great crested newt habitat assessment - east staffordshire application/627000/62… · a great...
Post on 19-Apr-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Great Crested Newt Habitat Assessment
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross
Report Reference: BG14.239
October 2014
P/2015/0128412.11.2015
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
2
Page 2
Brindle & Green Ecological Consultants specialise in delivering high quality and affordable ecological surveys and reports-tailored for their suitability for informing planning applications.
Brindle & Green surveyors have the necessary experience, technical ability, qualifications and accreditations to meet the high demands increasingly
enforced by Local Authorities and Natural England. Projects are undertaken against the recognised guidelines for the species or
habitats being studied. Brindle & Green reports are uniquely designed to provide the reader with the best possible understanding of our client’s proposals and to ensure that the information requested by the Local Planning Authority is easily found and
understood. This report has been prepared in accordance with the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Managements (IEEM) Professional Issue Series 13, Guidance
for Ecological Report Writing.
www.brindlegreen.co.uk
Tel: 0800 222 9105
Head Office Brindle & Green
Limited Office 302
The Old Court House Saint Peters Churchyard
Derby. DE1 1NN
Sheffield Office Brindle & Green
Limited Horizon House Whiting Street
Sheffield. S8 9QR
Barnsley Office Brindle & Green
Limited Sergeants House
36 Edderthorpe Lane Barnsley. S73 9AT
Kent Office Brindle & Green
Limited 18 Sandy Lane
Sevenoaks Kent
TN13 3TP
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
3
Page 3
Document Control
Report
Name
Signature
Date
Prepared by
Jack Roper
October 2014
Checked by
Chris Needham
October
2014
Approved by
Neil Crofts
October 2014
Revision Record
Liability Brindle & Green has prepared this report for the sole use of:
Peter Diffey & Associates Ltd. The report is in accordance with the agreement under which our services were performed. No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the advice in this report or any other service provided by us. This report may not be relied upon by any other party except the person, company, agent or any third party for whom the report is intended without the prior written permission of Brindle & Green. The content of this report is, at least in part, based upon information provided by others and on the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested. Information obtained from any third party has not been independently verified by Brindle & Green unless otherwise stated in the report.
COPYRIGHT © This report is the copyright of Brindle & Green. Unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person is prohibited.
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
4
Page 4
Project Details
Project carried out by:
Brindle and Green Office 302 Old Court House Derby. DE1 1NN Head Office: 0800 222 9105 Email: info@brindlegreen.co.uk Website: www.brindlegreen.co.uk Project carried out for:
Peter Diffey & Associates Ltd 54 Woods Lane Burton-On-Trent Staffordshire DE15 9DB Tel: 01283 537609 pdkaos@btopenworld.com Project site:
Thorney Lanes Hoar Cross West Burton DE13 8QT Grid ref: SK 12527 23758
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
5
Page 5
Contents 1 Summary ........................................................................................................... 6
2 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 8
3 Site Context ....................................................................................................... 9
4 Relevant Policy and Guidance ......................................................................... 12
5 Methodology .................................................................................................... 13
5.1 Desk Study ...................................................................................................... 13
5.2 Survey Methods .............................................................................................. 13
5.3 Surveyors ........................................................................................................ 14
5.4 Limitations ....................................................................................................... 14
5.5 Report Lifespan ............................................................................................... 14
6 Results ............................................................................................................ 15
7 Impact Assessment ......................................................................................... 21
7.1 Data Search .................................................................................................... 21
7.2 Breeding Habitat .............................................................................................. 21
7.3 Hibernation Habitat .......................................................................................... 21
8 Recommendations .......................................................................................... 23
8.1 Breeding Habitat .............................................................................................. 23
8.2 Hibernation Habitat .......................................................................................... 23
References .............................................................................................................. 25
Appendices ............................................................................................................. 26
Appendix 1 .............................................................................................................. 27
Client supplied plans ............................................................................................... 27
Appendix 2 .............................................................................................................. 29
Ecological Data Search Information ........................................................................ 29
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
6
Page 6
1 Summary 1.1
Brindle & Green have been commissioned by Peter Diffey & Associates Ltd to
undertake a Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) Habitat Assessment on land off
Thorney Lanes which can be found at Grid Reference SK 12527 23758. The purpose
of this assessment is to provide a preliminary appraisal of the sites suitability and
likelihood for supporting Great Crested Newts (GCNs). The survey provides detail on
the need for any additional, more detailed species surveys and any likely mitigation.
1.2
The project area is accessed via Thorney Lanes and is irregular in shape (approx.
0.21 hectares) possessing two steel framed barns used to house cattle during the
winter. The immediate habitat curtailing these barns is largely made up of disturbed
soils and thick mud owing to the usage of agricultural vehicles on site. Tarmac scree
fronts the western section of the site. Lockers Rough Wood is sited adjacent to the
sites southern border and extends east. Large arable fields encompass the site, with
smaller areas of pastoral land included in the vicinity.
A network of six ponds was identified within 500m of the site via digital mapping
resources.
1.3
It is understood that planning proposals are for the creation of gardens, parking areas
and soak a ways to compliment an existing planning consent to convert the existing
barns on site to residential dwellings.
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
7
Page 7
1.5
Following an assessment of all ponds within 500 meters and a walkover of the
proposed application site the recommendations are applicable:
Ecological Consideration
Recommendations Timing
GCN Breeding Habitat
A network of six ponds were identified within 500m of the project area. Following Habitat Suitability Index scoring, one pond was found to be of ‘average’ suitability for supporting breeding GCNs and is located 30m SW of the project area border at Grid ref: SK 12472 23763 All other ponds were justifiably dismissed from further evaluation due to one or more of the following reasons:
Water body showed signs of prolonged drought.
Barriers to dispersal through the presence of highways and arable fields.
GCN Hibernation Habitat
Habitats identified suitable and/or favoured for GCN hibernation were limited to the woodland, woodland edge, field margin and hedgerow habitats. Areas within the application site boundary were found to be of no suitability for hibernating GCNs and are subjected to regular heavy disturbance (agricultural machinery).
Mitigation
Whilst it is concluded that the likelihood of impacts on GCN are considered unlikely the very nature of most wildlife is that it is very transient. This report sets out important guidance that will aim to further reduce the likelihood of impacts on GCN and what to do in the unlikely event that GCN are found on site. Refer to chapter 8 for further information.
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
8
Page 8
2 Introduction
2.1
Brindle & Green have been commissioned by Peter Differ & Associates Ltd to
undertake a Great Crested Newt Habitat Assessment on land land off Thorney Lanes
which can be found at Grid Reference SK 12527 23758. This survey has been
undertaken to identify baseline information on the ecological value of the site with
sole regards to its suitability and likelihood of supporting GCN populations. The
purpose of this assessment is to identify any likelihood that proposed works may
inadvertently cause damage, disturbance or harm to this protected species.
2.2
A Great Crested Newt Habitat Assessment of the site was carried out on the 21st
October 2014.
The purpose of this assessment is to clarify with some certainty whether the
proposed development work could have an impact on GCN populations and/or their
habitats. The purpose of this assessment is to identify any ecological constraints
relating to the proposed works. Current proposals include the creation of gardens,
parking areas and soak a ways to compliment the already granted planning
permission to convert existing barns on site to residential dwellings.
2.3
Results and recommendations contained within this report have been prepared by an
experienced ecologist and are therefore the view of Brindle & Green Limited. The
survey is based on information provided by our client, the development proposals,
the results of the desk study and our survey of the site. This report pertains to this
information only.
2.4 Zone of Influence
The zone of Influence is used to describe the geographic extent of potential impacts
of a proposed development. This is determined by the type of development proposed
in relation to individual species and their dependence on their habitat requirements,
mobility and distances from the site.
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
9
Page 9
3 Site Context
3.1
Maps and aerial photographs were examined to assess the relationship of the
location and its connection to the surrounding environment and habitats beyond the
site boundaries. This is an important consideration as this relates to the potential of
the site to attract GCNs from outlying areas i.e. outlying breeding ponds.
Figure 1. Pond locations. Project area indicated via yellow star.
Pond 1
Pond 2
Pond 3
Pond 4
Pond 5
Pond 6
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
10
Page 10
3.2
Aerial view of wider area.
Pond locations are sporadically located within a mosaic of large arable agricultural
fields. Wooded areas, tree lines and field margins do offer some limited connectivity
between ponds. The arable fields and highways are considered to act as dispersal
barriers for any GCN populations.
Figure 2.
Aerial view of surrounding landscape.
Pond locations highlighted with project area indicated via yellow star. Note extensive
mosaic of arable farmland and highways.
Pond 1
Pond 2
Pond 4
Pond 5
Pond 6 Pond 3
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
11
Page 11
3.3
Aerial view of application area.
Tarmac scree can be identified to front the of the project area (west) with disturbed
soils and heavy mud as a consequence of agricultural machinery and cattle
movement comprising much of the site. Rank and sparse grassland vegetation exists
in the north and SE of the project area.
Figure 3.
Aerial view of project area.
Note limited habitat for hibernating GCNs with disturbed soils, heavy mud and tarmac
scree dominating site.
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
12
Page 12
4 Relevant Policy and Guidance
4.1 General Policy
Articles of British wildlife and countryside legislation, policy guidance and both Local
and National Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) are referred to. The articles of
legislation are:
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
Department for Communities and Local Government. National Planning
Policy Framework. March 2012
National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
Land Drainage Act 1991
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006
The United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan 2006
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP)
4.2 Relevant Legislation
Two species of amphibians, the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) and the
Natterjack Toad (Bufo calamita), are fully protected under Schedule 5 of the wildlife
and countryside Act 1981. The legislation protects these amphibians and their place
of shelter or protection which may extend 500 metres from the breeding pond.
Areas of concern; work in the vicinity of still water bodies such as ditches and ponds.
This also applies to water bodies which can sometimes become dry in the summer
months.
Great crested newt site assessments are undertaken in accordance with:
English Nature. (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English
Nature, 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.
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
13
Page 13
5 Methodology
5.1 Desk Study
Data regarding any records of GCN populations was requested from the following
sources:
Consultee Requested Data Search Radius
Local Ecological Records Centre
Protected and notable species records
2km
5.2 Survey Methods
Ponds within 500m of the site that were not restricted by arable land and/or highways
(barriers to dispersal) or showed signs of prolonged drought were subjected to a
GCN Habitat Suitability Index scoring system. An HSI is a numerical index, between
0 and 1. 0 indicates unsuitable habitat, 1 represents optimal habitat. The HSI for the
GCN incorporates ten suitability indices, all of which are factors thought to affect
GCN.
The ten suitability indices are as follows:
SI1 = Location
SI2 = Pond Area
SI3 = Pond Drying
SI4 = Water Quality
SI5 = Shade
SI6 = Fowl
SI7 = Fish
SI8 = Ponds
SI9 = Terrestrial habitat
SI10 = Macrophytes
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
14
Page 14
5.3 Surveyors
The survey was carried out by Jack Roper BSc (Hons), Ecologist.
Supervised by Chris Needham BSc (Hons) MSc, MCIEEM who has been a
professional ecologist for 15 years and is appropriately qualified (GCN License) and
experienced to undertake this kind of work.
5.4 Limitations
It should be noted that whilst every effort has been made to provide a comprehensive
description of the site, no investigation could ensure the complete characterisation
and prediction of the natural environment. The protected and notable species
assessment provides a preliminary view of the likelihood of these species occurring
on site, based upon the suitability of the habitats, know distribution of the species is
the local area and any direct evidence on site. It should not be taken as providing a
full and definitive survey of any protected species group.
5.5 Report Lifespan
Given the transient nature of the subject we would consider the survey results
contained to be accurate for 2 years.
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
15
Page 15
6 Results
A total of five ponds were located within 500m of the project area using digital
mapping resources. Owing to a range of barriers to dispersal and/or evidence of
prolonged drought, only one of these ponds was deemed suitable to be subjected to
a GCN Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment.
Descriptions and evaluations of these ponds are as follows:
Pond 1
Approx. 30m SW of project area - Grid ref: SK 12472 23763
Description:
Pond 1 is located within the most western section of Locker’s Rough Wood. It is a
typically natural woodland hollow/pond with gradually sloping margins and areas of
raised banking. At the time of survey the water levels had receded from pre-season
levels, evident from observable tide marks and permeable surrounding substrate.
Owing to the fall in water levels, the pond had been divided into two at its narrowest
part. The more northerly section was heavily shaded whereas the southern section
was more exposed owing to its location at the woodland edge. Identifying the
presence or likely presence of aquatic vegetation is problematic outside of the GCN
breeding season due to vegetation die back. Submerged woodland debris was
abundant within the pond and it cannot be assumed that aquatic vegetation is not
present during the GCN breeding season.
The abundance of leaf litter, tree root systems and natural holes within Locker’s
Rough Wood provides optimal GCN hibernation habitat.
HIS evaluation:
As a consequence of observational results, Pond 1 was subjected to a GCN HSI
evaluation.
The suitability indices scores attributed to Pond 1 are as follows:
SI1 - Location = 1
SI2 - Pond Area = 0.8
SI3 - Pond Drying = 0.5
SI4 - Water Quality = 0.5
SI5 - Shade = 0.4
SI6 - Fowl = 1
SI7 - Fish = 1
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
16
Page 16
SI8 - Ponds = 0.39
SI9 - Terrestrial habitat = 0.67
SI10 - Macrophytes = n/a (May – September only)
HSI Score = 0.67 = ‘Average’
Pond 2
Approx. 90m SE of project area - Grid ref: SK 12563 23645
Description:
Pond 2 is located within a natural protrusion of Locker’s Rough Wood towards the SE
corner. Pond 2 was found to be dried up with successional vegetation and firm
substrate indicating prolonged drought.
As a consequence of these observational findings no further survey efforts were
targeted to Pond 2.
Pond 3
Approx. 105m NW of project area - Grid ref: SK 12457 23883
Description:
Pond 3 is located adjacent to Thorney Lanes road which divides the project area and
this water body. Thorney Lanes road can assumed to be a barrier to dispersal for any
GCN populations.
Pond 3 is a typical pastoral pond bordered my immature trees. The pond is largely
unshaded with sloping margins and some evidence of aquatic vegetation; it can be
deemed suitable for supporting GCNs. The field in which the pond is located is
currently used for grazing practices and bordered by mature hedgerows and
scattered trees with connected woodland to the west (approx. 245m). These habitats
considered optimal hibernation grounds for GCNs.
It is confidently assessed that any GCN populations within Pond 3 will seek
hibernation refugia within the bordering hedgerows, root systems and woodland;
avoiding any dispersal to the east i.e. over Thorney Lanes road.
As a consequence of these observational findings no further survey efforts were
targeted to Pond 3.
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
17
Page 17
Pond 4
Approx. 270m SW of project area - Grid ref: SK 12388 23499
Description:
Pond 4 is located adjacent to Abbots Bromley road which divides the project area
and this water body. In addition, an extensive arable field is situated between pond 4
and the project area. Abbots Bromley road and arable field systems can assumed to
be barriers to dispersal for any GCN populations.
The land encompassing Pond 4 possesses a range of nearby optimal hibernation
sites, including tree root systems, hedgerows and woodland.
It is confidently assessed that any GCN populations within Pond 4 will seek
hibernation refugia within the bordering root systems, hedgerows and woodland;
avoiding any dispersal to the north i.e. over Abbots Bromley road and arable field
systems.
As a consequence of these observational findings no further survey efforts were
targeted to Pond 4.
Pond 5
Approx. 450m E of project area - Grid ref: SK 13009 23754
Description:
Pond 5 is located within a small section of woodland within a mosaic of arable filed
systems. The substantial distance between Pond 5 and arable field systems can be
assumed to be barriers to dispersal for any GCN populations.
The land encompassing Pond 5 possesses a range of nearby optimal hibernation
sites, including tree root systems, hedgerows, woodland and pastoral land to east.
It is confidently assessed that any GCN populations within Pond 5 will seek
hibernation refugia within the bordering root systems, hedgerows and woodland;
avoiding any dispersal to the west i.e. navigating through arable field systems.
As a consequence of these observational findings no further survey efforts were
targeted to Pond 5.
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
18
Page 18
Pond 6
Approx. 120m N of project area - Grid ref: SK 12593 23901
Description:
Pond 6 is located within a private residential garden and as such an assessment of
the water could not be achieved. The arable field adjacent to the SW of Pond 6 can
be assumed to a barrier to dispersal for any GCN populations.
The land encompassing Pond 6 possesses a range of nearby optimal hibernation
sites, including tree root systems, hedgerows and pastoral land.
It is confidently assessed that any GCN populations within Pond 6 will seek
hibernation refugia within the bordering root systems, hedgerows and woodland;
avoiding any dispersal to the south and attempts to hibernate within the poor and
limited habitats within the project area.
As a consequence of these observational findings no further survey efforts were
targeted to Pond 6.
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
19
Page 19
6.3. Site Photographs
Photograph 1 Pond 1 (northern section) Water levels have receded from pre-autumn levels. Largely shaded with sloping margins. Presence of aquatic vegetation could not be confidently assessed due to survey timing.
Photograph 2 Pond 1 (southern section) Water levels have receded from pre-autumn levels. More exposed due to woodland edge location. Presence of aquatic vegetation could not be confidently assessed due to survey timing.
Photograph 3 Pond 2 Firm substrate and signs of successional plant growth indicate prolonged drought.
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
20
Page 20
Photograph 4 Pond 3 Pond found to be suitable for supporting GCNs. The adjacent Thorney Lanes road (east) acts as dispersal barrier. Highly suitable GCN hibernation habitat to the NW (away from project area).
Photograph 5 Project area Tarmac scree fronts the site with disturbed soils and heavy mud comprising much of the habitat in site. Hard standing and sparse rank vegetation also form areas of the exposed project area.
Photograph 6 Project area Typical sparse grassland within SE corner of project area. Habitat can also be found in the north of the site. Deemed low in its potential to support hibernating GCNs.
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
21
Page 21
7 Impact Assessment
7.1 Data Search
The data search returned by Staffordshire Ecological Records Centre identified a
single record of a hibernating female GCN approximately 1719m SE of the protected
species. The study area itself, and land immediately curtailing it, was not found to
contain any records of any relevance.
7.2 Breeding Habitat
GCN migrate from their hibernation grounds to water bodies in spring (February –
March) for breeding. GCN use ponds and an assortment of other standing water
bodies for these purposes. GCNs require water bodies that allows them to enter / exit
via sloping margins or objects (usually vegetation) that can be used as ladders. They
lay their eggs on dead leaves and submerged aquatic vegetation so ponds that have
submerged aquatic vegetation is more attractive to them.
Current development proposals will be limited to project area boundaries. As such,
physical disturbance or damage to any potential GCN breeding habitat i.e. ponds, will
be avoided.
Pond 1 is located 30m SW of the project area and as such run offs and soak away
design during and post construction should consider should any negative impacts
upon this potential GCN breeding pond.
7.3 Hibernation Habitat
GCN migrate from their breeding grounds to terrestrial habitats in late
summer/autumn in order to undergo their hibernation. GCN will utilise tree root
systems, dense vegetation, mammal burrows, deadwood etc. as their hibernacula.
GCN require resting sites affording them protection from predation, frost and
flooding. Woodland, hedgerows and dry stone walls are considered ideal hibernation
and connectivity resources for GCN.
Current development proposals will be limited to project area boundaries. As such,
physical disturbance or damage to any optimal GCN hibernation habitat e.g.
woodland, field margins and hedgerows will be avoided.
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
22
Page 22
The application area (habitats within boundary) offers no potential regarding GCN
hibernacula. The area largely consists of disturbed soils and heavy mud owing to the
regular use of agricultural machinery and cattle movement on-site. Loose tarmac
scree borders the western section of the site, again, damaged by agricultural
machinery.
The habitats within the project area are assessed to be negligible to low in their
potential for supporting hibernating GCNs
Locker’s Rough Wood adjacent to the south of the project area and extending east
offers optimal hibernation grounds for GCNs. In addition the field margins,
hedgerows and tree lines in the wider area provide highly suitable GCN hibernacula
opportunities.
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
23
Page 23
8 Recommendations
Current design proposals were considered when assessing suitable
recommendations for this project.
8.1 Breeding Habitat
Pond 1 was attributed a HSI score of ‘Average’ with regards to its potential for
supporting GCNs. As a consequence, rational measures should be incorporated into
any on site construction to avoid any unlawful impacts on this protected species.
Any run off from the site construction site should be manipulated and maintained so
that it does not leach into Pond 1; carrying with it any harmful effluent.
It is understood that soak a ways will need to be established to facilitate the
development of two dwellings on site. These soak a ways should be designed in a
manner which avoids adverse impacts on Pond 1. Adverse impacts can be
categorised as causing pond water level fluctuation and disrupting water quality.
8.2 Hibernation Habitat
Locker’s Rough Wood is located directly adjacent (south) to the project area. This
woodland was considered to be optimum hibernation habitat for any GCN
populations in the area. Consequently, rational measures should be incorporated into
any on site construction to avoid any unlawful impacts on this protected species
through the disturbance of woodland and woodland edge habitats.
Ordinarily the establishment of buffer zones between woodland edge and
constructions would be incorporated, however it is understood that such areas seek
to be converted into garden. As such, reasonable avoidance measures should be
carried out to reduce disturbance to woodland edge habitats.
Avoidance measures should be classified as the following:
Limiting any use of heavy machinery in these areas
Avoiding the placement of heavy materials in these areas
Avoiding damage to any nearby tree root systems
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
24
Page 24
Where possible, work to these areas should be conducted outside of the GCN
hibernation period (October – February inclusive)
Furthermore, in the unlikely event that GCNs are encountered on site then works in
that area must stop immediately and advice from a suitably qualified ecologist or
Natural England sought.
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
25
Page 25
References Bell, S. McGillivary, D. (2006) Environmental Law. 6th ed. Oxford University Press. Byron, H (2000) Biodiversity and Environmental Impact Assessment: A Good Practice Guide for Road Schemes. The RSPB, WWF-UK, English Nature and the Wildlife Trusts, Sandy. English Nature. (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey (2003). JNCC. Sutherland, W.J. (1996) Ecological Census Techniques. Cambridge University Press. Treweek, J. (1999) Ecological Impact Assessment. Blackwell Science. Williams, C. (2010) Biodiversity for Low and Zero Carbon Buildings, A Technical Guide for New Build. Riba Publishing.
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
26
Page 26
Appendices
Appendix 1
Client supplied plans
Appendix 2
Ecological Data Search Information
Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014
30
Page 30
top related