveys on site;

Identify any bat species which may require special mitigation during the works; and

Identify any areas that may require special protection during the development.

2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Assessment of trees for Bat Roosting Potential As there were no built structure on site, the survey focused on the trees on site. All trees on site were inspected for suitability for bats using the BCT guidance (table 8.4). This involved inspection of trees from the ground using close focusing binoculars and a high power torch (as above), to search for features such as holes, cracks and lose bark which may provide potential for bats.

2.2 Passive bat detector surveys

An SM2BAT+ passive bat detector was positioned in the branches of a mature oak tree (Tree 1) in the north eastern corner of the site, which had several features suitable for roosting bats and was classified as 1* according to the Bat Survey Guidelines. The detector was deployed for 15 nights from the 12th to 26th August 2014. The results from the detector were analysed using Bat Sound software and were used to identify any bats flying close to the oak tree. All calls were cross referenced to a call reference collection library of known bat species to confirm species presence.


22 | P a g e

2.3 Evening emergence/activity bat detector surveys Following the results of the passive detector, it was deemed that a single activity and emergence survey would be sufficient to assess bat activity on the site. This was undertaken on the 26th August, 2014 by two surveyors using full spectrum bat detectors (Batbox Griffin and Elekon Batlogger). The surveyors positioned themselves around the site to enable a good assessment of activity to be undertaken. The surveys commenced 15 minutes before dusk and lasted approximately two hours. The weather during the survey provided suitable conditions for bat activity surveys.

2.4 Limitations to the Assessment The survey was carried out at an optimal time of year for activity surveys, although as the survey was carried out late in the survey season, it has not been possible to gain an understanding of the use of the building across the whole active season of bats. However, sufficient evidence has been gathered to make an accurate assessment of the use of the site and to inform suitable mitigation and compensation measures.

2.5 Personnel The surveys and assessment on site were led by Jim Phillips, BSc (Hons), MA, MCIEEM (Bat Survey level 2 license number: CLS003162). Jim has over 7 years’ practical experience of ecological survey in consultancy. Jim was assisted by Charlie Fayers B.Sc. (Hons) with 3 years’ experience of environmental field work and Rachel Godden B.Sc. (Hons) with 3 years’ experience in the ecology and conservation field.

3.0 SURVEY RESULTS 3.1 Results of the tree inspection for bats Mature trees are located along the majority of hedgerows around the site boundaries, and collectively these form a potentially valuable habitat for commuting bats. The majority of trees on site were classified as ‘Category 3’: trees with no potential to support bats, and these included a stand of silver birch trees surrounding the oak in the north eastern corner. The hedgerows also contained three trees which were considered to be ‘Category 2’: Trees with no obvious potential, although the tree is of a size and age that elevated surveys may result in cracks or crevices being found; or the tree supports some features which may have limited potential to support bats’. All three trees (numbers 2, 3 & 4 on Figure 6) were Ash (Fraxinus excelsior), and were considered to be ‘Category 2’ due to the dense covering of ivy around the trunks which provides potential habitat for roosting bats such as pipistrelles. In the north-eastern corner of the site, there is a large oak tree (number 1 on Figure 6) which was considered to be ‘Category 1*’: Trees with multiple, highly suitable features capable of supporting larger roosts. This tree had multiple cracks and splits where branches had broken off as well as woodpecker holes and looked very suitable for roosting bats. The SM2 passive detector was deployed in the branches of this tree close to the main split in the trunk.


23 | P a g e

Figure 6 Category 1* & 2 trees

Tree 1 Tree 1

Tree 1 Stand of silver birch trees by Tree 1


24 | P a g e

Tree 2 Tree 3

Tree 4

3.2 Results of the passive detector Over the 15 days the SM2 detector recorded low activity, with a total of 62 bat recordings; 61 of which were common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and 1 was soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus). This low activity indicates that the oak tree is not being used as a roost, and is used by low numbers of pipistrelles for occasional foraging or commuting.

3.3 Results of the activity survey Low levels of activity were observed during the surveys, with only 4 passes of common pipistrelle bat made during the whole survey. The first record occurred approximately 45 minutes after dusk indicating that the bat was passing through the site, and unlikely to be roosting nearby. Two common pipistrelle bats were also observed passing through the site, and foraged around the mature oak tree for a brief period. A further pass was recorded towards the end of the survey. No bats were observed emerging from any of the trees on site, confirming they currently are not being used by bats as a roost.

3.3 Summary of results

The category 1* oak tree in the north-eastern corner of the site is not being used as a roost by bats. Very low activity was recorded by the SM2 passive detector within only 62 bats recorded over 15 nights. The results of the SM2 passive detector suggest that common pipistrelles and soprano pipistrelles use the oak tree for sporadic foraging and commuting.


25 | P a g e

Other than the category 1* oak, there are no other trees on site with potential for roosting bats. The main value of these trees, and the hedgerows they are contained within, is for foraging and commuting bats.

The wider environment includes residential dwellings within associated gardens, fields and hedgerows which offer suitable foraging and commuting habitat.

4.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The results of the surveys show that the site is used by low numbers of bats for foraging and/or commuting. Two species were recorded by the SM2 passive detector, almost all were common pipistrelles with just 1 record of soprano pipistrelle. Although the category 1* oak tree in the north eastern corner of the site is very suitable for roosting bats, no evidence was found to indicate that bats are using the tree, except for occasional foraging/commuting. It is assessed that the remaining category 2 and 3 trees on site are of LOW nature conservation significance as defined in Figure 4. Guidelines for proportionate mitigation of the Bat Mitigation Guidelines (2004). The development proposal includes the retention of the category 1* with an ecological buffer as well as the category 2 trees. Overall, it is concluded that the proposed development will not impact bats at a site level. There are some opportunities for enhancements to the site, and these are described below in Part III – Mitigation and Enhancements.


26 | P a g e

Part III – MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENTS 1.0 EVALUATION OF ECOLOGICAL FEATURES AND IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS This section draws on the habitat assessment and protected species assessments and provides a summary of the key ecological features and identifies any potential impacts.

1.1 Key ecological features: habitats and species The site is dominated by poor semi-improved grassland surrounded by a mixture of dense and scattered scrub which have medium-low botanical diversity. There are 4 hedgerows on site; three are intact with low species diversity and the other (Hedgerow 1) has a more diverse species mix. All the hedgerows have value as ecological corridors which is especially beneficial for bats, and offer some potential foraging and nesting opportunities for birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and small mammals. A mature oak tree in the north east corner of the site provides nesting and foraging opportunities for a number of bird species such as great spotted woodpecker, and habitat for a wide range of invertebrates.

1.2 Potential impacts Figure 2 shows the proposed development plans for the site. Considering the existing evidence in relation to habitats and protected species presented in this report, the following potential impacts exist: 1.2.1 Habitats

1) One of the hedgerows on site (hedgerow 1) has good botanical diversity, and provides potential for a number of protected species including breeding birds, bats and reptiles and hedgehog. Although hedgerows 2, 3 and 4 have limited botanical diversity, they increase the site’s overall connectivity with neighbouring gardens, and they also contain several mature trees which also offer potential nesting sites for breeding birds.

The loss of Hedgerow 1, or encroachment into it by development, should be avoided if possible, although the loss of the three species-poor hedgerows is not considered to have a significant impact on biodiversity at a local level.

2) The mature oak tree in the north east corner of the site is also important in terms of providing shelter, nesting sites and foraging opportunities for a wide range of species including birds, bats, invertebrates and small mammals. The loss of this tree, or encroachment into it by development, would be a loss to the species diversity on site and could potentially negatively affect species including breeding birds, bats, small mammals and invertebrates.

3) The grasslands on site have low botanical diversity. The loss of this habitat is not considered to have a significant negative impact on biodiversity at a local level.


27 | P a g e

4) The dense and scattered scrub has low botanical diversity, yet it provides potential nesting sites for breeding birds and refugia and potential foraging ground for a number of species including reptiles, amphibians and small mammals. Although the loss of this habitat would likely not have a significant negative impact on biodiversity at a local level; any retention of scrub patches (especially those adjoining hedgerows) would be beneficial for wildlife.

2.0 General mitigation and enhancements Considering the existing survey data and assessment of potential ecological impacts, this section sets out a number of key mitigation measures. It is considered that the measures outlined below will be sufficient to mitigate for all identified potential impacts.

1) Bats: the mature oak tree in the north eastern corner of the site has been classified as Category 1* as it contains several features which are suitable for roosting bats including split branches and cracks. The bat surveys recorded very low numbers of common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle bats, and it is concluded that this tree is not being used as a roost. The data search returned records of a number of bat species within a 1km radius of the site and the species-rich hedgerow also offers potential foraging habitat. Therefore, is it likely that mitigation will include the following:

- Retention of the mature oak tree and a buffer area maintained around the tree with a lighting scheme implemented to maintain low light levels;

- Retention of species-rich hedgerows around the site.

2) Reptiles: although the regular cutting of the grassland means the chance of reptiles being present is low; as a precautionary measure to avoid the killing or injury to any reptiles on site, the following steps should be undertaken prior to any construction works:

- Log piles or any other refugia should be searched by hand and any reptiles found moved to a wildlife buffer off the site;

- Areas of long grass and scrub should be cut at knee level initially to encourage reptiles and other animals to disperse. A search of the site following this should be undertaken by an ecologist, prior to cutting of vegetation at ground level and subsequent site clearance.

3) Breeding birds: The shrubs and hedgerows on site offer some potential for breeding

birds, however, no evidence of breeding birds was found during the survey. As a precautionary measure to prevent the killing or injury of birds, it is recommended that any hedgerows or shrubs planned for removal, should be cleared outside of the breeding bird season (March-August inclusive);

4) Hedgerows. Hedgerow 1 has relatively good botanical diversity. The main value of this,

and to some extent the other species-poor hedgerows, is their connectivity as an ecological corridor. It is recommended that any development of the site retains these as intact as possible. If the final development proposals seek removal of these hedgerows, it is recommended that the landscape scheme looks to incorporate new and additional hedgerows. Hedgerows could be incorporated into the soft landscape of any proposed street scene, open space and gardens.


28 | P a g e

5) Any proposed open space (as indicative on the current master plan) could include native shrub and tree planting, the use of natural landscaping and play), rather than creating a more formal open space with play area.

6) The proposed development offers some opportunity for ecological enhancement; simple measures such planting of native shrubs and trees at site edges and the installation of bat and bird boxes in the new building could increase the biodiversity of the site. It is also suggested that the site boundaries should include permeable features or small gaps to allow the movement of wildlife between neighbouring gardens. This would benefit a range of species including hedgehogs, reptiles and amphibians.

7) The street scene could incorporate planting of native trees and or/wildflower grass verges where feasible.

3.0 LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING CONTEXT

3.1 Legislation - Species This section outlines the key legislation related to the habitats and species considered within this survey report.

3.1.1 Bats All British bats are protected under Section 9 Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and amendments. In addition, they are protected under the Berne Convention, they are given migratory species protection within the Bonn Convention Agreement, and are protected under Schedule 2 of the EC Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora (Habitats Directive). Regulation 41 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation 2010 makes it an offence to deliberately capture or kill bats, to deliberately disturb a bat, damage or destroy a breeding site or resting site of any bat. It is an offence to disturb any bat roosting site. Presence of bats does not necessarily mean that development cannot go ahead, but that with suitable, approved mitigation, exemptions can be granted from the protection afforded to bats under regulation 41 by means of a licence. Natural England (NE) is the appropriate authority for determining licence applications for works associated with developments affecting bats, including demolition of their roost sites. In cases where licences are required, certain conditions have to be met to satisfy Natural England. Before the Statutory Nature Conservation Organisation (SNCO), in this case NE, can issue a licence to permit otherwise prohibited acts three tests have to be satisfied. These are:

1. Regulation 53(2)(e) states that licenses may be granted by SNCO to ‘preserve public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.

2. Regulation 42(10)(a) states that a license may not be granted unless SNCO is satisfied

‘that there is no satisfactory alternative’.


29 | P a g e

3. Regulation 42(10)(b) states that a license cannot be issued unless SNCO is satisfied

that the action proposed ‘will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range’.

In order to meet the tests, SNCO usually expects the planning position to be fully resolved as this is necessary to satisfy tests 1 and 2. Full planning permission, if applicable, will need to have been granted and any conditions relating to bats fully discharged. For test 3, the licensing body seek advice from Natural England. As well as consulting with Natural England, the licensing body may also seek information from the local authority before they will determine any licence application. The licence application process may take two months before a licence is issued. 3.1.2 Reptiles All reptile species in Great Britain receive some legal protection from legislation in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. More recently, further protection was afforded in Great Britain to species listed in the Habitat Regulations 1994. Both the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Habitat Regulations 1994 provide mechanisms to protect species, their habitats and sites occupied by the species. Native reptile species fit into two bands of protection: European protected species receive all elements of protection in Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Habitat Regulations 1994. Native species that receive this protection are:

Sand lizards (Lacerta agilis)

Smooth snakes (Coronella austriaca)

This legislation prohibits the following on any of the above species:

Deliberately or intentionally killing and capturing (taking) or intentional injuring.

Deliberately disturbing

Deliberately taking or destroying eggs

Damaging or destroying a breeding site or resting place or intentionally damaging a place used for shelter or protection.

Intentionally obstructing access to a place used for shelter; and keeping, transporting, selling or exchanging; offering for sale or advertising.

Species that receive protection against intentional killing, injuring and sale only:

Slow-worm (Anguis fragilis)

Common lizard (Lacerta vivipara)

Adder (Vipera berus)

Grass snake (Natrix natrix) Both the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Habitat Regulations 1994 apply to all life stages of the protected species: eggs and spawn, larvae, juveniles and adults are all protected.


30 | P a g e

3.1.3 Badgers The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 is based primarily on the need to protect badgers from baiting and deliberate harm or injury. It also contains restrictions that apply more widely and it is important for developers to know how this may affect their work. All the following are criminal offences:

to willfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger;

to attempt to do so; or

to intentionally or recklessly interfere with a sett. Sett interference includes damaging or destroying a sett, obstructing access to a sett, and disturbing a badger whilst it is occupying a sett. It is not illegal, and therefore a licence is not required, to carry out disturbing activities in the vicinity of a sett if no badger is disturbed and the sett is not damaged or obstructed. Development should not be permitted unless it is possible to take steps to ensure the survival of the badgers in their existing range and at the same population status, with provision of adequate alternative habitats if setts and foraging areas are destroyed. Natural England will normally only issue a licence after detailed planning permission has been granted, where applicable, so that there is no conflict with the planning process. Before the planning application is determined, the local planning authority should request a detailed ecological survey/report and developers should be prepared to provide the following information:

The numbers and status of badger setts and foraging areas that are affected by the proposal;

the impact that the proposal is likely to have on badgers and what can be done by way of mitigation;

judgment on whether the impact is necessary or acceptable; and

a recommendation on whether a licence will be required. Planning Permission and badger licensing are separate legal functions. Thus receiving planning permission from the Local Authority is no guarantee that development operations will not breach the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Similarly planning permission does not guarantee that a badger licence will be granted. 3.1.4 Birds All wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and cannot be killed or taken, their nests and eggs taken, damaged or destroyed, it also prohibits or controls certain methods of killing or taking except under licence. Other activities that are prohibited include possession and sale. Activities such as killing or taking birds (including relocating) which would otherwise be illegal can be carried out under licence where there is suitable justification and the issue cannot be resolved by alternative means.


31 | P a g e

Specially protected or Schedule 1 birds receive full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Part I birds are protected at all times, Part II during the close season only. In addition to the protection from killing or taking that all birds, their nests and eggs have under the Act, Schedule 1 birds and their young must not be disturbed at the nest. 3.1.5 Hazel Dormouse They are protected under both the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Dormice and their breeding sites and resting places are fully protected. Without a licence it is an offence for anyone to deliberately disturb, capture, injure or kill them. It is also an offence to damage or destroy their breeding or resting places, to disturb or obstruct access to any place used by them for shelter. It is also an offence to possess, or sell a wild dormouse. 3.1.6 Great Crested Newts Great crested newts are fully protected under UK and European legislation:

Bern Convention 1979: Appendix III

Wildlife & Countryside Act (as Amended) 1981: Schedule 5

EC Habitats Directive 1992: Annex II and IV

Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994: Schedule 2

Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW 2000) Because great crested newts are listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, Section 9(1) of the Act makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure or take great crested newts. Section 9(2) makes it an offence to possess or control a live or dead great crested newt or any part or thing derived from them. Section 9(4) makes it an offence to intentionally damage, destroy, obstruct access to, any structure or place which great crested newts use for shelter or protection. It is also an offence to intentionally disturb them while occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose. Section 9(5) makes it an offence to sell, offer or expose for sale, or possess or transport for the purpose of sale, any live or dead great crested newt or any part or thing derived from them. It is also an offence to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that great crested newts, or parts or derived things of them are bought, sold or are intended to be. Section 9 applies to all stages in their life cycle. Their inclusion on Schedule 2 of the Conservation Regulations 1994 affords great crested newts extra protection by also making it an offence under Regulation 39(1) to deliberately capture, kill or disturb great crested newts or to deliberately take or destroy their eggs, or damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place. Regulation 39(2) makes it an offence to keep, or transport, or exchange great crested newts or any part or thing derived from them. Paragraphs 39(1) and 39(2) apply to all stages of their life cycle.

3.2 Policy considerations This section considers key policies that are relevant to ecology and development of the site.


32 | P a g e

3.2.1 National Planning Policy NPPF policy 109: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;

recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;

minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;

preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and

remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.

3.2.2 Local policy Hertsmere County Council have published guidance in relation to biodiversity and planning ‘Hertsmere Local Plan, Development Plan Document. The following highlights a key policy from this document and assesses the development proposals against them.

1) Policy CS12: All development proposals must conserve and enhance the natural environment of the Borough, including biodiversity, habitats, protected trees, landscape character, and sites of ecological and geological value, in order to maintain and improve environmental quality, and contribute to the objectives of the adopted Greenways Strategy and the Hertsmere Green Infrastructure Plan. Proposals should provide opportunities for habitat creation and enhancement throughout the life of a development. In the case of the highest quality agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a) and Preferred Areas of mineral extraction, proposals will only be permitted where there is no likelihood of the land being sterilised for future agriculture or mineral extraction.

It is considered that the findings and recommendations in this report do not conflict with this policy, particularly in light of the key mitigation measures to retain the category 1* oak tree with an ecological buffer and area of open space.

REFERENCES Bat Conservation Trust (2012). Bat Surveys – Good practise guidelines. Evaluating local mitigation/translocation programmes: Maintaining best practice and lawful standards. HGBI advisory note for amphibians and reptile groups (ARGs) Froglife advice sheet 10, Reptile Survey. An introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation.


33 | P a g e

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2012), Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (IEEM website). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC 2010). Froglife advice sheet 11, Surveying for Great Crested Newts. Natural England. Standing Advice Species Sheet: Hazel dormouse

ETHOS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING...2015/12/14 · Ethos Environmental Planning (Ethos) have undertaken...

Documents

Transcript of ETHOS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING...2015/12/14 · Ethos Environmental Planning (Ethos) have undertaken...