botanical survey report - ribble valley

LLOYD BORE LTD

OFFICE 4 , MAUDL AND S

MAUDE STREET , KENDAL

CUMBR IA, LA9 4 QD

Tel : 01 53 9 7 38 411

Fa x: 01 227 46 4 3 41

ke n dal @l loy d bor e.co . uk

www. l loy d bor e.co . u k

B O T A N I C A L S U R V E Y R E P O R T

RURAL SOLUTIONS

SYKES HOLT

MYERSCOUGH SMITHY ROAD

MELLOR BROOK, BLACKBURN

REF NO. C410 -RP04

STAT U S: PL ANNING DOC U MENT

CREATED : 1 7/1 2/2 01 5

1

C410-RP04 | BOTANICAL SURVEY REPORT

SYKES HOLT, MELLOR BROOK STATUS: PLANNING

17 DECEMBER 2015

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 2

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Instruction ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Description of proposed development ................................................................................................. 3

Scope of works..................................................................................................................................... 3

Survey objectives ................................................................................................................................. 3

2. SITE LOCATION AND WATER BODIES ................................................................................................. 4

3. PHASE 1 PLAN OF SURVEY SITE .......................................................................................................... 5

4. METHOD .................................................................................................................................................... 6

Desk study ........................................................................................................................................... 6

Survey .................................................................................................................................................. 6

Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 6

National Vegetation Classification (NVC) ............................................................................................ 7

Legislation and Planning Policy ........................................................................................................... 7

Survey Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 7

5. SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................................................................... 8

Desk Study ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Vegetative Composition ....................................................................................................................... 8

6. SPECIES LIST ......................................................................................................................................... 13

7. PHOTOGRAPHS ..................................................................................................................................... 17

8. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 18

Evaluation .......................................................................................................................................... 18

Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 18

9. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 20

2



17 DECEMBER 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

S.1 It is proposed to develop the Sykes Holt site into a microbrewery with visitor centre and associated

parking area. Under the current plans, the majority of the existing buildings will be removed and

some trees will be felled, in order to provide sufficient space for the construction of the brewery

building and for associated car parking. Definitive proposed plans for the site were not available at

the time of writing.

S.2 Throughout the wider site, it is understood that the majority of the woodland and the brook will be

retained and will remain unaffected.

S.3 Following the Ecological Appraisal survey in 2014 (Lloyd Bore, 2014), a botanical survey was

undertaken at Sykes Holt, comprising survey visits in May, June and August 2015.

S.4 The instructed works included a survey of the botanical species within the survey site, and an

assessment of the site for the presence or potential for protected or priority plant species.

S.5 Species were recorded and notes made of abundance and distribution, such that, where possible, a

comparison could be made to the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) (Rodwell, 1991).

S.6 The survey site is characterised by woodland, being the dominant habitat type. The habitat is most

comparable to NVC type W9 Fraxinus excelsior – Sorbus aucuparia – Mercurialis perennis

woodland, typical of that found in the Ribble Valley, and supports a variety of species with good

variation in structure throughout.

S.7 It is recommended that the woodland north of the stream and within area A is retained as part of the

objective to retain Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland, and that area B is retained to ensure retention of

the associated heterogeneity within the site.

S.8 The grassland habitats on site are typical, mesotrophic habitats and are not of any particular

conservation value, other than adding to the mosaic of habitats for wildlife within the site. Loss of the

grassland within the site is not considered to be of significance to floristic interest in the locality.

Nonetheless, retention of a proportion of the semi-improved grassland would ensure retention of the

floristic biodiversity within the site.

S.9 A number of recommendations have been made for the three main habitat types in the area

surveyed; woodland, grassland and the pond, to enhance and manage them for wildlife.

Author and Surveyor Verity Webster MSc BSc (Hons) CEcol MCIEEM

Checked By Lucy Gibson MSc BSc (Hons) MCIEEM

3



17 DECEMBER 2015

1. INTRODUCTION

INSTRUCTION

1.1. Lloyd Bore Ltd was instructed by Joanne Halton of Rural Solutions on the 12th February 2015 to

undertake a botanical survey of the site at Sykes Holt, Mellor Brook, BB2 7LB (SD 63621 31505).

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

1.2. It is proposed to develop the site into a microbrewery with visitors’ centre and associated parking.

1.3. Under the current plans, the majority of the existing buildings will be removed and some trees will be

felled to the south of the buildings, in order to provide sufficient space for the construction of the

brewery building and for associated car parking.

1.4. Throughout the wider site, it is understood that the majority of the woodland and the brook will be

retained and will remain unaffected. One shallow pond, within the southern area of woodland may be

removed. Definitive proposed plans for the site were not available at the time of writing.

SCOPE OF WORKS

1.5. The instructed works included a survey of the botanical species within the survey site, and an

assessment of the site for the presence or potential for protected or priority plant species.

1.6. A previous ecological appraisal was carried out in July 2014 (Lloyd Bore, 2014), which included a

habitat assessment on site in line with the JNCC Phase 1 Habitat Survey protocol.

SURVEY OBJECTIVES

1.7. The objectives of the botanical survey and report are to:-

• Identify protected or priority plant species;

• Identify areas that have potential for protected or priority plant species;

• Identify any invasive plant species on site; and

• Make general recommendations regarding avoidance and mitigation measures that might be

required to facilitate development.

4



17 DECEMBER 2015

2. SITE LOCATION

Fig. 1: Site location and site red line boundary. (Reproduced from by permission of Ordnance Survey. ©

Crown Copyright (2011), All rights reserved.)

5



17 DECEMBER 2015

3. PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY PLAN OF SURVEY SITE

Fig. 2: Phase 1 plan of proposed development site

6



17 DECEMBER 2015

4. METHOD

DESK STUDY

4.1. A data search was commissioned from the Lancashire Environmental Records Network for the

previous Ecological Appraisal (Lloyd Bore, 2014).

SURVEY

Site: Sykes Holt

Myerscough Smithy Road

Mellor Brook

Lancashire

Grid Reference: SD 636 314 (Centre of site)

Dates of Survey: 2 May 2015, 8 June 2015, 20 June 2015, 13 August, 26 August 2015

Surveyor: Verity Webster BSc (Hons) MSc CEcol MCIEEM

Purpose of Survey: To assess botanical interest

METHODOLOGY

4.2. Site visits were made throughout spring and summer 2015. Zones of impact (in relation to the

development proposals) were defined prior to the start of the survey. The areas of the site

considered to be ‘low impact’ or ‘unaffected’ by the proposals were not assessed in detail; with

reference to the site, this area is north of the stream (Mellor Brook).

4.3. The remainder of the site, considered to be of ‘medium’ or ‘high’ potential impact, was divided into

distinct habitat types. Each habitat type was walked at least twice through the survey period, in

different months. All higher plants were recorded to provide a description of the habitat type and to

capture all species present, as far as possible, throughout the season.

4.4. Species were recorded and notes made of abundance and distribution, such that, where possible, a

comparison could be made to the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) (Rodwell, 1991).

4.5. The NVC is a widely used methodology, providing a detailed, quantitative approach to botanical

survey. The NVC is, however, arguably deficient in community types, especially in areas such as

ecotones, or ruderal grassland, for which the percentage match to habitat type is often low.

4.6. The key to the NVC communities was used to define the community classification (Cooper, E. A,

JNCC, 1997).

4.7. All vegetation observed on site is included in the complete species list for the site (see section 6).

4.8. All specimens were identified to species level on site as far as possible. If it was not possible to

identify to species level on site, specimens were later identified with the use of a binocular

microscope.

7



17 DECEMBER 2015

NATIONAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION (NVC)

4.9. The NVC describes many different vegetation types in Britain, covering woodlands, heaths,

grasslands and mires. The classification is defined by the species from which it is composed. Each

habitat type has a designated code and name, such as W8 Fraxinus excelsior – Acer campestre –

Mercutialis perennis woodland. Each habitat type may also have several different sub-communities.

Some vegetational communities are widespread and common whilst others are restricted and rare.

4.10. These classifications are used to specify the habitats associated with habitat Biodiversity Action

Plans and those protected under Annex 1 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations

1994.

LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY

4.11. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act

2000, it is an offence, with certain exceptions, to intentionally pick, uproot or destroy any wild plant

listed in Schedule 8 of the Act, or if not an authorised person, to intentionally uproot any wild plant

not included in that Schedule.

4.12. A small number of the listed plants also receive protection under The Habitats and Species Directive

(92/43/EC) enacted through the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations

2012.

SURVEY LIMITATIONS

4.13. The survey of higher plants is seasonal. It is not always possible to record all species on site.

Species that flower during other months of the year may have been missed. Generally a botanical

survey during May, June and August will provide an opportunity to make a reasonably complete

assessment of the botany on the site.

4.14. The survey did not include lower plants, such as liverworts and bryophytes.

8



17 DECEMBER 2015

5. SURVEY RESULTS

DESK STUDY

5.1. A data search was commissioned from the Lancashire Environmental Records Network (LERN) for

the previous Ecological Appraisal. Please refer to section 6 of the original Ecological Appraisal report

for details of the records of botanical species included in the data provided by LERN (Lloyd Bore,

2014).

VEGETATIVE COMPOSITION

5.2. The botanical interests within the site can be categorised into the following habitats:

• Semi-natural woodland

• Ruderal / disturbed habitat

• Semi-improved grassland

• Improved, wet grassland.

5.3. The land at Sykes Holt supports mainly woodland, which is heterogeneous due to the varied

topography and distinction between the streamside environments and raised, dry ground. The

woodland to the north of the site, beyond Mellor Brook, which divides the site, is relatively

unmanaged, reflective of typical woodland in the Ribble Valley, whilst the area to the south of the

stream has seen more disturbance owing to use of the land for agricultural and residential purposes.

The farm buildings and paddocks are central to this southern sector of the site. The woodland south

of the buildings provides a protective buffer from the main road to the south, whilst that to the north

falls on the gradient to the stream.

5.4. The paddocks to the east of the buildings are open to the stream, with the grassland being typical of

pasture, but wet, most likely due to the fields retaining run-off, with pools of water collecting in flat

areas.

5.5. The eastern-most area of the site, an area of rough, open grassland, was previously highly managed,

most likely ploughed, and although much of it is flat, it has a high water table. The woodland around

this area, extending north of the stream to the east of the site, appears to be unmanaged, with the

steep slopes protecting the habitat from agricultural use.

5.6. The survey site has been divided into seven broad botanical areas, labelled A – G, described in more

detail below and annotated on Figure 3. Please also refer to the photographs of each area in section

7.

Woodland

5.7. The woodland on site, Mammon Wood, is reflective of native Lancashire woodlands; a mixture of

deciduous trees with oak (Quercus spp.) and ash (Fraxinus excelsior). Within the wider landscape,

the survey site forms part of a wooded habitat corridor that follows Mellor Brook through Salmesbury,

south of the River Ribble.

5.8. The woodland north of the stream and within area A is designated Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland.

5.9. The trees that characterise the woodland as a whole, including the area north of the stream (which

was not surveyed in detail), are Oak (Quercus petraea and Q. robur) and ash with birch (Betula

pendula) and sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus).

9



17 DECEMBER 2015

5.10. The woodland ground flora is characterised by dog’s mercury (Mercurialis perennis), which provides

the dominant cover on the upper areas of the woodland south of the buildings and throughout the

dryer areas from the early spring through to the summer. Bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta), is

conspicuous in April and May, although only prevalent on the upper, dryer areas of woodland, with

patches, in the early spring, of wood anemone (Anemone nemorosa) and lesser celandine

(Ranunculus ficaria) close to the paths. Ramsons (Allium ursinum) were conspicuous throughout the

woodland on the slopes to the stream in May and June creating a carpet of green, whilst at the edges

of the woodland near the tracks, the open ground supports herb Robert (Geranium robertianum) and

common mallow (Malus sylvestris). Cuckoo flower (Cardamine pratensis) was recorded along the

streamside and wet areas, along with hart’s-tongue fern (Asplenium scolopendrium), which gives the

woodland character all year. Ramsons and dog’s mercury are species that are indicative of heavy

clay soils, which are typical of woodlands within the Ribble valley.

5.11. Some mosses were prevalent in the woodland and typical of this habitat, including Hypnum

jutlandicum, Mnium hornum, and Kindbergia praelonga.

5.12. The woodland within the site is most comparable to NVC type W9 Fraxinus excelsior – Sorbus

aucuparia – Mercurialis perennis woodland, although it is not a strong match.

5.13. Within this general habitat, the structure and species’ composition of the woodland varies throughout

the site. The distinct areas are described below.

Area A

5.14. Numerous ash seedlings are present where light penetrates the canopy at the edges. South of the

stream in Area A, however, there are a few mature examples of horse chestnut (Aesculus

hippocastanum) that provide a dense canopy along the base of the stream to the upper reaches of

the slope where the land levels and accommodates the area supporting the buildings and access

tracks. Within this area there is a sparse understorey. This area has likely seen disturbance in the

past. There is evidence of this in the form of large rock piles supporting common nettle (Urtica

dioica).

5.15. The understorey trees, which are not dense, include holly (Ilex aquifolium), hawthorn (Crataegus

monogyna), elder (Sambucus nigra) and wild cherry (Prunus avium). There are occasional examples

of Rhododendron ponticum, the removal of which could form part of a woodland management plan.

Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) and laurel (Laurus nobilis), which are present close to the main

track provide evidence of previous planting.

Area B

5.16. Area B is dense, supporting a slightly more diverse mix of understorey, including hazel (Corylus

avellana) and holly). The woodland floor supports tufted hair-grass (Deschampsia caespitosa) with

bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.). Pendulous sedge (Carex pendula) is prominent and abundant, a

species typical of wet clay soils. Lords and ladies (Arum maculatum) and patches of common nettle

are scattered throughout. The pond supports dense great horsetail (Equisetum telmateia).

10



17 DECEMBER 2015

Area C

5.17. The woodland around Area C close to the buildings is also quite dense, supporting oak, laurel, ash,

sycamore, hazel, wild cherry, and occasional elder, holly, hawthorn and goat willow (Salix caprea).

The ground flora here is dominated by dog’s mercury.

Site Boundaries of Area E

5.18. In the wooded area to the north and east of area E, wild cherry is common. Hawthorn dominates the

boundaries in this area, creating a dense hedgerow. Alder (Alnus glutinosa) is present along the

edge of the stream.

5.19. To the south of the field in Area E, on the boundary of the road and roundabout, ash, oak, birch and

willow trees have been planted.

Grassland

5.20. All the fields follow the same topography, sloping downwards to the north, towards the stream.

Area D

5.21. Area D, adjacent to the barns, is very similar to Area F, supporting semi-improved, mesotrophic,

herb-rich grassland.

5.22. The dominant grasses are rough meadow-grass (Poa trivialis) and Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus),

with abundant common bent-grass (Agrostis capillaris) and crested dog’s-tail (Cynosurus cristatus).

Frequent throughout the stand are sweet vernal-grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum) and meadow foxtail

(Alopecurus pratensis), both of which have a preference for neutral to alkaline soil. Tufted-hair grass

(Deschampsia cespitosa) is occasionally present in patches. Black bent-grass (Agrostis gigantia),

smooth meadow-grass (Poa pratensis) and rye grass (Lolium perenne) are rare and scattered.

Small herbs, frequent throughout, include meadow vetchling (Lathyrus pratensis), tufted vetch (Vicia

cracca), meadow buttercup (Ranunculus arvensis), cat’s-ear (Hypochaeris radicata) and common

mouse-ear (Cerastium fontanum). Less common are yarrow (Achillia millefolium) and white clover

(Trifolium repens).

5.23. Creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) is occasional, with nutrient-enriched patches highlighted with

common nettle. Foxglove (Digitalis pupurea) is rare, present near the fencing. At the northern end,

where the ground slopes, there are tufts of compact rush (Juncus conglomeratus). Compact rush

and foxglove are typical of acid soils, reflecting an acid flush in the neutral grassland.

5.24. This habitat is most indicative of NVC classification MG9 Holcus lanatus - Deschampsia cespitosa

grassland with Poa trivilalis sub-community, a habitat which is characteristic of permanently moist

soils throughout the lowlands.

Area F

5.25. Area F, is similar to Area D, reflective of MG9 Holcus lanatus – Deschampsia cespitosa grassland,

but has a higher abundance of crested dog’s-tail and there are frequent patches of soft rush (Juncus

effusus).

11



17 DECEMBER 2015

5.26. At the southern end there is a wet depression supporting water mint (Mentha aquatica) and creeping

buttercup. Crested dog’s-tail is still dense in this area. Marsh thistle (Cirsium palustre) is rare

throughout.

Area G

5.27. Area G supports abundant Yorkshire fog with common bent-grass, rye grass (Lolium perenne), false

oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius) and cock’s-foot grass (Dactylus glomerata). Rough meadow-

grass and meadow foxtail are less frequent. Sweet vernal-grass is present in patches. Herbs are

present throughout, including cuckoo flower, selfheal (Prunella vulgaris), white clover, germander

speedwell (Veronica chamedrys), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus acris), field forget-me-not

(Myosotis arvensis), spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), dandelion (Taraxacum agg.) and occasional

ragwort (Senecio jacobaea).

5.28. This grassland is a closer match to MG1 Arrenatherum elatius grassland.

Area E

5.29. Field E has been previously disturbed, most likely ploughed.

5.30. The field slopes gradually to the north, towards the stream, and there are steep slopes towards field

F, which is divided from field E by a line of mature trees.

5.31. Field E has a high water table, reflected most evidently in the abundance of reed canary-grass

(Phalaris arundinacea), which forms dense patches in the centre of the site. A wide band of

improved grassland around the site and weaving through the patches of reed canary-grass supports

rough grassland with tall herbs. There are frequent bundles of tufted vetch (Vicia cracca) and clumps

of soft rush. Bird’s-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), great willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum), common

nettle, creeping thistle and Russian comfrey (Symphytum officinale) are present. There are fewer

grass species in this area. False oat-grass is dominant, with creeping bent-grass (Agrtostis

stolonifera), Yorkshire fog, timothy (Phleum pratense), infrequent tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea)

and sweet vernal grass.

5.32. To the east of the site there are patches of colt’s-foot (Tussilago farfara) and the grass is shorter,

grazed by rabbits and trampled by dog-walkers. In this area species include white clover, ribwort

plantain (Plantago lanceolata), red clover (Trifolium pratense), cat’s-ear, and black medick (Medicago

lupulina). Hoary willowherb (Epilobium parviflorum) and great willowherb are frequent in patches and

can be found in the dense patches of reed canary grass as well as around the site boundaries.

5.33. Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) is present to the north of the field, where the ground

slopes to the stream.

5.34. This habitat is most similar to MG9 Holcus lanatus – Deschampsia cespitosa grassland with

Arrhenatherum elatius community.

Ruderal / Disturbed Vegetation

5.35. On the edge of the woodland, near the buildings, Himalayan balsam is present along with greater

yellow archangel (Lamiastrum galeobdolon) (a garden escape), cleavers, herb Robert and bramble.

Ivy-leaved toadflax (Cymbalaria muralis) is present in the building walls and colonising cracks in the

ground. Perforate St Johns wort (Hypericum perforatum), nipplewort (Lapsanna communis), prickly

12



17 DECEMBER 2015

sow-thistle (Sonchus asper), false-oat grass, square-stalked willowherb (Epilobium tetragonum),

annual meadow-grass (Poa annua) and creeping soft-grass (Holcus mollis) comprise the grassland

adjacent to the buildings and paths. Adjacent to the woods, to the south of the buildings there is a

dense patch of rosebay willowherb (Chamerion angustifolium).

5.36. The well-trodden trackway between areas C and G supports species typical of used ground,

comprising daisy (Bellis perennis), common chickweed (Stellaria media), rough meadow-grass, white

clover, greater plantain (Plantago major) and procumbent pearlwort (Sagina procumbens).

Dandelion, selfheal (Prunella vulgaris), germander speedwell, square-stalked willowherb and wood

avens (Geum urbanum) are present along the track sides where the grassland is longer, with crested

dog’s-tail and smooth meadow-grass.

Fig. 3: Botanical areas – annotated according to area letters (see section 5)

A

D

F C

G B

E

13



17 DECEMBER 2015

6. SPECIES LIST

Species are divided into general habitat types, although they may not be unique to that habitat within

the site.

Species Latin name

Woodland

Ramsons Allium ursinum

Wood Anemone Anemone nemorosa

Lords and ladies Arum maculatum

Hart’s-tongue fern Asplenium scolopendrium

Black horehound Ballota nigra

False brome Brachypodium sylvaticum

Wood brome Bromus ramosus

Cuckoo flower Cardamine pratensis

Wood sedge Carex sylvatica

Pendulous sedge Carex pendula

Enchanters nightshade Circaea lutetiana

Tufted hair-grass Deschampsia cespitosa

Male fern Dryopteris felix-mas

Great horsetail Equisetum telmateia

Wood avens Geum urbanum

Ivy Hedera helix

Dog’s mercury Mercurialis perennis

Bluebell Hyacinthodies non-scripta

*Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera

Lesser celandine Ranunculus ficaria

Bramble Rubus fruticosus

Dock species Rumex species

Bistort Persicaria bistorta

Hart’s-tongue fern Phyllitis scolopendrium

Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus

14



17 DECEMBER 2015

Horse chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum

Alder Alnus glutinosa

Pendulous birch Betula pendula

Lawson’s cypress Chamaecyparis lawsoniana

Hazel Corylus avellana

Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna

Ash Fraxinus excelsior

Holly Ilex aquifolium

Laurel Laurus nobilis

Wild cherry Prunus avium

*Rhododendron Rhododendron ponticum

Raspberry Rubus idaeus

Goat willow Salix caprea

Elder Sambucus nigra

**Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus

Yew Taxa baccata

Elm Ulmus glabra

Sessile oak Quercus petraea

Pedunculate oak Quercus robur

Moss Hypnum jutlandicum

Moss Mnium hornum

Moss Kindbergia praelonga

Moss Isothecium myosuroides

Grassland

Yarrow Achillia millefolium

Common bent-grass Agrostis capillaris

Black bent-grass Agrostis gigantia

Creeping bent-grass Agrostis stolonifera.

Meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis

Sweet vernal-grass Anthoxanthum odoratum

Common mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum

Creeping thistle Cirsium arvense

15



17 DECEMBER 2015

Marsh thistle Cirsium palustre

Crested dog’s-tail Cynosurus cristatus

Tufted-hair grass Deschampsia cespitosa

Foxglove Digitalis purpurea

Tall fescue Festuca arundinacea

Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus

Creeping soft-grass Holcus mollis

Cat’s-ear Hypochaeris radicata

Compact rush Juncus conglomeratus

Soft rush Juncus effusus

Meadow vetchling Lathyrus pratensis

Perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne

Common bird’s-foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus

Black medick Medicago lupulina

Water mint Mentha aquatica

Field forget-me-not Myosotis arvensis

Reed canary-grass Phalaris arundinacea

Timothy Phleum pratense

Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata

Rough meadow-grass Poa trivialis

Smooth meadow-grass Poa pratensis

Meadow buttercup Ranunculus arvensis

Russian comfrey Symphytum officinale

Red clover Trifolium pratense

White clover Trifolium repens

Colt’s-foot Tussilago farfara

Germander speedwell Veronica chamaedrys

Tufted vetch Vicia cracca

Ruderal

Creeping bent-grass Agrostis stolonifera

False oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius

Daisy Bellis perennis

False brome Brachypodium sylvaticum

16



17 DECEMBER 2015

Wavy bittercress Cardamine flexuosa

Rosebay willowherb Chamerion angustifolium

Creeping thistle Cirsium arvense

Spear thistle Cirsium vulgare

Ivy-leaved toadflax Cymbalaria muralis

Great willowherb Epilobium hirsutum

Hoary willowherb Epilobium parviflorum

Square-stalked willowherb Epilobium tetragonum

Cleavers Galium aperine

Herb Robert Geranium robertianum

Creeping soft-grass Holcus mollis

Perforate St Johns wort Hypericum perforatum

Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera

Nipplewort Lapsanna communis

Greater yellow-archangel Lamiastrum galeobdolon

Common mallow Malva sylvestris

Red bartsia Odontites verna

Greater plantain Plantago major

Annual meadow-grass Poa annua

Rough meadow-grass Poa trivialis

Selfheal Prunella vulgaris

Creeping buttercup Ranunculus acris

Procumbent pearlwort Sagina procumbens

Common Ragwort Senecio jacobaea

Prickly sow-thistle Sonchus asper

Common chickweed Stellaria media

Dandelion Taraxacum agg

White clover Trifolium repens

Common nettle Urtica dioica

* Schedule 9 non-native invasive species

** Non-designated non-native species

17



17 DECEMBER 2015

7. PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 1: Area A (12/06/14) Photograph 2: Area B (12/06/14)

Photograph 3: Area C (12/06/15) Photograph 2: Area D (07/05/15)

Photograph 5: Area E (16/04/15) Photograph 6: Area F (05/06/15)

Photograph 5: Area G (12/06/15) Photograph 6: Pond in Area B (12/06/14)

18



17 DECEMBER 2015

8. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

EVALUATION

8.1. The survey site is characterised by woodland, being the dominant habitat type. The habitat is most

comparable to NVC type W9 Fraxinus excelsior – Sorbus aucuparia – Mercurialis perennis

woodland, typical of that found in the Ribble Valley, and supports a variety of species with good

variation in structure throughout.

8.2. The woodland within the site forms part of a habitat corridor of woodland along Mellor Brook, a

feature which should be retained at a landscape level. In addition, lowland mixed deciduous

woodland is a Section 41 Habitat of Principal Importance (NERC, 2006), whilst broadleaved and

mixed woodland is a Priority Habitat under the Lancashire Biodiversity Action Plan.

8.3. The aims and objectives of the Lancashire Biodiversity Action Plan for broadleaved and mixed

woodland include retention of Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland.

8.4. It is recommended that the woodland north of the stream and within area A is retained as part of the

objective to retain Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland, and that area B is retained to ensure retention of

the associated heterogeneity within the site.

8.5. The grassland habitats on site are typical, mesotrophic habitats and are not of any particular

conservation value, other than adding to the mosaic of habitats for wildlife within the site. Loss of the

grassland within the site is not considered to be of significance to floristic interest in the locality.

Nonetheless, retention of a proportion of the semi-improved grassland would ensure retention of the

floristic biodiversity within the site.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Woodland

8.6. Protection of the woodland north of the stream and within area A is proposed to ensure retention of

the existing extent of Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland.

8.7. It is considered that the retention of the woodland comprising area B would ensure retention of the

highest diversity and variation of woodland types within the site, whilst still allowing use of the land.

8.8. Retention of the tree belt between areas F and are E would allow retention of some habitat

connectivity between the woodland to the north and the small, isolated plot that comprises area B,

albeit discontinuous.

8.9. Removal of Rhododendron ponticum, which is present within the wooded areas south of the stream

would be beneficial, thereby encouraging establishment of native understorey shrubs.

8.10. The Himalayan balsam should be controlled, whilst it is still manageable. This plant has not yet

become abundant and dominant along the streamside to the west of the site, although it is becoming

so to the east, north of area E. Management techniques available include cutting of the plant prior to

it setting seed and still in flower. This would require a long-term management regime.

19



17 DECEMBER 2015

Grassland

8.11. The grassland habitats are not considered to be of high ecological value, although the retention of a

mosaic of habitat types within the site would be beneficial for biodiversity in general.

8.12. It would make logistical sense to retain the sloped areas of grassland in fields D, F and/or E, to

maintain the wet-flushed grassland character. However, suitable precautions would be required to

prevent run off of any enrichment or pollutants into the stream to the north from any development.

8.13. Management regimes for the grassland could be implemented to improve species diversity. This

would include cyclic, annual cutting regimes (main cut in autumn), removal of arisings and retention

of areas of longer, less frequently cut grassland.

8.14. Development around the site boundaries of scrub habitat would be beneficial for wildlife.

The Pond

8.15. Waterbodies are valuable to wildlife including amphibians (such as newts) and invertebrates (such as

dragonflies).

8.16. The pond in area B is currently shallow and choked with great horsetail. This feature could be

significantly enhanced for wildlife.

8.17. Clearance (dredging) of the pond in winter and disposal of vegetation (great horsetail) would allow

colonisation of other plant species (some could be planted). Following dredging, deepening of the

pond with variation in levels and ‘shelves’ at the margins, would provide more favourable habitat for a

variety of aquatic wildlife.

20



17 DECEMBER 2015

9. REFERENCES

Cooper, E.A., (1998), Summary descriptions of National Vegetation Classification grassland and

montane communities, 92 pages A4 softback, ISBN 1 86107 443 3

IEEM (2006). Guidelines for ecological impact assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of

Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.

Lloyd Bore Ltd (2014) C410-RP01: Ecological Appraisal – Sykes Holt, Mellor Brook. Maude St,

Kendal

Rodwell, J.S, (2006), NVC Users' Handbook, 68 pages, ISBN 978 1 86107 574 1

botanical survey report - ribble valley

Documents