File 15 Ecological Survey Extended

8/13/2019 File 15 Ecological Survey Extended

1/84

www.wyg.com creative mindssafe hands

William Davis

Shelford Road Farm, Radcliffe 0n Trent

Extended Phase 1 Survey Report

October 2013

Executive Park, Avalon Way, Leicester, LE7 7GR

Tel: 0116 234 8100 Fax: 0116 234 8002

Email: [email protected]


2/84


Document Control

Project: Shelford Road

Client: William Davis

Job Number: A079137

File Origin: O:\Ecology\Projects A079000 on\A079137 Shelford Road - Radcliffe on Trent

Document Checking:

Prepared by: Richard Penson CIEEM Signed:

Checked by: David Goddard MCIEEM Signed:

Verified by:

On behalf of:

Gavin Ward, MCIEEM, AIEMA

Associate

Claire Wilmer, CEnv, MCIEEM, MIEMA

Signed:

Issue Date Status

1 17thJuly 2013 FINAL v1

2 17thOctober

2013

FINAL v2

3 15thNovember

2013

FINAL v3


3/84


WYG Environment Planning Transport Ltd. accept no responsibility or liability for the use which is made of this document other than

by the Client for the purpose for which it was originally commissioned and prepared.


4/84


Contents Page

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 11.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 31.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 31.2 Site Location and General Description ......................................................................................... 31.3 Development Proposals .............................................................................................................. 31.4 Survey and Reporting Objectives ................................................................................................ 32.0 Desk Study ........................................................................................................................ 52.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 52.2 Data Search Results ................................................................................................................... 53.0 Survey Methodology ........................................................................................................ 123.1 Habitats .................................................................................................................................. 123.2 Protected and Notable Species .................................................................................................. 123.3 Invasive Species ...................................................................................................................... 143.4 Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 144.0 Survey Results ................................................................................................................. 164.1 Habitats .................................................................................................................................. 164.2 Protected and Notable Species .................................................................................................. 204.3 Invasive Species ...................................................................................................................... 245.0 Ecological Impacts and Recommendations..................................................................... 255.1 Statutory and Non-statutory Sites ............................................................................................. 255.2 Habitats .................................................................................................................................. 25


5/84


5.3 Protected and Notable Species .................................................................................................. 255.4 Invasive Species ...................................................................................................................... 306.0 Summary of Recommendations ...................................................................................... 317.0 References ....................................................................................................................... 32

Table Contents

Table 1: SINCs within 2km of the site ....................................................................................... 6Table 2: Legally Protected Schedule 1 Bird Records within 2km of the site ............................. 8Table 3: Nottinghamshire Rare Plant Register Species within 2km of the site....................... 11Table 4: Biological Features of Hedgerows ............................................................................. 17Table B1 Schedules of the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations

2012 ......................................................................................................................................... 41Table B2 Invasive plant species listed in Schedule 9 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981

(as amended) ........................................................................................................................... 44Table E1 Shrub species of native origin or generally thought to be beneficial to wildlife ...... 56Table E2 Tree species of native origin or generally thought to be beneficial to wildlife ........ 57Table E3 Gardening for bats .................................................................................................... 58

Appendix Contents

Appendix A - FiguresAppendix B Biodiversity and Environmental Legislation, Conventions & Threatened ListsAppendix C Data Search ResultsAppendix D Wildlife BoxesAppendix E Wildlife-friendly Planting


6/84



7/84

Shelford Road Farm: Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

1

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

Executive Summary

Site Description and Scope of Works

The site comprises agricultural land with farm buildings at the northern end, on the eastern outskirts of the village ofShelford, Nottinghamshire.

Potential Constraints Yes No

Bats

Has the site been assessed for bats? Y

Are there any structures or trees on site which have the potential to support roostingbats? (see section 5.3.3) Y

Breeding Birds including Barn Owls

Has the site been assessed for breeding birds including barn owls? Y

Will areas of hedgerow, scrub, woodland, trees or other features likely to be used bynesting birds be affected by the proposal? (see section 5.3.7)

Y

Badgers

Has the site been assessed for badgers? Y

Is there any evidence of badgers on or near the application site including setts, foragingor commuting? (see section 5.3.4)

N

Dormice

Has the site been assessed for dormice? Y

Is there suitable habitat for dormice on, or close to the application site? (see section5.3.7)

N

Great crested newts

Has the site been assessed for great crested newts? Y

Is there suitable habitat for great crested newts on, or close to the application site? (seesection 5.3.1)

Terrestrialonly

Reptiles

Has the site been assessed for reptiles? Y

Is there suitable habitat on the site for reptiles? (see section 5.3.2) N

Other protected species (e.g. otters, water voles, white-clawed crayfish)

Has the site been assessed for otters, water voles and white-clawed crayfish Y

Is there suitable habitat on the site for otters, water voles and white-clawed crayfish?(see sections 5.3.5, 5.3.6 and 5.3.7)

N

Other features of nature conservation interest

Does the application site support Habitats of Principal Importance or Local BiodiversityAction Plan Priority Habitats?

Y

Semi-improved Neutral Grassland, Hedgerows.

Does the application site support Species of Principal Importance or Local BiodiversityAction Plan Species?

Y

Potentially roosting bats in the house and farm buildings


8/84


2

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

Have details of biodiversity enhancements been included with the application? Y

Recommendations Yes No

Are further surveys recommended to inform the ecological impact assessment? Y

Bat emergence surveys on the house and farm buildings on two occasions

Is mitigation (including avoidance/compensation) and enhancement recommended? Y

It is recommended to incorporate wildlife friendly planting into the soft landscaping design

Consideration should be given to incorporating bat and bird boxes into the development proposal design


9/84


3

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

WYG was commissioned by William Davis Ltd. In May 2013 to undertake an extended Phase 1 habitat

survey at Shelford Road Farm (the site). The site layout is shown in Plan 1, Appendix A. Plan 2 shows the

(numbered) buildings and this should be read in conjunction with Section 5.3.3 Bats.

1.2 Site Location and General Description

The site is located on the eastern outskirts of the village of Shelford, in the Newark and Sherwood District

of Nottinghamshire. The central grid reference of the site is SK 655 400. The site is bounded to the north

and west by residential housing and by agricultural land to the east and south. An active railway line is

located approximately 0.25km to the south of the site with residential housing at Harlequin beyond.

The site comprises six fields of grassland with farm buildings which are no longer used. The fields are

delimited by species-poor hedgerows with a wet ditch alongside an internal hedgerow. The southern

boundary hedgerow adjoins an active railway line.

1.3 Development Proposals

It is proposed to redevelop the site for residential housing.

1.4 Survey and Reporting Objectives

The ecological investigations undertaken by WYG included the following objectives:

A desk study to obtain existing information on statutory and non-statutory sites of nature

conservation interest, and records of protected/notable species within the site and its environs;

An extended Phase 1 habitat survey involving a walkover of the site to record habitat types and

dominant vegetation, including any invasive species, and a reconnaissance survey for evidence

of protected fauna or habitats capable of supporting such species;

An investigation of the buildings and trees for their potential to support bats, including a survey

of internal and external features; and


10/84


4

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

An assessment of the potential ecological constraints to the proposed works at the site and

recommendations for further survey, avoidance, mitigation and enhancement where

appropriate.


11/84


5

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

2.0 Desk Study

2.1 Methodology

Information was gathered from Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre (NBGRC), the

ecological records centre for Nottinghamshire, regarding the presence of nature conservation designations

and protected and notable species within 2km of the proposed development site. In addition, a search for

designations was made of Natural Englands interactive, web-based MAGIC (Multi Agency Geographic

Information for the Countryside) database.

The data search covers:

Statutory nature conservation designations, such as National Nature Reserves and Sites of

Special Scientific Interest;

Non-statutory nature conservation designations, such as Wildlife Sites;

Protected species, such as badgers, great crested newts and bats; and

Notable species, such as those listed in the local Biodiversity Action Plan.

Tree preservation orders (TPOs) and conservation areas are not included in this data search.

2.2 Data Search Results

2.2.1 Statutory Sites

There are no Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) within 2km of the site.

The only statutorily protected site within the 2km search radius is Netherfield Lagoons Local Nature Reserve

(LNR), which is located approximately 1.5km to the west of the site. This LNR comprises two former fly ash

lagoons which have become colonised by common reed (Phragmites australis) and other marginal aquatic

species, trees and shrubs and pioneer vegetation on areas of exposed mud. The LNR also includes two

former gravel pits. Botanical interest comprises calcareous grassland supporting two species of orchid, both

of which are scarce in the County.


12/84


6

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

Netherfield Lagoons also supports notable breeding and wintering birds and a notable dragonfly

assemblage of 16 species. This site is also a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) see

below.

2.2.2 Non-statutory Sites

In addition to Netherfield Lagoons, there are a further six Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation

within the 2km search radius. These are summarised in Table 1 below:

Table 1: SINCs within 2km of the site

SINC Name (SINC No.) Distance from

Site

Grid Ref. Reason for Designation

Saxondale Railway (2/193) 2Km East SK 678401 Botanical, Butterfly Assemblage

Swallow Plantation (2/946) 0.5Km North SK 654415 Botanical

The Avenue Pool (2/947) 0.5Km West SK 649403Botanical, Dragonfly Assemblage, Water

Beetle / Bug Assemblage

Netherfield Dismantled

Railway Sidings (5/210)1Km West SK 634403 Botanical, Butterfly Assemblage

Trent Bluff Scrub, Radcliffe

(5/214)

0.5Km North-

westSK 651407 Botanical

Dewberry Hill (5/2176) 0.5Km South SK 656390 Botanical


13/84


7

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

2.2.3 Protected and Notable Species

Invertebrates (includes White-clawed Crayfish)

No white-clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes) records were returned through the data search

although there was a record of the invasive Chinese mitten-crab (see invasive species section).

There are three records of two notable butterfly species within the 2km data search:

Dingy skipper (Errynis tages) was recorded from Netherfield Dismantled Railway Sidings in 2011,approximately 1km west of the site. Grizzled skippers (Pyrgus malvae) have been recorded from Saxondale

Railway with a continuous run of records between 1980 and 2011 although records from 2012 and 2013

have been received from this locality by the Nottinghamshire Butterfly Recorder (Richard Penson). Both

dingy and grizzled skippers were added to the list of priority species in the National BAP in 2007.

The assemblages of 16 dragonfly and damselfly species at Netherfield Lagoons exceeds the threshold of 11

species to qualify as being of County Importance. This includes records of small red-eyed damselfly

(Erythromma viridulum) which is a recent colonist and has a restricted distribution within the County.

The Avenue Pool SINC supports assemblages of notable water beetles and water bugs which are of County

Importance.

Great Crested Newts

The data search returned three records of great crested newts from the 2km search area although two of

these are historical ones. The most recent record is from 2001, from Newstead Avenue in Radcliffe,

presumably from a garden pond. This record is approximately 200m west of the site. The other two records

date from 1993 and 1989, both being from Radcliffe, the former being introduced from Keyworth Nature

Reserve but were not seen after their release.

Common frog (Rana temporaria), common toad (Bufo bufo) and smooth newt (Lissotriton vulgaris) have

been recorded from the 2km data search area; the majority of records of all three species are from

Radcliffe and Netherfield Lagoons.


14/84


8

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

Reptiles

The only reptile record received from the data search was a historical one of a grass snake (Natrix natrix)

from Cropwell Road, Radcliffe in 1995, approximately 1.5km south west of the site.

Birds

The data search returned records of 32 legally protected birds listed on Schedule 1 of the W&CA 1981 (as

amended) from Netherfield Lagoons. These are summarised in Table 2 below along with their status at the

site:

Table 2: Legally Protected Schedule 1 Bird Records within 2km of the site

Common Name Scientific Name Year ofRecord

Comments

Avocet Recurvirostra avocetta 2009, 2010 Passage migrants

Barn Owl Tyto alba 2009 - 2011 Winter records, January to March

Bearded Tit Panurus biarmicus 2010 Vagrant

Bittern Botaurus stellaris 2008 2011 Winter visitor

Black Tern Chlidonias niger 2008 2010 Passage migrants

Black-necked Grebe Podiceps nigricollis 2008 Passage migrants

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa 2009 2011 Passage migrants

Brambling Fringilla montifringilla 2009 - 2011 Winter visitor

Cettis Warbler Cettia cetti 2008 2011 Resident since 2008, possibly breeding

Fieldfare Turdus pilaris 2008 2011 Winter visitor

Garganey Anas querquedula 2008 2011 Passage Migrants

Greenshank Tringa nebularia 2008 2011 Passage Migrants

Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus 2008 2011 Passage Migrant / Winter Visitor

Goldeneye Clangula hyemalis 2008 - 2011 Winter Visitor

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus2011

Passage MigrantHobby Falco subbuteo 2008 2011 Potential Local Breeder

Kingfisher Alcedo atthis 2008 2011 Potential Breeder

Little Gull Hydrocoloeus minutus 2008 2011 Passage Migrant

Little-ringed Plover Charadrius dubius 2008 2011 Breeder at this locality

Little Tern Sternula albifrons 2009 Vagrant

Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus 2009 2010 Passage Migrant

Mediterranean Gull Larus melanocephalus 2009 2011 Passage Migrant / Winter Visitor

Merlin Falco columbarius2008, 2010

2011

Winter Visitor


15/84


9

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 2008 2010 Passage Migrant

Peregrine Falco peregrinus 2008 2011 Non-breeding at this locality

Pintail Anas acuta 2008 2011 Winter Visitor

Red Kite Milvus milvus2009 2011 Passage Migrant / Non-breeding

Resident

Redwing Turdus iliacus 2008 2011 Winter Visitor

Ruff Philomachus pugnax 2010 2011 Passage Migrant

Scaup Aythya marila 2008 Winter Visitor / Passage Migrant

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus 2008 2011 Passage Migrant

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus 2009 2011 Winter Visitor / Passage Migrant

Records of a further 11 Schedule 1 birds were returned from elsewhere within the 2km data search area,

although only three of these were considered likely to relate to breeding birds. These comprise two records

of barn owl, one from within a nesting box at Stragglethorpe in 2010 (approx 2km south of the site) and

another at Radcliffe in 2009. Hobbies were repeatedly recorded from a locality at Burton Joyce (approx 2km

away) over the summer of 2011. There is also a record of kingfisher from the River Trent near Burton Joyce

(approx 2km away) in 2011 in suitable breeding habitat.

The remaining species, comprising red kite, marsh harrier, peregrine, whimbrel, fieldfare, redwing,

brambling and crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) were either recorded in the non-breeding season or else it is

considered that there is no suitable breeding habitat within the 2km data search area.

A range of notable breeding farmland birds, including Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) Red and Amber

List species were recorded within the 2km search area, including grey partridge (Perdix perdix),

yellowhammer (Emberiza schoeniclus), linnet (Carduelis cannabina) and lapwing (Vanellus vanellus).

Bats

Four bat species have been confirmed as present within the 2km data search area and there are a further

ten records of unidentified bats. The data search returned fifteen records of confirmed bat roosts within the

data search area; all but three of these are from residential buildings within Radcliffe-on-Trent. Seven of

these are of common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and one of a maternity roost of soprano pipistrelles

(Pipistrellus pygmaeus). The remainder of these roosts are of unidentified bats. All of these bat roosts date

between 1989 and 2010.


16/84


10

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

There is a 2011 record of a brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus) roost from Shelford Lodge Farm

Buildings, approximately 250m away from the site. There is also a roost of this species, plus common

pipistrelle at Stoke Bardolph Farm from 2001, approximately 1.5km to the north-west of the site.

There are several records of foraging bats within the 2km data search area, comprising common and

soprano pipistrelles, noctule (Nyctalus noctula) and unidentified bats between 2001 and 2010. Netherfield

Lagoons stands out as likely to be an important bat foraging area.

Badgers

NBGRC provided three records of badgers within 2km of the site although no setts have been found to

date.

A fresh badger latrine was found alongside one of the gravel pits at Netherfield Lagoons in 2010 and

footprints in the mud of the slurry lagoon in 2009; both these locations are approximately 1km away from

the site.

The third record comprises a road casualty on the minor road (Shelford Road) in 2008, approximately 1km

north east of the site.

Otter

There is one record of otter from the search area, comprising a sighting of one on the River Trent at Stoke

Bardolph in 2001, approximately 1.3km north of the site.

Water Voles

The data search returned one record of water vole, from Netherfield Slurry Lagoon in 2002, approximately

2km west of the site. The NBGRC appended the note first record for several years to this record.

Other Mammal Species

Both brown hare (Lepus europaeus) and harvest mouse (Micromys minutus) have been recorded from the

data search area; both of these are listed as priority species under Section 41 of the Natural Environment

and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 and are also LBAP species.


17/84


11

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

There are fifteen records of brown hare from the 2km search area, two of them being within 200m of the

site.

The two records of harvest mouse are both from Netherfield Lagoons, one from 1999 and the other from

2011 when a nest was found.

Vascular Plants

A total of seven vascular plants listed on the Nottinghamshire Rare Plant Register (NRPR) have been

recorded within the 2km data search area. These are summarised in Table 3 below:

Table 3: Nottinghamshire Rare Plant Register Species1within 2km of the site

Site of record Species Distancefrom Site

Comments

Netherfield DismantledRailway Sidings (SINC5/210)

Fig (Ficus carica) 1.5Km Alien in UK

Columbine (Aquilegia vulgaris) 1.5km Alien in Nottinghamshire

Common cudweed (Filago vulgaris) 1.5Km Native

Dittander (Lepidium latifolium) 1.5Km Alien in Nottinghamshire

Netherfield Pits (SINC2/379)

Pyramidal orchid (Anacamptis

pyramidalis)

1.5Km

NativeBird cherry (Prunus padus) 1.5Km Alien in Nottinghamshire

Marsh stitchwort (Stellaria palustris) 1.5Km Native

Invasive Species

There is a 2011 record of American mink (Neovison vison) from Netherfield Lagoons, approximately 2km

away from the site.

There is a record from 2008 of Chinese mitten-crab (Eriocheir sinensis) from Stoke Lock on the River Trent

which had been found in a dredging hopper which had originated from West Burton Power Station.

Both these are invasive species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as

amended).

No records of invasive plants were returned through the data search.

1

This information has been derived from data search information, including plant lists for SINCs which list their county status on theproforma.


18/84


12

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

3.0 Survey Methodology

An extended Phase 1 habitat survey was conducted on the site and within the predicted zone of influence2

of the proposed development. All areas of the site were investigated, including those parts that are not

expected to be affected directly by the works but may be indirectly impacted upon. As recommended by

English Natures Badgers and Development(2002), a 30m buffer around the site was investigated for

evidence of badger activity where possible.

3.1 Habitats

The vegetation and habitat types within the site were noted during the walkover survey in accordance with

the categories specified for a Phase 1 Vegetation and Habitat Survey (Joint Nature Conservation

Committee, 2010). Dominant plant species were recorded for each habitat present.

3.2 Protected and Notable Species

The site was inspected for evidence of and its potential to support protected and/or notable species,

especially those listed under the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012, the

Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), including those given extra protection under the Natural

Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006and Countryside & Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000,

and listed on the UK and local Biodiversity Action Plans.

The following species were considered:

3.2.1 Great Crested Newts

The site was appraised for its suitability to support great-crested newts. The assessment was based on

guidance outlined in the Joint Nature Conservation Committees published Herpetofauna Workers Manual

(Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2003) and the Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook

(Langton, Beckett & Foster, 2001).

2

Zone of influence: the area that may be affected by the biophysical changes caused by the activities associated with thedevelopment.


19/84


13

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

As recommended by Natural England, the Oldham et al.(2000) Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) was applied

to ponds on site and to those within 500m of the site, where access permitted; these were identified using

Ordnance Survey maps and aerial images.

3.2.2 Reptiles

The site was appraised for its suitability to support reptiles. The assessment was based on guidance

outlined in the Joint Nature Conservation Committees published Herpetofauna Workers Manual(Joint

Nature Conservation Committee, 2003).

3.2.3 Bats

The buildings/trees within the boundary were appraised by an experienced ecologist from WYG for their

suitability to support breeding, resting and hibernating bats using survey methods based on those outlined

in the Bat Conservation Trusts Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines(2012) and English Natures Bat

Mitigation Guidelines(2004).

3.2.4 Badgers

The site was surveyed for evidence of badger setts or other badger activity such as paths, latrines or signs

of foraging. Methodologies used and any setts recorded were classified according to published criteria

(Harris, Cresswell & Jefferies, 1989). A 30m buffer zone around the expected zone of influence was

surveyed as recommended in English Natures Badgers and Development(2002).

3.2.5 Otters

Water courses on site were assessed for their suitability to support otters. This assessment was based on

guidance outlined in Chanin, P. (2003) Monitoring the otter.

3.2.6 Water Voles

Following methods set out in the Water Vole Conservation Handbook(Strachan & Moorhouse, 2011), an

assessment of waterbodies within and adjacent to the site was undertaken to determine their suitability to

support water voles and a search for evidence of activity was undertaken, including droppings, latrines,

burrows, footprints and feeding lawns, of any areas considered suitable.


20/84


14

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

3.2.7 Other Species

The site was also appraised for its suitability to support other protected or notable fauna including

mammals, birds and invertebrates in accordance with the Institute for Ecology and Environmental

Managements Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (2012). Evidence of any current or historical

presence of such species was recorded.

The buildings were appraised for their potential to support breeding / roosting barn owls and evidence of

them was also searched for during the bat emergence surveys carried out on the buildings.

3.3 Invasive Species

The site was searched for evidence of invasive plant species, such as Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica,

Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera, giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum, New Zealand

pygmyweed Crassula helmssii, wall cotoneaster Cotoneaster horizontalis, rhododendron Rhododendron

ponticumand floating pennywort Hydrocotyle ranunculoides(see Appendix B Table B2 for full list).

3.4 Limitations

The comprehensiveness of any ecological assessment will be limited by the season in which surveys are

undertaken.

To determine likely presence or absence of protected species usually requires multiple visits at suitable

times of the year. As a result, this survey focuses on assessing thepotentialof the site to support species

of note, which are considered to be of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity with

reference to the National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF, 2012), especially those given protection under

UK or European wildlife legislation.

The two largest meadows had been shallow ploughed prior to the survey and the majority of the flora

appeared dead. However, there were areas adjacent to the hedgerows and in field corners where the grass

remained green.

This report cannot therefore be considered a comprehensive assessment of the ecological interest of the

site. However, it does provide an assessment of the ecological interest present on the day of the visit and

highlights areas where further survey work may be recommended.


21/84


15

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

The details of this report will remain valid for a period of two years. Beyond this period, if works have not

yet been undertaken, it is recommended that a new review of the ecological conditions is undertaken.


22/84


16

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

4.0 Survey Results

An extended Phase 1 habitat plan (Plan 1) showing the location of key ecological features is included in

Appendix A. Plan 2 shows the area of buildings in more detail and also shows the building numbers with

relation to Section 4.2.3.

4.1 Habitats

4.1.1 Semi-improved Neutral Grassland

There are three small meadows of this habitat at the northern end of the survey area. These had a wide

diversity of grasses and herbs; grasses recorded comprised Yorkshire-fog (Holcus lanatus), Timothy

(Phleum pratense), crested dogs-tail (Cynosurus cristatus), meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis),

common bent (Agrostis capillaris), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), smooth meadow-grass

(Poa pratensis), rough meadow-grass (Poa trivialis), red fescue (Festuca rubra), false oat-grass

(Arrhenatherum elatius), cocks-foot (Dactylis glomerata) and soft brome (Bromushordeaceus).

A total of five herb species indicative of less improved swards were recorded and these comprise: birds-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), common sorrel (Rumex acetosa), common cats-ear (Hypochaeris radicata),

red clover (Trifolium pratense) and meadow buttercup (Ranunculus acris). Other, non-ruderal herbs

recorded included lesser stitchwort (Stellaria graminea), common mouse-ear (Cerastium fontanum), daisy

(Bellis perennis), white clover (Trifolium repens), ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), greater plantain

(Plantago major), black medick (Medicago lupulina), yarrow (Achillea millefolium) and smooth hawks-beard

(Crepis capillaris).

Ox-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) and fox-and-cubs (Pilosella aurantiaca) were found in close

proximity to houses and were considered to be garden escapes. There was a low level of ruderal herbs

beginning to invade these meadows from the peripheral hedgerows and these include broad-leaved dock

(Rumex obtusifolius), creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense), spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), common ragwort

(Senecio jacobaea), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), cow parsley (Anthriscus sylvestris) and hogweed

(Heracleum sphondylium).


23/84


17

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

4.1.2 Species-poor Semi-improved Grassland

The grassland within the triangle of land adjacent to the railway line was of this type, dominated by tall and

coarse grasses such as false oat-grass, cocks-foot and Timothy with small patches of Yorkshire-fog and red

fescue. Herbs were few and were composed of ruderal species; common ragwort and creeping thistle were

the only species evident at the time of the survey.

The two largest meadows were of this habitat type at the time of the original survey in July 2013 although

they had been ploughed and reverted to arable by October 2013. Grassland species recorded adjacent to

the hedgerows comprised Yorkshire-fog, crested dogs-tail, false oat-grass, cocks-foot and Timothy. The

low level of herb diversity was evident in the areas where the grass remained green. Herb species recorded

comprised meadow buttercup, common sorrel, lesser stitchwort, Germander speedwell (Veronica

chamaedrys), cow parsley, hogweed and dandelion species (Taraxacumspp).

4.1.3 Hedgerows

The site was delimited by fifteen species-poor hedgerows, the majority of which were dominated by

hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna). The floral composition and associated features of these hedgerows are

summarised in Table 4 below. In the tree and shrub column, the dominant species are shown first.

Associated features comprise hedge banks, ditches, walls etc:

Table 4: Biological Features of Hedgerows

HedgerowNo.

Tree / Shrub Species Recorded Height(metres)

Management AssociatedFeatures

H1 Hawthorn, sycamore (Acerpseudoplatanus) saplings 3.5m Trimmed None

H2 Hawthorn, elder (Sambucus nigra) 3.5m Trimmed None

H3Hawthorn, dog rose (Rosa canina), ash(saplings), elder

3.5m Trimmed None

H4 Beech (Fagus sylvatica) 1.8m Trimmed None

H5Hawthorn, elder, laburnum (Laburnumanagyroides)

3m Free growing None

H6Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), hawthorn,dog rose, elder

3m Free growing Roadside verge

H7 Hawthorn, elder 3m Free growing Rabbit warren

H8 Hawthorn, dog rose, elder 3.5m Free growing None

H9 Hawthorn, elder, sycamore saplings 3.5 4m Free growing None


24/84


18

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

H10 Hawthorn, elder, dog rose 1.8m Trimmed None

H11Hawthorn, ash saplings, holly (Ilexaquifolium), elder, dog rose

4m+ Free growing Wet ditch

H12 Hawthorn, elder 4m+ Free growing None

H13Hawthorn, elder, ash -mature trees, dogrose, crack willow (Salix fragilis) youngtrees

4.5m Free growing Wet ditch

H14 Hawthorn, elder, dog rose 4mOld laid, freegrowing

Dry ditch

H15 Hawthorn, elder, dog rose, blackthorn 4m Free growing Railway line

Climbers growing in these hedgerows included bramble (Rubus fruticosusagg.), ivy (Hedera helix), white

bryony (Bryonia dioica), hedge bindweed (Calystegia sepium) and bittersweet (Solanumdulcamara). The

ground flora of these hedgerows was considered typical of agricultural land with a high nutrient content

and were dominated by ruderal species and coarse grasses; stinging nettles, spear thistle and false oat-

grass being typical.

Garden hedgerows around the house outside but immediately adjacent to the survey area at the northern

end and all of the hedgerows along the western boundary are not included in table 3 above. These

hedgerows were all frequently trimmed and largely composed of non-native species along the western

boundary. Those around the house were composed of field maple (Acer campestre), hazel (Corylus

avellana) and wayfaring tree (Viburnum lantana). Whilst all three are native to the UK, the latter is not

native to this part of Nottinghamshire and all had been obviously planted.

4.1.4 Introduced Shrub

This occupied a small extent around the house within the site. It was composed of lilac (Syringa vulgaris), a

cultivar of shrubby cinquefoil (Potentilla fruticosavar.), cultivated roses (Rosasp), magnolia (Magnoliasp)

and sapling walnut (Juglans regia).

4.1.5 Dense Scrub

This habitat occurred in the triangle of land at the southern end of the site adjacent to the railway line. It

was dominated by bramble but also included hawthorn, blackthorn suckers and dog rose.


25/84


19

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

4.1.6 Tall Ruderal

There was a large patch of dense stinging nettles in the small field to the north west of the buildings within

the site. Tall ruderal vegetation was most evident in the triangle of land adjacent to the railway line and this

was also dominated by stinging nettles but also included creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense), broad-leaved

dock (Rumex obtusifolius), common ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium),

rosebay willowherb (Chamerion angustifolium) and hairy willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum).

4.1.7 Wet Ditch

The water within this ditch flowed in a westerly direction adjacent to hedgerows H11 and H13 and entered

a culvert at the western end underneath the residential area. It was approximately 2m in width with earth

banks up to 1m in height. The angle of the earth banks was approximately 45. It was extensively

overhung with woody vegetation, including brambles, to such an extent that the only aquatic vegetation

visible was a small clump of hairy willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum) close to the eastern end of the ditch.

Other plants recorded included male fern (Dryopteris felix-mas) and herb-Robert (Geranium robertianum).

The water flow was extremely sluggish with a very low water level of approximately 5cms depth on the day

of the survey. The substrate was composed of earth and silt although there were a few bricks and stones

adjacent to a wooden access bridge at the northern end of hedgerow H13 and again at the southern end of

that hedgerow where there was a short section of stone wall, that on the east bank having partially

collapsed. There was a brick culvert at the extreme southern end of hedgerow H13 where the water

entered the site via a field drain.

4.1.8 Dry Ditch

The dry ditch occupied the southern half of hedgerow H14 and had been recently cleared prior to the

survey. It was approximately 1.5m in width and had earth banks of approximately 45 which were

completely devoid of vegetation. The substrate was composed of earth. This ditch ended approximately

halfway along the hedgerow where two field drains entered it.

4.1.9 Buildings

The buildings are described in Section 4.2.3 Bats.


26/84


20

William Davis

A079137 July 2013



No ponds were found within the site and examination of the site and relevant maps, revealed no ponds

within 500m of the site, although garden ponds in the adjacent residential area (and hence outside the site)

cannot be ruled out.

Only terrestrial habitat is present on the site with the best quality habitat along the hedgerows and in the

semi-improved neutral grassland at the northern end of the site. Two sections of stone wall on either side

of a wet ditch adjacent to the active railway line afford any hibernation potential (see target note TN1 on

Plan 1).

4.2.2 Reptiles

Only limited habitat suitable for reptiles is present within the site; along the active railway line at the

southern end of the site where there is some basking potential at the eastern end of hedgerow H13 on and

around the stone walls, which also afford hibernation potential in the crevices between stones (see target

note TN1 on Plan 1). The majority of the wet ditch adjacent to hedgerows H11 and H13 is heavily shaded

which limits its value as a dispersal corridor.

The remainder of the site is considered to be sub-optimal for reptiles due to the lack of basking

opportunities and shelter within the grassland sites.

4.2.3 Bats

Roosting Bats: Buildings

The buildings within the site have been numbered B1 to B9 on Plan 2; building description, suitable bat

roost features and bat roost potential are summarised in Table 5 below:

BuildingNo.

Description Bat Roost Features Suitability as BatRoost

B1

Barn composed of fibre board panels onconcrete posts with some breeze blocks,fibre board roof. Barn open to south andwell-lit. Interior metal container andseparate vestibule.

None Negligible

B2 Wooden sheds with either corrugated iron None Negligible


27/84


21

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

or fibreboard roof

B3House, brick built with tile roof, windowsblocked up. Generally in good conditionstill. Roof void probably present butinterior not accessible to confirm

Small gaps betweentiles and brick work atgable ends

Moderate

B4Brick built with fibre board roof, no roofvoid

Air bricks with grilles,gaps between bricks atgable ends

Low

B5

Brick barn with fibre board roof, no roofvoid, dark interior but some heavilystained sky lights. Interior not accessible,partly visible through air bricks

Air bricks, gaps at topof bricked-up doorway

Low

B6

Cow sheds with breeze block and somebrick walls, slate roof but no under-felting, slates attached directly to rafters.Interior accessible, open to north andpartly to south (quadrangle), light interior

Gaps between slates,some cracks in brickwork at gable ends

Low

B7

Animal sheds with brick walls and fibreboard roof, no under felting, slatesattached directly to rafters. Individualcompartments divided by woodenpanelling. Light interior, open to north

Gaps between slates,air bricks with opengrilles

Low

B8 Garage with brick walls and slate roof No access points Low

B9

Garage with fibre-board walls and roof

and glass / Perspex windows. Woodendoors, light interior

Doors open, no interiorfeatures suitable Low

Roosting Bats: Trees

There are eight mature trees within the site, comprising six ash trees in the southern boundary hedgerow

H13; a walnut tree (Juglans regia) to the south-east of the main block of buildings and a cultivated form of

crack willow (var. Tortuosa) planted in the yard to the west of the main block of buildings. All of these trees

have been assessed as low (Category 3) bat roost potential due to their general lack of features such as rot

holes, cracks or crevices in trunks or major limbs.

Foraging Bats

The hedgerow network delimiting the site provides bat foraging opportunities with the southern boundary

hedgerows (H11, H13 and H15) being the tallest on the site and thus affording the best quality habitat

alongside the railway line and connecting with other tall hedgerows alongside the railway to the east. The

western boundary hedgerow fronting the back gardens is assessed as of low quality as bat foraging habitat

as they are composed of non-native species and are regularly trimmed to approximately 1.5m.


28/84


22

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

The surrounding landscape contains blocks of mature woodland along the River Trent escarpment besides

tall hedgerows and also mature gardens to the west and north west in Radcliffe on Trent. Hence bat

foraging habitat is not a limited resource in the wider landscape.

4.2.4 Badgers

No evidence of badgers was found within the site or within 50m of the site boundaries where access

allowed. All of the holes and foraging evidence were considered to relate to rabbits (Oryctolagus

cunniculus).

A small area of disturbed ground adjacent to the railway line was considered to have been made by a fox

(Vulpes vulpes) attempting to cache a dead wood pigeon; fresh fox faeces were found nearby.

4.2.5 Otters

The only habitat suitable for otters within the site is the wet ditch along the southern boundary of the site,

which forms a sheltered foraging and dispersal corridor although of limited extent as it enters a culvert at

its western end underneath the residential area for at least 1km and is not connected to any suitable water

course at its eastern end, making it unlikely to be used by otters. No evidence of otters was found along

this ditch during the survey.

The dry ditch adjacent to hedgerow H14 has been recently cleared of vegetation was dry at the time of the

survey and also is not connected to any suitable otter habitat at its northern end. It is considered that this

ditch may be only seasonally wet, the water entering the ditch at its northern end through two field drains.

4.2.6 Water Voles

Neither of the two ditches (wet and dry) within the site is considered suitable for water voles; the wet ditch

is extensively shaded for the vast majority of its length and only small amounts of vegetation were evident.

The earth banks did provide burrowing potential, however the extremely low water level (about 5cms depth

at the time of the survey) is considered to discourage water voles from utilising this habitat. The dry ditch

had earth banks affording burrowing potential but had been recently cleared of all vegetation and,

moreover, this ditch is considered likely to only hold water intermittently.

Neither of these ditches is connected to areas of suitable water vole habitat, making periodic colonisation

extremely unlikely. No evidence of water voles was found during the survey.


29/84


23

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

4.2.7 Birds

A range of farmland birds were recorded on the day of the survey; a dunnock (Prunella modularis) nest was

found at the northern end of hedgerow H6 (see target note TN2 on Plan 1). Other species recorded singing

and holding territory within the site included lesser whitethroat (Sylvia curruca), chaffinch (Fringilla

coelebs), wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), song thrush (Turdus philomelos) and greenfinch (Carduelis

chloris).

Several swallows (Hirundo rustica) were seen around the farm buildings; although old nests considered to

be of this species were found in the former cow sheds, no active nests were found in those buildings which

were accessible at the time of the survey.

Families of rooks (Corvus frugilegus) and starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) were recorded with fledged young

foraging on the site; it is possible that starlings could have bred within the farm buildings.

Two male reed buntings (Emberiza schoeniclus) were singing from arable margins to the east of hedgerow

H14, both being approximately 50m away from the site boundary.

No evidence of barn owls was found in any of the accessible buildings. Barn owl surveys were carried out

alongside the bat emergence surveys of these buildings (including B5) carried out in August and September

2013 and these surveys did not produce any evidence of barn owls although at least one little owl (Athene

noctua) was seen around the buildings at this time.

Two pairs of jackdaws (Corvus monedula) and one pair of feral pigeons (Columba livia) were recorded

prospecting for nest sites around the buildings on 17thOctober.


30/84


24

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

4.2.8 Invertebrates

Five moths and two butterfly species were recorded from the site on the day of the survey. Four of the

moths are common and widespread in both Nottinghamshire and nationally; these comprise: yellow shell

(Camptogramma bilineatassp bilineata), silver ground-carpet (Xanthorhoe montanata), brimstone moth

(Opisthograptis luteolata) and Mother Shipton (Callistege mi). The fifth species, cinnabar (Tyria jacobaeae)

was added as a priority species on the National Biodiversity Action Plan in 2007 although it remains

widespread in Nottinghamshire.

Both butterfly species, comprising speckled wood (Pararge aegeria) and large white (Pieris brassicae), are

common and widespread both in Nottinghamshire and nationally and do not have any special habitat

requirements.

No evidence of white-clawed crayfish was found during the survey and the wet ditch was considered

unsuitable habitat for this species due to the prevalence of silt substrate and general lack of suitable refuge

areas along the majority of its length. There were only two areas where there were bricks and stones

providing potential refugia although these were widely separated. The wet ditch does not connect to any

other, more suitable water courses for crayfish, making periodic colonisation extremely unlikely.

4.2.9 Other Species

A grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) was recorded in hedgerow H13 and rabbits were widespread across

the site.


No invasive plant species were recorded from the site at the time of the survey.


31/84


25

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

5.0 Ecological Impacts and Recommendations

5.1 Statutory and Non-statutory Sites

None of the statutory and non-statutory sites will be affected by the proposed works due to the distances

involved.

5.2 Habitats

The three small meadows of semi-improved neutral grassland at the northern end of the survey area are

comparatively species-rich, especially when compared to those on the remainder of the site. Although they

contain some species indicative of less improved swards, they are not of SINC quality.

All of the hedgerows are assessed as being species-poor, with at most five locally native woody species

within them. None are considered likely to qualify as important under The Hedgerows Regulations 1997

(HMSO 1997). They do however provide nesting opportunities for birds and foraging habitat for bats (see

Sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.7 below.

The remaining habitats are also considered to be of low value to biodiversity, due to the species-poor and

grass-dominated nature of the two larger meadows and the general lack of vegetation along the ditches.

The buildings provide nesting opportunities for birds and limited roosting potential for bats (see Sections

5.3.3 and 5.3.7 below.



The great crested newt and its habitat are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981(as

amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (see Appendix B).

There are no ponds within the site and no potential breeding habitat will be affected. Given this and that

only one recent record was returned from the data search (2001 and approximately 200m away), great

crested newts (and indeed other amphibian species) are not considered likely to pose a constraint to the

proposed development and no further surveys or mitigation is recommended.


32/84


26

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

5.3.2 Reptiles

All species of native reptiles are under theWildlife and Countryside Act 1981(as amended). The sand

lizard Lacerta agilisand smooth snake Coronella austriacaare further protected under Conservation of

Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012.

The habitats on site were assessed as being largely sub-optimal for reptiles with only a small section of the

wet ditch at the southern end providing suitable basking opportunities in conjunction with suitable shelter

and potential hibernation areas. The likelihood of reptiles being present is assessed as low. As there is

only one historical record of any reptile species (grass snake from 1995), it is considered unlikely that

reptiles would pose a constraint to the proposed development and no further surveys or mitigation is

considered necessary.

5.3.3 Bats

Breeding, Resting and Hibernating Bats

All species of British bats and their roosts are fully protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981(as

amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (see Appendix B).

Seven of the nine buildings within the site have some potential for roosting bats, the house having the

highest potential as it appears to have a roof void and potential access points are present although access

into the interior of the house was not possible at the time of the survey. All the remaining buildings, despite

some of them having potential bat access points, were assessed as being of low value to roosting bats due

to the lack of under felting or boarding between the slates and rafters, light interiors and limited

opportunities for roosting, restricted to gaps and cracks between bricks at the gable ends.

Two dusk bat emergence surveys were carried out on the buildings (including the house) in August and

September 2013 when bat roosts were found. Further details are provided in the bat report.

Consideration should be given to incorporating bat access bricks and roost bricks into some of the new

buildings. Examples are given in Appendix D.

As all of the trees have been assessed as having low bat roost potential, there is no constraint to their

removal with relation to roosting bats.


33/84


27

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

Foraging and Commuting Bats

ODPM 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, the circular that accompanied the now redundant

Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) but which itself is still valid, requests that mitigating for impacts caused

by developments to foraging and commuting routes should be considered when determining planning

applications.

The southern boundary hedgerows (H11, H13 and H15) alongside the railway line provide good quality

sheltered bat foraging habitat and are also connected at the eastern end with other tall hedgerows,

providing connectivity into the wider landscape. It is recommended that these hedgerows are retained as

they will also provide screening from the active railway line.

All of the other hedgerows also provide some bat foraging potential although foraging habitat is not a

limited resource in the wider landscape as there are arguably better quality bat foraging habitats provided

by the River Trent escarpment, tall hedgerows in surrounding farmland and mature gardens within Radcliffe

on Trent.

Consideration should be given to incorporating bat-friendly plants into the soft landscaping of the proposed

development design. Examples are given in Appendix E.

5.3.4 Badgers

Badger and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992and the NPPF (see Appendix

B) stipulates that considering their welfare and mitigating for damage to their habitat are material

considerations when considering planning applications.

No evidence of badgers was found on the site and no sett records were returned within the 2km data

search area by NBGRC. Badgers therefore do not currently pose a constraint to the proposed development.

However, as there are badger records from the surrounding landscape and these are mobile animals, it is

recommended that, should the proposed development be delayed by a period exceeding six months from

the issue of this update report (October 2013) that an update badger survey is carried out.


34/84


28

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

5.3.5 Otters

The otter and its habitat are protected under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the

Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012. The European sub-species is listed

as globally threatened in the IUCN Red List (see Appendix B).

No evidence of otters was found within the site and there are no suitable habitats for them. As the wet

ditch is not connected to any other water course, it is considered unlikely that otters could access the site.

Otters do not pose a constraint to the proposed development and no further surveys or mitigation is

considered necessary.

5.3.6 Water Voles

Water voles and their habitat are protected under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981(as amended) (see

Appendix B).

No evidence of water voles was found within the site and there are no suitable habitats for them. As the

wet ditch is not connected to any other water course, it is considered unlikely that water voles could access

the site. Water voles do not pose a constraint to the proposed development and no further surveys or

mitigation is considered necessary.

5.3.7 Other Species

Birds

All nesting birds are protected from disturbance whilst nesting by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981(as

amended) (see Appendix B).

The disused buildings had several old inactive bird nests in them at the time of the survey. No active bird

nests were found in the buildings which were accessible at the time of the survey although swallows were

frequently seen flying around the buildings. It is considered possible that active swallow nests could be

present in the inaccessible parts of the buildings. Two pairs of jackdaws and a pair of feral pigeons were

recorded prospecting for nest sites around the buildings during the October update survey and it is

considered likely that these species could potentially utilise the buildings for breeding in future years, feral

pigeons can breed year-round and are not constrained by season.


35/84


29

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

All of the buildings have potential to support nesting birds and it is recommended that, should any need to

be demolished or work carried out on them, that this is done outside the bird nesting season. The bird

nesting season extends between March and September inclusive in any given year. Should this not be

feasible, it is recommended that each building to be demolished / work carried out on is thoroughly

checked by an ecologist for active bird nests prior to any work commencing.

No evidence of barn owls was found during surveys carried out on the buildings during August and

September although at least one little owl was present.

Likewise, all of the woody vegetation also has potential to support nesting birds; an active dunnock nest

was found in hedgerow H6 on the day of the survey. It is recommended that all woody vegetation, should

any need to be removed, that this is done outside the bird nesting season. If this is not possible, any

woody vegetation to be removed should be thoroughly checked for active bird nests by a suitably

experienced ecologist beforehand.

Consideration should be given to erecting bird nest boxes on to trees, tall shrubs and on to the new

buildings to provide additional nesting opportunities for birds, potentially including Birds of Conservation

Concern Red-List declining species such as house sparrows. Examples are provided in Appendix D.

White-clawed crayfish

The white-clawed crayfish is protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981(as amended) and the

Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (see Appendix B).

No evidence of white-clawed crayfish was found during the survey and there are only very limited areas of

suitable habitat along the southern perimeter wet ditch. This ditch is not connected to any other water

course and it is considered extremely unlikely that white-clawed crayfish would be present. This species

does not pose a constraint to the proposed development and no further surveys or mitigation is considered

necessary.


36/84


30

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

Invertebrates

A number of invertebrate species are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981(as amended)

and the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012. The current Biodiversity

Action Plan (BAP) contains 411 invertebrate species (see Appendix B).

Cinnabar moth is the only notable invertebrate recorded at the time of the survey, this species being listed

as a priority on the National Biodiversity Action Plan. The larvae feed on common ragwort (and other

ragwort species) although there was only a very low level of ragwort on the site, restricted to scattered

plants in the three smaller meadows and none were seen to have been utilised by cinnabar caterpillars. As

such, this site is considered unlikely to be an important breeding site for cinnabar moths and this species

does not pose a constraint to the proposed development.

Dormouse

The hedgerows within and adjacent to the site were not considered suitable for dormice due to their

frequent management and paucity of shrub species. The site is also outside the known range of dormice

within the county and this species was not expected to be present within the site due to this. Dormice are

not considered further within this report.


No invasive plant species were recorded on the site at the time of the survey. The site is secure and

dumping of garden waste is considered unlikely. Invasive plants therefore do not pose a constraint to the

proposed development.


37/84


31

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

6.0 Summary of Recommendations

Bats: The majority of the buildings have been assessed as having bat roost potential.

Emergence surveys were carried out on two occasions in August and September 2013 when bat

roosts were found. Further details are provided in the bat report.

Barn Owl: No evidence of barn owls was found in any of the buildings and no further surveys

for this species are considered necessary.

Other Bird Species: The woody vegetation and buildings have potential to support nesting

birds. Should any of these need to be removed / demolished then they should be thoroughly

checked for active bird nests by a suitably experienced ecologist beforehand.

Biodiversity Enhancements: Consideration should be given to incorporating bat and bird

boxes on any new buildings and wildlife-friendly planting into the soft landscaping designs.


38/84


32

William Davis

A079137 July 2013

7.0 References

Bat Conservation Trust (2012). Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

English Nature (2002). Badgers and Development. English Nature, Peterborough, UK.

Chanin, P. (2003). Monitoring the otter. Conserving Natura 2000, Rivers Monitoring Series No. 10, English

Nature, Peterborough

Eaton, M.A., et al. (2009). Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United

Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 102:296-341

Gent, T. & Gibson, S. (2003). Herpetofauna Workers' Manual. JNCC, Peterborough.

Harris, S., Cresswell, P. & Jeffries, D. (1989). Surveying Badgers. An occasional publication of the mammal

society No. 9. Mammal Society, London.

Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (2012). Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological

Appraisal.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A technique for

environmental audit. JNCC, Peterborough.

Langton, T.E.S., Beckett, C.L. and Foster, J.P. (2001). Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook. Froglife,

Halesworth.

Mitchell-Jones, A.J. & McLeish, A.P. (Eds) (2004). Bat Workers Manual, 3rd Edn. JNCC, Peterborough.

Oldham, R.S., Keeble, J., Swan, M.J.S. & Jeffcote, M. (2000). Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the

great crested newt Triturus cristatus. Herpetological Journal,10(4), 143-155.

RSPB (2002). The Population Status of British Birds in the UK: Birds of Conservation Concern 2002-2007.

Strachan, R. & Moorhouse, T. (2006). Water Vole Conservation Handbook (2nd Edn). Wildlife Conservation

Research Unit, Oxford.


39/84


40/84

Shelford

Roa

d

Radcliffe on Trent

RailwayL

ine

SI

A

A

A

H11

H13

H12

GardenHedges

H10

H9

H9

H8

H4

H3H1 H5

H6

H7

H14

H14

TN2

TN1

B1

B2

B3

B4

B7

B5B6

B8

B9

SI

A

A

H15

100 0 10050 Meters


41/84

B1

B2

B3

B4

B7

B5B6

B8

B9

10 0 105 Meters


42/84


William Davis

A079137 34 July 2013

Appendix B Biodiversity and Environmental

Legislation, Conventions & Threatened

Lists


43/84


William Davis

A079137 35 July 2013

Introduction

The UK has ratified a number of Conventions and implemented legislation pertaining to the protection of

biodiversity and habtiats, either independently or as member state of the European Union. These are

defined and summarised below.

Lists of theatened, endagered and extinct species are also provided, together with a summary explanation

of each.

Bern Convention(1982)

The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats(the Bern Convention) was

adopted in Bern, Switzerland in 1979, and was ratified in 1982. Its aims are to protect wild plants and

animals and their habitats listed in Appendices1 and 2 of the of the Convention, and regulate the

exploitation of speices listed in Appendix 3. The regulation imposes legal obligations on participating

countires to protect over 500 plant species and more than 1000 animals.

To meet its obligations imposed by the Convention, the European Community adopted the EC Birds

Directive (1979) and the EC Habitats Directive(1992 see below). Since the Lisbon Treaty, in force since

1stDecember 2009, European legislation has been adopted by the European Union.

Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)

The UK Biodiversity Action Plan(UKBAP UK Steering Group, 1995; UK Biodiversity Group, 1998 - 2000)

lists and prioritises habitats and species and sets national targets to be achieved. The intent of the UKBAP,

however, is much broader than the protection and enhancement of less common species, and is meant to

embrace the wider countryside as a whole.


44/84


William Davis

A079137 36 July 2013

The UKBAP has recently undergone a review (Biodiversity Reporting and Information Group, June 2007)resulting in the identification of 391 Priority Species Action Plans (SAPs), 45 Priority Habitat Action Plans

and 162 Local Biodiversity Action Plans.

Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAP) identify habitat and species conservation priorities at a local level

(typically at the County level), and are usually drawn up by a consortium of local Government organisations

and conservation charities.

Birds Directive (BD)

The EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds(791409/EEC) or Birds Directive was introduced to

achieve favourable conservation status of all wild bird species across their distribution range. In this

context, the most important provision is the identification and classification of Special Protection Areas

(SPAs) for rare or vulnerable species listed in Annex 1 of the Directive, as well as for all regularly occurring

migratory species, paying particular attention to the protection of wetlands of international importance.

Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC)

This is a review of the status of all birds occuring regularly in the United Kingdom. It is regularly updated

and is prepared by leading bird conservation organisations, including the British Trust for Ornithology

(BTO), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

(RSPB).

The latest report was produced in 2009 (Eaton et al,2009) and identified 52 red list species, 126 amber

species, and 68 green species. The criteria are complex, but generally:

Red list species are those that have shown a decline of the breeding population, non-breeding

population or breeding range of more than 50% in the last 25 years.


45/84


William Davis

A079137 37 July 2013

Amber list species are those that have shown a decline of the breeding population, non-breedingpopulation or breeding range of between 25% and 50% in the last 25 years. Species that have a

UK breeding population of less than 300 or a non-breeding population of less than 900 individuals

are also included, together with those whose 50% of the population is localasied in 10 sites or

fewer and those whose 20% of the European population is found in the UK.

Green list species are all regularly occurring species that do not qualify under any of the red or

amber criteria are green listed

Bonn Convention

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animalsor Bonn Convention was

adopted in Bonn, Germany in 1979 and came into force in 1985. Participating states agree to work together

to preserve migratory species and their habitats by providing strict protection to species listed in Appendix I

of the Convention. It also establishes agreements for the conservation and management of migratory

species listed in Appendix II.

In the UK, the requirements of the convention are implemented via the Wildlfie & Countryside Act 1981(as

amended), Widlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern

Ireland) Order 1985and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000(CRoW).

Global IUCN Red List

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Threatended Species was devised to provide a

list of those species that are most at risk of becoming extinct globally. It provides taxonomic, conservation

status and distribution information about threatened taxa around the globe.


46/84


William Davis

A079137 38 July 2013

The system catalogues threatened species into groups of varying levels of threat, which are: Extinct (EX),Extinct in the Wild (EW), Critically Endangered (CE), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened

(NT), Least Conern (LC), Data Deficient (DD), Not Evaluated (NE). Criteria for designation into each of the

catgories is complex, and consider several principles.

Habitats Directive

The Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Fora, or

the Habitats Directive, is a European Union directive adopted in 1992 in response to the Bern Convention.

Its aims are to protect approximately 220 habitats and 1,000 species listed in its several Annexes.

In the UK, the Habitats Directive is transposed into national law via the Conservation of Habitats and

Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012 in England, Scotland and Wales, and via the Conservation (Natural

Habitats, &c) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended)in Northern Ireland.

Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (PBA 1992)

The main legislation protecting badgers in England and Wales is the Protection of Badgers Act 1992(the

1992 Act). Under the 1992 Act it is an offence to: wilfully kill, injure, take or attempt to kill, injure or take a

badger; dig for a badger; interfere with a badger sett by, damaging a sett or any part thereof, destroying a

sett, obstructing access to a sett, causing a dog to enter a sett or disturbing a badger while occupying a

sett.

The 1992 Act defines a badger sett as: any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use

by a badger

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)


47/84


William Davis

A079137 39 July 2013

Following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March 2012, Planning PolicyStatement 9 (PPS9): Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005) has been withdrawn. However,

ODPM 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Statutory Obligations and their impact within

the Planning System(the guidance document that accompanied PPS9) has not been withdrawn and, where

more detailed guidance is required than is given within the NPPF, local planning authorities will continue to

rely on ODPM 06/2005.

This guidance requires local planning authorities to take account of the conservation of protected species

when determining planning applications and makes the presence of a protected species a material

consideration when assessing a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm

to the species or its habitat.

In the case of European Protected Species such as bats, planning policy emphasises that strict statutory

provisions apply (including the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012), to

which a planning authority must have due regard.

Where developments requiring planning permission are likely to impact upon protected species it is

necessary that protected species surveys are undertaken and submitted to meet the requirements of

paragraph 98 of ODPM Circular 06/2005 which states that:

The presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a

development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat.

General guidance within the body of the NPPF which are also potentially relevant to the possible presence

of bats at the site includes the following statements:

"The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:


48/84


William Davis

A079137 40 July 2013

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 Governments commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity,

including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and

future pressures"

"Local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for any development

on or affecting protected wildlife or geodiversity sites or landscape areas will be judged."

"When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance

biodiversity by applying the following principles:

if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an

alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated

for, then planning permission should be refused;"

Species of Principal Importance in England

Section 41 (S41) of this Act requires the Secretary of State to publish a list (in consultation with Natural

England) of habitats and species which are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in

England. The S41 list is used to guide decision-makers such as public bodies including local and regional

authorities, in implementing their duty under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and rural Communities

(NERC) Act 2006, to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in England, when carrying out their

normal (e.g. planning) functions. The S41 list includes 65 habitats of principal importance and 1,150 species

of principal importance.


49/84


William Davis

A079137 41 July 2013

The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012

The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012came into force on 16thAugust

2012 and amend the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 to ensure the various

provisions of Directive 92/43/EC (the Habitats Directive) are transposed in a clear manner.

Regulations place a duty on the Secretary of State to propose a list of sites which are important for either

habitats or species (listed in Annexes I or II of the Habitats Directive respectively) to the European

Commission. These sites, if ratified by the European Commission, are then designated as Special Protection

Areas (SPAs) within six years. The 2012 amendments include that public bodies help preserve, maintainand re-establish habitats for wild birds.

The Regulations also make it an offence to deliberately capture, kill, disturb or trade in the animals listed in

Schedule 2, or pick, uproot, destroy, or trade in the plants listed in Schedule 5 (see Table B1).

Table B1 Schedules of the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations

2012

Schedule 2 European Protected Species of

Animals

Schedule 5 European Protected Species of

PlantCommon name Scientific name Common name Scientific name

Horseshoe bats Rhinolophidae - allspecies

Dock, Shore Rumex rupestris

Common bats Vespertilionidae - allspecies

Killarney Fern Trichomanes speciosum

Wild Cat Felis silvestris Early Gentian Gentianella anglica

Dolphins, porpoises andwhales

Cetacea all species Ladys-slipper Cypripedium calceolus

Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius Creeping Marshwort Apium repens

Pool Frog Rana lessonae Slender Naiad Najas flexilis

Sand Lizard Lacerta agilis Fen Orchid Liparis loeselii

Fishers Estuarine Moth Gortyna borelii lunata Plantain, Floating-leaved Luronium natans


50/84


William Davis

A079137 42 July 2013

Schedule 2 European Protected Species ofAnimals Schedule 5 European Protected Species ofPlant

Common name Scientific name Common name Scientific name

water

Newt, Great Crested Triturus cristatus Yellow Marsh Saxifrage Saxifraga hirculus

Otter Lutra lutra

Lesser Whirlpool Rams-horn Snail

Anisus vorticulus

Smooth Snake Coronella austriaca

Sturgeon Acipenser sturio

Natterjack Toad Bufo calamita

Marine Turtles Caretta caretta, Chelonia

mydas, Lepidochelyskempii, Eretmochelysimbricata, Dermochelyscoriacea

The Hedgerow Regulations 1997

The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 were made under Section 97 of the Environment Act 1995and came into

force in 1997. They introduced new arrangements for local planning authorities in England and Wales to

protect important hedgerows in the countryside, by controlling their removal through a system of

notification. Important hedgerows are defined by complex assessment criteria, which draw on biodiversity

features, historical context and the landscape value of the hedgerow.

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

This is the principal mechanism for the legislative protection of wildlife in the UK. This legislation is the chief

means by which the Bern Convention and the Birds Directiveare implemented in the UK. Since it was first

introduced, the Act has been amended several times.

The Act makes it an offence to (with exception to species listed in Schedule 2) intentionally:


51/84


William Davis

A079137 43 July 2013

kill, injure, or take any wild bird,

take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use, or

take or destroy an egg of any wild bird.

In addition, the Act makes it an offence (subject to exceptions) to:

intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild animal listed on Schedule 5,

interfere with places used for shelter or protection, or intentionally disturbing animals occupying

such places.

The Act also prohibits certain methods of killing, injuring, or taking wild animals

Finally, the Act also makes it an offence (subject to exceptions) to:

intentionally pick, uproot or destroy any wild plant listed in Schedule 8, or any seed or spore

attached to any such wild plant,

unless an authorised person, intentionally uproot any wild plant not included in Schedule 8,

sell, offer or expose for sale, or possess (for the purposes of trade), any live or dead wild plant

included in Schedule 8, or any part of, or anything derived from, such a plant.

Following all amendments to the Act, Schedule 5 Animals which are Protected contains a total of 154

species of animal, including several mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. Schedule 8

Plants which are Protected of the Act, contains 185 species, including higher plants, bryophytes and fungi

and lichens. A comprehensive and up-to-date list of these species can be obtained from the JNCC website.

8/13/201

File 15 Ecological Survey Extended

Documents