ecological deliverability report...ecology, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the...

Ecological Deliverability Report

Brook House, Fleet

Thakeham

June 2017

EAD Ecology 3 Colleton Crescent

Exeter EX2 4DG

Tel: 01392 260420 Fax: 01392 434603

Email: [email protected] www.eadecology.co.uk

The information which we have prepared is true, and has been prepared and provided in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Code of Professional Conduct. We confirm that the opinions expressed are our true and professional bona fide opinions.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by EAD Ecology, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of the report. No liability is accepted by EAD Ecology for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided.

EAD Ecology has exercised due care in preparing this report. It has not, unless specifically stated, independently verified information provided by others. No other warranty, express or implied, is made in relation to the content of this report and EAD Ecology assumes no liability for any loss resulting from errors, omissions or misrepresentation made by others.

Any recommendation, opinion or finding stated in this report is based on circumstances and facts as they existed at the time that EAD Ecology performed the work.

Nothing in this report constitutes legal opinion. If legal opinion is required the advice of a qualified legal professional should be secured.

© Copyright EAD Ecology 2017

Report reference Report Status Date Prepared by Authorised P809/EDR/1 Final 9.6.2017 Matt Jones BSc MSc

CEnv MCIEEM Matt Jones BSc MSc

CEnv MCIEEM

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.eadecology.co.uk

Contents 1 Introduction, background and approach ...................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Legislation and planning policy ...................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 2

2 Ecological baseline ....................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Designated sites of conservation value .......................................................................................... 4

2.2 Habitats within the site boundary ................................................................................................. 5

2.3 Surrounding habitats ..................................................................................................................... 8

2.4 Protected and notable species ...................................................................................................... 9

3 Conclusion on suitability for development ................................................................................. 16

3.1 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 16

3.2 Designated sites .......................................................................................................................... 16

3.3 Habitats and species ................................................................................................................... 17

3.4 Proposed further survey, assessment and consultation ............................................................... 18

4 References .................................................................................................................................. 19

Figures Figure 1: Location Plan Figure 2: Illustrative masterplan Figure 3: Designated sites plan Figure 4: Phase 1 habitat plan Figure 5: Indicative SANG Strategy Plan Appendices Appendix 1: Relevant wildlife legislation Appendix 2: Relevant national, regional and local biodiversity planning policies Appendix 3: Botanical list Appendix 4: Conservation Objectives for Thames Basin Heaths SPA and Thursley, Ash, Pirbight and

Chobham SAC Appendix 5: Additional designated site plans

Introduction, background and approach

Ecological Deliverability Report – Brook House, Fleet 1 P809/EDR/1

1 Introduction, background and approach

1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 EAD Ecology has been commissioned by Thakeham Homes to produce an Ecological Deliverability

Report for land at Brook House, Fleet; refer to Figure 1 (hereafter referred to as ‘the site’). The ecological deliverability assessment is detailed in this document and is submitted to Hart District Council, through the Regulation 18 Consultation, in support of the allocation of the site within the Draft Local Plan – Strategy and Sites 2011-2032. An illustrative masterplan for the site, produced by Savills on behalf of Thakeham Homes, is provided in Figure 2.

1.1.2 The ecological deliverability assessment assesses the ecological suitability of the site for development, based upon the following:

• Preliminary ecological baseline of the site; • Wildlife legislation and biodiversity planning policies within the National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF, 2012), Saved Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan (Adopted May 2009; saved March 2013); the Draft Local Plan (Hart District Council, April 2017) and the Adopted Local Plan Saved Policies (Hart District Council, April, 2009); and

• Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Delivery Framework (February, 2009) and the Interim Avoidance Strategy for the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (Hart District Council; Adopted November, 2010).

1.2 Legislation and planning policy Wildlife legislation 1.2.1 The following wildlife legislation is relevant to the proposed development:

• Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). • Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). • Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. • Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. • Protection of Badgers Act 1992. • Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (as amended).

1.2.2 A summary of wildlife legislation is provided in Appendix 1.

National planning policy 1.2.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF; 2012) includes the Government’s policy on the

protection of biodiversity through the planning system. A summary of the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF is provided in Appendix 2.

Regional planning policy 1.2.4 South-east regional planning policy was revoked in March 2013, apart from Policy NRM6 ‘Thames

Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA)’. This policy sets out the protection measures afforded to the SPA from residential development and details a mitigation strategy involving the following (refer also to Appendix 2):

• A 400m residential development exclusion zone around the SPA; • Strategic Access Management Measures (SAMM) within the SPA; and



• Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG).

Local planning policy 1.2.5 The Draft Local Plan contains the following relevant policies with respect to biodiversity (refer to

Appendix 2):

• Policy NE1: Thames Basin Heaths SPA. • Policy NE 3: Biodiversity and Geodiversity. • Policy I8: Strategic SANG.

1.2.5 Relevant saved biodiversity policies in the Adopted Local Plan are as follows (refer to Appendix 2):

• CON 1: European Designations. • CON 2: National Designations. • CON 3: Local Designations. • CON 4: Replacement and Habitats. • CON 5: Species Protected by Law. • CON 6: Heathlands. • CON 7: Riverine Environments. • CON 8: Trees, Woodland & Hedgerows: Amenity Value.

Supplementary planning documentation 1.2.6 The Thames Basin Heaths SPA Delivery Framework was produced by local planning authorities

(LPAs) in close proximity to the SPA; the South-East England Regional Assembly was also part of the LPA consortium. The Framework seeks to facilitate residential development in close proximity to the SPA, whilst avoiding a likely significant effect. The Framework mirrors the mitigation strategy detailed in retained Policy NRM6 of the South East Local Plan; refer to paragraph 1.2.4.

1.2.7 The Interim Avoidance Strategy for the Thames Basin Heaths SPA was adopted by Hart District

Council in November 2010. Responding to the above SPA Delivery Framework and NRM6 of the South-East Plan, the Strategy details specifically how development within the Hart District can affect the SPA, and the mitigation strategies proposed. These follow measures set out in the Delivery Framework and NRM6 in the South East Local Plan. The Strategy identifies two SANGs, Hitches Lane and Hawley Meadows and Blackwater Park; refer to Appendix 2. The site is located approximately equidistant between the two and is located within the 5km catchments around both SANGs. The Strategy also sets out a SANG and SAMM tariff for development coming forward within these catchments.

1.3 Approach Ecological baseline 1.3.1 An understanding of the ecological baseline of the site was derived through desk study and site

survey.

Desk Study 1.3.2 Biodiversity information was requested for a study area of 2km radius around the site boundary

(extended to 4km for previous records of bats) from Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC). Information requested included the location and details of the following:



• Designated sites of nature conservation value (statutory and non-statutory; extended to 10km for sites with international designations and 5km for sites with national designations using www.magic.gov.uk);

• Previous records of protected and/or notable species, including Species of Principal Importance for the Conservation of Biodiversity in England (‘Priority Species’).

1.3.3 Information was also obtained from the following websites:

• www.magic.gov.uk: information on protected sites; • http://jncc.defra.gov.uk: information on protected sites, Priority Habitats and Species; • https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/natural-england: information on

protected sites and standing advice; and

1.3.4 The HBIC data search and MAGIC searches were undertaken in May 2017.

Site Survey 1.3.5 An Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey of the site was undertaken on 5 May 2017. The survey

followed guidelines published by JNCC (2010) and Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995) and identified the main habitat types on the site and the presence/potential presence of protected and notable1 species. The results of the survey were detailed on a Phase 1 Habitat plan, with target notes used to identify specific features of ecological interest; refer to Figure 4. A botanical species list was recorded, although no attempt was made to record every plant species on the site; refer to Appendix 3.

Survey limitations 1.3.6 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey was undertaken at a sub-optimal time of year for botanical

survey, and many of the plant species present within the site would not have been evident. Nevertheless, this is not considered to have significantly constrained the classification of habitats, or their ecological importance.

1 Notable species are those which hold a specific conservation status e.g. local Biodiversity Action Plan species, Priority Species, IUCN Red Data Species. Some notable species may also be legally protected.

http://www.magic.gov.uk);

http://www.magic.gov.uk

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/natural-england

Ecological Baseline


2 Ecological baseline

2.1 Designated sites of conservation value European designated sites 2.1.1 Two European-designated sites occur within 10km of the site boundary; refer to Figure 3,

Appendix 4 and Table 2.1. The Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) comprises a number of sites to the north, north-west, north-east and south of the site, the closest located 150m north-west of the site boundary. The site is designated for breeding populations of European importance of Dartford warbler, nightjar and woodlark; refer to Conservation Objectives in Appendix 4.

2.1.2 Thursley, Ash, Pirbight and Chobham Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is located approximately 7.3km east of the site. It is designated for its North Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix, with rare plants including great sundew and bog orchid, European dry heaths, with nightjar, Dartford warbler, sand lizard and smooth snake, and depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion; refer to Conservation Objectives in Appendix 4.

Nationally designated sites 2.1.3 There are no statutory designated sites within or immediately adjacent to the site; refer to Figure

3, Appendix 5 and Table 2.1. Fourteen statutory designated sites are present within 5km of the site, including ten Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), one National Nature Reserve (NNR) and three Local Nature Reserves (LNRs). The closest is Foxlease and Ancells Meadows SSSI, which lies approximately 105m north of the site and is designated for its acid grassland, wet heath and mire and associated species; the site also supports colonies of marsh fritillary butterfly and is an important breeding site for dragonflies. Castle Bottom to Yateley and Hawley Commons SSSI follows the Thames Basin Heaths SPA boundary locally and occurs 150m north-west of the site.

Table 2.1: Selected statutory designated sites within the study area Site Name Approximate

distance/direction from site

Reason for designation

Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham SAC

7.3km E • North Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix. • European dry heaths. • Depressions on peat substrates of the

Rhynchosporion. Thames Basin Heaths SPA

150m NW • Breeding Dartford warbler, nightjar and woodlark.

Blackwater Valley SSSI

4.3km NE • Unimproved alluvial meadows, swamp and wet valley alderwood.

• Uncommon invertebrate species. • Rare and uncommon sedge species.

Bramshill SSSI 3km NW • Shallow acid ponds and associated mire • Rich assemblage of dragonfly and damselfly • Support nightjar, woodlark and Dartford warbler

Fleet Pond SSSI and LNR

995m S • Extensive shallow lake supporting a rich flora and fauna

Ecological Baseline


Table 2.1: Selected statutory designated sites within the study area Site Name Approximate

distance/direction from site

Reason for designation

Eelmoor Marsh SSSI

2.9km SE • Species-rich acid bog and grass heath

Hazeley Heath SSSI

4.6km W • Relatively large tract of heathland

Foxlease and Ancells Meadows SSSI

105m N • Acid grassland, wet heath and mire. • Important breeding site for dragonflies. • Small red damselfly. • Marsh Fritillary butterfly.

Bourley and Long Valley SSSI

2.8km S • Diverse mosaic of heathland, woodland, mire, scrub and grassland.

• Supports rich flora and fauna Basingstoke Canal SSSI

2.5km S • Nationally important for aquatic plants and invertebrates.

West Minley Meadow SSSI

875m N • Wet, grazed acid grassland, now a rare habitat in the area.

Castle Bottom to Yateley and Hawley Commons SSSI

150m NW • Heathland and young conifer plantation. • Supports nightjar, woodlark and Dartford

warbler.

Castle Bottom NNR

3km NW • Valley bog with lowland heath

Elvetham Heath LNR

590m SW • Heath and wet woodland

Zebon Copse LNR 4.5km SW • Ancient woodland with rich flora and fauna

Non-statutory designated sites 2.1.4 Thirty-seven non-statutory designated sites of nature conservation value occur within 2km of the

site; refer to Figure 3 and Appendix 5; these comprise 36 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) and one Road Verge of Ecological Importance (RVEI). Brook House Meadow SINC is located within the site boundary, and has been designated for its agriculturally unimproved grassland. The following sites are located adjacent to the site boundary:

• Torbridge Copse SINC (ancient semi-natural woodland); • Minley Wood South SINC (heathland); • Mallards Copse SINC (ancient semi-natural woodland); • Foxlease Meadow ‘G’ SINC (semi-improved grassland with significant element of

unimproved grassland); • B3013 Minley Road SINC (notified due to the presence of red-tipped cudweed).

2.2 Habitats within the site boundary 2.2.1 A detailed description of habitats within the site is provided below; refer also to Figure 4 and

accompanying target notes (TNs).

Ecological Baseline


Building 2.2.2 A number of buildings were located in the centre of the site. These included modern farm sheds

[TN 20] and stables [TN 32], constructed from breeze block walls with corrugated-steel roofing. There were also older farm buildings and stables [TN 21], which had brick walls with wooden cladding, and pitched, tiled roofs. Two large brick properties with pitched, tiled roofs were recorded [TN 33 and 35].

Dense scrub 2.2.3 Small patches of dense bramble scrub were recorded to the east where woodland had been

cleared under powerlines.

Dry ditch 2.2.4 There were several dry ditches recorded throughout the site. These had no or minimal marginal

vegetation.

Earth bank 2.2.5 An earth bank ran the full length of the northern boundary [TN 1]. This was predominantly

vegetated with rhododendron.

Hardstanding 2.2.6 Hardstanding was located around the buildings. This included car parking areas; yards for farm

vehicles; a court yard; an old tennis court; and an artificially-surfaced horse-riding paddock.

Hedgerow (species-poor) 2.2.7 A species-poor non-native hedge was identified in the centre of the site [TN 29]. A defunct species-

poor hedgerow was recorded in the south east of the site. This had grown out at some locations and was now a line of mature oak and horse chestnut [TN 45].

Hedgerow (species-rich) 2.2.8 Two species-rich hedgerows with trees were recorded in the east of the site. These both had

associated dry ditches. Woody species included oak, hawthorn, willow, silver birch, beech and alder. Hedgerow is a Priority Habitat

Introduced scrub 2.2.9 There were large areas of rhododendron recorded on the site, mostly in the understorey of the

woodland to the north [TN 2, 4 and 42], some of this had been cleared [TN3] but large areas still remained. Laburnum was also found in the north of the site [TN 4]. An area of dense laurel was recorded in the centre of the site [TN 34].

Marshy grassland 2.2.10 An area to the west of the site was recorded as marshy grassland; refer to area north of [TN17).

Species recorded here included frequent Yorkshire fog, lesser pond sedge, meadowsweet, common valerian, rough hair-grass, sharp-flowered rush, gypsywort, water mint, meadow vetchling and common fleabane. This area is designated as Brook House Meadow SINC.

2.2.11 A second area in the west of the site contained frequent soft rush, sharp-flowered rush, lesser spearwort, glaucous sedge, Yorkshire fog and greater bird’s-foot trefoil; refer to [TN27]. Marsh thistle, cuckooflower and sweet vernal-grass were found occasionally.

Ecological Baseline


Mixed semi-natural woodland 2.2.12 This habitat was recorded in the west of the site. The canopy comprised oak, birch, poplar sp.,

Scot’s pine, horse chestnut, willow sp. and spruce sp. The understorey was very open but contained occasional hazel, beech, oak, willow, hawthorn and holly. Ground flora comprised locally abundant nettle and creeping soft-grass. Early dog-violet, honeysuckle, soft rush, tufted hair-grass, meadowsweet, lady fern and common valerian were locally frequent.

Plantation broadleaved woodland 2.2.13 Plantation broadleaved woodland was identified in the north of the site [TN 7]. The trees here

were predominantly beech and were estimated to be less than 30 years old. An old orchard was recorded in the centre of the site [TN 23]. The ground flora contained nettle, Yorkshire fog and perennial rye-grass and comprised species-poor semi-improved grassland. Traditional orchard is a Priority Habitat.

Plantation coniferous woodland 2.2.14 A small area of this habitat was recorded in the centre of the site. It contained no understorey and

infrequent ground flora, including cleavers, creeping soft-grass, nettle and foxglove.

Plantation mixed woodland 2.2.15 A strip of plantation mixed woodland ran along the southern boundary [TN 46]. The canopy

contained conifer sp., sycamore, birch sp., larch, beech, field maple and Norway maple. There was a very sparse understorey of hazel and rhododendron. Ground flora included bramble, nettle, sycamore saplings and violet sp.

Poor semi-improved grassland 2.2.16 Poor semi-improved grassland was the dominant habitat within the site. Species recorded

included perennial rye-grass, Yorkshire fog, meadow foxtail, red clover, common mouse-ear, creeping buttercup, field woodrush, sweet vernal-grass and common sorrel. The fields were horse-grazed and many contained scattered mature broadleaved trees.

Running water 2.2.17 A shallow, 1m wide, slow-flowing stream ran east to west across the centre of the site. Some

marginal vegetation was present including nettle, bramble and hemlock water dropwort. A second, similar-sized stream [TN 5] joined this stream from the north east.

Scattered broadleaved trees 2.2.18 A large number of mature broadleaved trees (predominantly oak) were scattered throughout the

fields, particularly in the south west of the site.

Scattered coniferous trees 2.2.19 Two mature conifers were recorded in the south-west fields. There was also a line of planted

conifers in the centre of the site.

Semi-natural broadleaved woodland 2.2.20 There were significant areas of this habitat within the site. The woodland to the north was

dominated by silver birch, with ash, elder, alder, conifer sp., oak, horse chestnut and beech. The understorey contained holly, hazel, beech, field maple and rhododendron. There was a sparse understorey due to the rhododendron, but rough meadow-grass and bugle were recorded.

Ecological Baseline


2.2.21 A small area of woodland was identified in the south east of the site. The canopy here contained horse chestnut, alder, willow sp., and oak. The ground flora was dominated by nettle.

2.2.22 A thin strip of semi-natural broadleaved woodland followed the stream in the centre of the site [TN 15]. The canopy here contained mature oak with holly, hawthorn, alder and sycamore. The ground flora included bramble, wood sage, honeysuckle and creeping soft-grass.

2.2.23 Another thin strip in the centre of the site followed the course of a dry ditch. Canopy species here included a very large mature oak, beech, conifer sp., sycamore, horse chestnut and birch. The understorey contained rhododendron, cotoneaster sp., hazel, rowan, holly, hawthorn and elder. Ground flora included bluebell, nettle, remote sedge, creeping soft-grass, common figwort, greater stitchwort, bracken and rough meadow-grass.

2.2.24 An area of semi-natural broadleaved woodland was located to west side of the buildings. This had a mature canopy of oak, conifer sp., sycamore, beech, cherry, alder and birch. The understorey contained laurel, hazel, elder and holly. Ground flora included ivy, bramble, creeping soft-grass, rough meadow-grass, bracken, honeysuckle, remote sedge, wood sorrel, bugle and herb Robert. A small amount of planting had occurred here in the past (over 30 years ago), including Norway maple, lime and birch.

2.2.25 Semi-natural broadleaved woodland, with a beech-dominated canopy, was also present along the western edge of the site. Also present were oak, birch, holly, conifer sp. and lime. The sparse understorey contained birch and rhododendron; ground flora was limited and contained early dog-violet, purple moor-grass, soft rush, greater stitchwort, honeysuckle, creeping soft-grass and bramble.

2.2.26 Lowland mixed deciduous woodland is a Priority Habitat

Spoil 2.2.27 A small spoil heap was identified to the south of the site.

Standing water 2.2.28 Two ponds were recorded in the centre of the site [TN 31 & 36]. These contained minimal marginal

vegetation with occasional yellow flag iris. Standing water is a Priority Habitat.

Tall ruderal 2.2.29 Areas of tall ruderal were located throughout the site. These habitats were dominated by species

such as nettle, hemlock water dropwort.

Wet ditch 2.2.30 Several wet ditches were recorded through the site. Species included soft rush, pendulous sedge,

hemlock water dropwort and tufted hair-grass.

2.3 Surrounding habitats 2.3.1 A combination of agricultural fields, coniferous plantation woodland, grassland and semi-natural

broadleaved woodland were present to the north and east of the site. A road (B3013/Minley Rd), runs along the western boundary with semi-natural broadleaved woodland and agricultural land beyond. The M3 was located to the south of the site. Numerous designated sites occur either adjacent or in close proximity to the site; refer to Figure 3 and Table 2.1.

Ecological Baseline


2.4 Protected and notable species Plants Desk Study 2.4.1 Numerous notable plant species have been recorded within the 2km study area:

• Red-tipped cudweed (protected under Schedule 8 of the WCA (1981), a Priority Species and Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan (HBAP) species);

• Cornflower, chamomile and pale dog violet (Priority Species and HBAP species); • Annual knawel, marsh stitchwort, small-flowered sticky eyebright, tubular water

dropwort, yellow bird’s-nest and bird’s-nest (all Priority Species); • Six-stamened waterwort, green-flowered helleborine, wall bedstraw, heath cudweed and

annual beard-grass (all HBAP species); • Marsh clubmoss (Priority Species, Nationally Scarce and HBAP species); • Pillwort (Priority Species, Nationally Scarce, HBAP species and IUCN (2014) Vulnerable); • Rusty fork-moss (Priority Species, Nationally Scarce and IUCN (2014) Vulnerable); • 8 species of flowering plant which are Nationally Scarce; • 44 species of flowering plant which are IUCN (2014) Near Threatened and; • 29 species of flowering plant which are IUCN (2014) Vulnerable.

Site survey 2.4.2 Bluebell (protected under Schedule 8 of the WCA (1981)), primrose and wood anemone were all

recorded on site.

Invasive plant species Desk study

2.4.3 There were numerous records of invasive plant species within the study area including:

• Curly waterweed; • False-acacia; • Few-flowered garlic; • Hollyberry cotoneaster; • Himalayan balsam; • Japanese knotweed; • Japanese rose; • Montbretia; • New Zealand pigmyweed; • Rhododendron; • Shallon • Variegated yellow archangel; • Virginia creeper; and • Yellow azalea.

2.4.4 All of these species are listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981 (as amended), making it an offence to plant or otherwise cause these species to grow in the wild.

Ecological Baseline


Site survey 2.4.5 Rhododendron was recorded within the woodland areas; whilst it dominated the understorey of

some areas, in other areas it had been cleared and was starting to regenerate. Cotoneaster sp., laurel and variegated yellow archangel were also found to be present on site.

Invertebrates Desk Study 2.4.6 The following invertebrate species have been recorded within the study area:

• Stag beetle (Priority Species, Nationally Scarce and HBAP species); • 27 species of moth that are Priority Species; • White admiral butterfly (Priority Species and IUCN (2001) Vulnerable); • Silver-studded blue (Priority Species, IUCN (2001) Vulnerable and HBAP species); • Glanville fritillary (Priority Species); • Purple emperor and chalk hill blue (IUCN (2001) Near Threatened and HBAP species); • Silver-washed fritillary (HBAP species); • Orange footman, broad-bordered bee hawk-moth and buttoned snout moths (HBAP

species); • Downy emerald and keeled skimmer dragonflies (HBAP species); • Small red damselfly and white-legged damselfly (HBAP species); • Hoverfly Psilota anthracina (HBAP species); • Red wood ant (HBAP species); • 20 invertebrate species that are Nationally Scarce; • Small heath (IUCN (2001) Near Threatened); and • Dingy skipper and grayling butterflies and brilliant emerald dragonfly (IUCN (2001)

Vulnerable).

Site survey 2.4.7 The habitats within the site are likely to support a variety of common and widespread invertebrate

species. No notable invertebrate species were recorded on site, but the presence of notable species was considered possible. Notable moths could occur within the site, where grassland, woodland and hedgerows provide suitable host and food plants. Beautiful demoiselle damselfly could also be present within the ponds, wet ditches, stream and riparian vegetation. Dead wood piles could be suitable for stag beetles.

Amphibians Desk Study 2.4.8 Common toad (a Priority Species) has been recorded within the study area. All amphibians are

legally protected to varying degrees; refer to Appendix 1. Great crested newt receives full legal protection and is also a Priority Species.

Site survey 2.4.9 The pond, wet ditches and terrestrial habitats within the site were considered likely to support a

range of amphibian species, potentially including great crested newt.

Ecological Baseline


Reptiles Desk Study 2.4.10 Grass snake, adder, common lizard and slow worm (legally protected, Priority Species) have all

been recorded within the study area.

Site survey 2.4.11 Suitable habitat for reptiles occurred along the hedgerows, field margins, areas of tall ruderal, the

woodland edge and round the buildings and stables, as well as along the pond and watercourse margins.

Birds Desk Study 2.4.12 Notable bird species recorded in the study area are listed in Table 2.2. All breeding birds, their

nests, eggs and young are legally protected; species listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) receive additional protection; refer to Appendix 1.

Table 2.2. Notable bird records from the 2km study area Species BoCC4 status1 Priority Species Hampshire BAP

Priority Species WCA Schedule 1

Arctic skua Red Priority Arctic tern Amber Avocet Amber Barn owl Sch 1 Barnacle goose Amber Bar-tailed godwit Amber Black-headed gull Amber Black-necked grebe Amber HBAP Sch 1 Black redstart Red Sch 1 Black-tailed godwit Red Priority HBAP Sch 1 Black tern Sch 1 Brambling Sch 1 Brent goose Amber Priority HBAP Bullfinch Amber Priority HBAP Cetti’s warbler HBAP Sch 1 Common scoter Red Priority HBAP Sch 1 Common tern Amber Crane Amber Crossbill Sch 1 Cuckoo Red Priority Curlew Red Priority Dartford warbler Amber HBAP Sch 1 Dotterel Red Sch 1 Dunlin Amber HBAP Fieldfare Red Sch 1 Firecrest HBAP Sch 1

Ecological Baseline




Gadwall Amber HBAP Garganey Amber Sch 1 Golden plover HBAP Goosander HBAP Goshawk Sch 1 Grasshopper warbler Red Priority HBAP Great black-backed gull Amber Green sandpiper Amber Sch 1 Greenshank Amber Sch 1 Grey partridge Red Priority HBAP Grey plover Amber HBAP Grey wagtail Red Hen harrier Red HBAP Sch 1 Herring gull Red Priority Hobby HBAP Sch 1 Honey buzzard Amber HBAP Sch 1 House sparrow Red Priority Kingfisher Amber Sch 1 Kittiwake Red Lapwing Red Priority HBAP Lesser redpoll Red Priority Lesser spotted woodpecker Red Priority HBAP Linnet Red Priority HBAP Little bittern Sch 1 Little egret HBAP Little gull Sch 1 Little ringed plover Amber Sch 1 Marsh harrier Amber Sch 1 Marsh tit Red Priority Mealy redpoll Amber Mediterranean gull Amber HBAP Sch 1 Merlin Amber HBAP Mistle thrush Red Nightingale Red HBAP Nightjar Amber Priority HBAP Osprey Amber Sch 1 Oystercatcher Amber Peregrine Sch 1 Pied flycatcher Red Pochard Red HBAP

Ecological Baseline




Red kite HBAP Sch 1 Red-backed shrike Red Priority Sch 1 Redshank Amber HBAP Redstart Amber Red-throated diver Sch 1 Redwing Red Sch 1 Reed bunting Amber Priority HBAP Reed warbler HBAP Ring ouzel Red Priority Ringed plover Red Ruff Red Sch 1 Sanderling Amber HBAP Sandwich tern Amber Scaup Red Priority Sch 1 Short-eared owl Amber Shoveler Amber Skylark Red Priority HBAP Snipe Amber HBAP Song thrush Red Priority HBAP Spoonbill Amber Sch 1 Spotted flycatcher Red Priority HBAP Starling Red Priority Temminck’s stint Red Sch 1 Tree pipit Red Priority Tree sparrow Red Priority HBAP Turnstone Amber HBAP Turtle dove Red Priority HBAP Water pipit Amber Whimbrel Red Sch 1 Whinchat Red HBAP White-fronted goose Red Priority HBAP Whooper swan Amber Sch 1 Woodcock Red Woodlark Priority HBAP Sch 1 Wood warbler Red Priority Yellow wagtail Red Priority HBAP Yellowhammer Red Priority

Ecological Baseline


Site survey 2.4.13 The habitats within the site provided suitable nesting and foraging habitat for a range of bird

species, potentially including notable species; starling was recorded on site. Key breeding and foraging habitats were hedgerows, scrub and woodland; there is also potential breeding habitat for barn owl in some of the buildings and stables. Marshy grassland and poor semi-improved grassland were also likely to provide foraging habitat.

Hazel dormouse Desk Study 2.4.14 There are no records of hazel dormouse (legally protected and Priority Species) within the 2km

study area.

Site survey 2.4.15 The hedgerows and woodland could provide potential habitat for hazel dormouse. Not all of these

habitats were suitable, however, due to the defunct nature of many of the hedgerows and the lack of understorey in parts of the woodland areas.

Badger Desk Study 2.4.16 There is one record of badger within the 2km study area.

Site survey 2.4.17 Mammal tracks and disused badger setts were recorded on site. Grassland, woodland and scrub

were considered to provide foraging areas for badger. Badger setts may occur within areas of woodland and scrub, and along field boundaries.

Bats Desk Study 2.4.18 Pipistrelle bat species have been recorded previously on site. Serotine, noctule, soprano

pipistrelle, pipistrelle species and an unidentified species have been recorded within 100m of the site boundary. Bat records from within the wider 4km the study area include:

• Common pipistrelle, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, Daubenton’s, long-eared species, Myotis species, serotine, whiskered/Brandt’s, and Leisler’s (all are legally protected); and

• Brown long-eared, Noctule, barbastelle and soprano pipistrelle (all legally protected and Priority Species).

2.4.19 The closest bat roost record to site was located approximately 1320m to the south. This record is of a common pipistrelle roost, but the status and exact location of the roost is unknown.

Site survey 2.4.20 A number of mature trees and some of the buildings on site were considered as having potential

for roosting bats. The woodland, grassland, trees, hedgerows, pond and watercourse also provided suitable foraging and commuting habitat for bats.

Otter Desk Study 2.4.21 There are no records of otter (legally protected and Priority Species) within the 2km study area.

Ecological Baseline


Site survey 2.4.22 The stream running through the centre of the site provided potential habitat for otter.

Water vole Desk Study 2.4.23 There are three records of water vole (legally protected and Priority Species, HBAP species and

Species of County Interest) within the study area, all within Foxlease Meadows SSSI. The closest record is 625m east of the site boundary.

Site survey 2.4.24 The stream running through the centre of the site provided potential habitat for water vole.

Other mammals Desk Study 2.4.25 There are two records of harvest mouse (a Priority Species and HBAP species) within the 2km

study area and one record of hedgehog (a Priority species).

Site survey 2.4.26 The hedgerows, grassland and woodland within the site provided suitable habitat for hedgehog.

Conclusion


3 Conclusion on suitability for development

3.1 Summary 3.1.1 The proposed development comprises up to 500 new dwellings, a primary school, a community

building, and formal and informal Public Open Space. A SANG of approximately 14.61ha is also proposed.

3.1.2 There are no over-riding ecological constraints to the development of the site. Whilst the location of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA would restrict the location of residential development within the site, an appropriate residential-development buffer (400m from the SPA boundary) and a SANG could be achieved; refer to Section 3.2. Site development could, therefore, be undertaken in accordance with relevant national planning policy (e.g. paragraph 113 of the NPPF); regional planning policy NRM6; policies NE1, NE3 and I8 of the Draft Local Plan; and policy CON1 of the Adopted Local Plan. Development would also accord with the Thames Basin Heaths SPA Delivery Framework and the Thames Basin Heaths SPA Delivery Framework.

3.1.3 Other statutory and non-statutory designated sites within and immediately adjacent to the site would be protected; refer to Section 3.2. This would accord with paragraphs 113 and 118 of the NPPF, policy NE3 of the Draft Local Plan and policies CON2 and CON3 of the Adopted Local Plan.

3.1.4 Further surveys of habitats and species within the site would be undertaken; refer to Sections 3.3 and 3.4 to inform further the development layout and assessment of effects. It is considered that development could deliver biodiversity gain overall and could be undertaken in compliance with protected species legislation. This would accord with paragraphs 109, 117 and 118 of the NPPF; policy NE3 of the Draft Local Plan and Policies CON4, 5, 7 and 8 of the Adopted Local Plan.

3.2 Designated sites Thames Basin Heaths SPA (and associated SSSI) 3.2.1 The location of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA at 150m to the north-west of the site boundary is

the most significant ecological constraint on the development of the site. However, as set out in the Illustrative masterplan (Figure 2) and SANG Strategy Plan (Figure 5), this constraint could be overcome through the following:

1. No residential development within 400m of the site. 2. The provision of a 14.61ha of SANG, which would also provide additional strategic SANG

capacity2. The SANG could be delivered in accordance with the SANG design guidelines set out in the Interim Avoidance Strategy for the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. Importantly, a 2.3km walk could be delivered, with a number of supplementary walking routes also provided. Fencing and vegetation treatment of the western, northern and eastern boundaries of the SANG would prevent movement of people from the SANG into the SPA. It should be noted, however, that there is currently no formal access to the SPA within Yateley Heath Wood; refer to Figure 5.

2 The indicative number of units within the Illustrative Masterplan is 500. Based on a SANG requirement of 8ha per 1000 new residents and a 2.4 people per unit, the required SANG area for the development would be 9.6ha.

Conclusion


3. Contribution towards SAMM in accordance with the current SAMM tariff, as required by the Interim Avoidance Strategy for the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.

3.2.2 In addition to the consideration of recreational effects, a preliminary review of air quality effects of the proposed development has been undertaken (Mouchel, 2017). This review states that the proposed development would be ‘unlikely to contribute to additional NOx and nitrogen deposition’ within the SPA.

3.2.3 In light of the above, the proposed residential development would have no risk or probability of a likely significant effect on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. In accordance with its duties under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended), Hart District Council could document this conclusion in the Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Local Plan. Furthermore, Hart District Council could screen out the requirement for an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ when determining a future planning application for the site. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would be maintained under paragraph 119 of the NPPF.

Other designated sites 3.2.4 There is no formal public access to Foxlease and Ancells Meadows SSSI, located 105m to the north

and east of the site. Consequently, there would be no increase in recreation pressure on this designation.

3.2.5 Brook House Meadow SINC within the site could be retained within the development layout; refer to Figures 2 and 5. Development could also be undertaken without an adverse impact on other non-statutory sites adjacent to the site.

3.3 Habitats and species Habitats 3.3.1 Habitats of moderate to high importance within the site are broadleaved/mixed woodland,

hedgerows, marshy grassland, flowing water, standing water and mature broadleaved trees, including an orchard. Poor semi-improved grassland, built-form, coniferous woodland and tall ruderal habitats are likely to be of low importance.

3.3.2 The habitats of moderate to high importance could be protected within the site and new habitat created to enhance this ecological resource. Where loss was unavoidable, for example through the creation of a site infrastructure, replacement habitats could be created elsewhere within the development e.g. minor woodland/hedgerow loss could be mitigated through a replacement ratio of 2:1 (created: removed).

3.3.3 In addition to habitat protection, habitat creation and enhancement could be delivered, providing a net gain in habitats such as species-rich hedgerow, broadleaved woodland, wetlands (including ponds) and wildflower meadow. Furthermore, habitat creation could be delivered through an integrated approach with landscape, amenity and drainage proposals e.g. the proposed SANG, SuDS. This could increase the diversity of habitat types within the site and also reinforce the wildlife corridor network. Long-term management of all retained and proposed habitats, including the proposed SANG, could be achieved through a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan.

Species 3.3.4 The potential presence of the following protected/notable species could constrain development

of parts of the site:

• Invertebrates;

Conclusion


• Amphibians, including great crested newt; • Reptiles; • Breeding birds; • Dormouse; • Water vole; • Otter; • Bats; and • Badgers.

3.3.5 The presence of any legally protected or notable species would be taken into account during development design, planning and subsequent requirement for Natural England Mitigation Licences (where relevant). Mitigation and enhancement measures could be integrated with both the layout and construction programme to ensure species protection and legal compliance.

3.4 Proposed further survey, assessment and consultation Further surveys 3.4.1 The following ecological surveys would be undertaken to inform further the development layout

and assess the ecological effects of the proposals:

• Invertebrate survey; • Great crested newt survey; • Reptile survey; • Breeding bird survey; • Dormouse survey; • Water vole survey; • Otter survey; • Bat survey – activity and roost surveys; and • Badger survey.

Assessment and reporting 3.4.2 An Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) would be produced to support a future planning

application of the site. This would be undertaken in accordance with EcIA guidelines published by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM, 2016) and BS42020:2013 ‘Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development’. The EcIA would detail all desk study information and survey data, against which the effects of the development would be assessed. Mitigation measures, additional to those already integrated into the development layout, would also be documented into the EcIA. A summary of residual effects, including any cumulative effects with other development coming forward, would be documented. The EcIA would contain sufficient information for Hart District Council to screen out the requirement for an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ of the development proposals in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended).

Consultation 3.4.3 Consultation would be undertaken with Hart District Council and Natural England to agree the

scope of the proposed surveys and assessment. Mitigation measures would also be agreed. Consultation would be through written correspondence and meetings prior to the start of survey work and prior to the completion of all mitigation strategies.

References


4 References

BS 42020:2013 Biodiversity - Code of practice for planning and development.

Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2016). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland – Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal. CIEEM, Winchester.

Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. Department for Communities and Local Government, London.

Eaton MA, Aebischer NJ, Brown AF, Hearn RD, Lock L, Musgrove AJ, Noble DG, Stroud DA and Gregory RD (2015) Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108, 708–746.

Hart District Council (2010). Interim Avoidance Strategy for the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

Hart District Council (2017). Draft Hart Local Plan – Strategy and Sites. Regulations 18 Consultation.

Hart District Council (2009). Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 and First Alterations to the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006. Saved Policies

JNCC (2010). Handbook for Phase-1 Habitat Survey: a technique for environmental audit. JNCC, Peterborough.

Mouchel (2017). Brook House, Fleet. Air Quality Topic Paper.

Stace CA (2010) New Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press.

Figure 1: Site location plan

Figure 2: Illustrative Masterplan

Figure 3: Designated sites of nature conservation value

Details of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) within the search area (data provided by HBIC):

Map Label Status

SINC Ref SINC Name

Central Grid Ref.

SINC Criteria

Species supported that meet Section 6 of SINC Selection Criteria

Area (ha)

1 SINC HA0162 Elvetham Old Rectory Hedgerow SU79195638 6A Apera spica-venti (Loose Silky-Bent) [RDB] 0.27

2 SINC HA0166 Word Hill Farm Arable Field Margins 2 SU79275689 6A Apera spica-venti (Loose Silky-Bent) [CR] Bromus secalinus (Rye Brome) [NR] 1.02

3 SINC HA0170 Word Hill Farm Arable Field Margins 3 SU79425681 6A Apera spica-venti (Loose Silky-Bent) [CR] 0.50 4 SINC HA0178 Turner's Green Farm Arable Field Margins SU79635633 6A Apera spica-venti (Loose Silky-Bent) [CR] 2.44 5 SINC HA0181 Word Hill Farm Arable Field Margins 1 SU79945664 6A Apera spica-venti (Loose Silky-Bent) [CR] 1.02 6 SINC HA0185 Elvetham Heath SU80405573 3A/3Bi/6A Carex rostrata (Bottle Sedge) [nHS]

Cuscuta epithymum (Dodder) [RDB] Filago vulgaris (Common Cudweed) [RDB] Gnaphalium sylvaticum (Heath Cudweed) [RDB] Myrica gale (Bog Myrtle) [nHS] 20.67

7 SINC HA0195 Tobridge Copse SU81105650 1A 2.64 8 SINC HA0198 B3013 Minley Road SU81265632 6A Filago lutescens (Red-Tipped Cudweed) [s41] 0.43 9 SINC HA0201 Brook House Meadow SU81305653 2A 0.58 10 SINC HA0203 Oakley Wood SU81565420 1Cii/1D/6A

/7A Spirodela polyrhiza (Greater Duckweed) [CR] Utricularia australis (Greater Bladderwort) [NS] 3.07

11 SINC HA0208 Minley Wood South SU81705700 3A/3Bi 20.66 12 SINC HA0255 Brookly Wood SU81805470 1Cii 1.93 13 SINC HA0211 Foxlease Meadow 1 SU81905720 5B 1.32 14 SINC HA0216 Mallards Copse SU82305670 1A 3.75 15 SINC HA0217 Foxlease Meadow 3 SU82305690 2B/6A Hottonia palustris (Water-Violet) [CR]

Myrica gale (Bog Myrtle) [nHS] 1.46 16 SINC HA0274 Foxlease Meadow 'G' SU82605670 2A/2B 1.64 17 SINC HA0222 Foxlease Meadow 2 SU82605720 5B 4.49 18 SINC HA0224 Ancels Copse SU82655630 1A 4.39 19 SINC HA0225 Sankey Lane Meadow SU82675550 2A/6A Hydrocotyle vulgaris (Marsh Pennywort) [RDB]

Lychnis flos-cuculi (Ragged-Robin) [RDB] Potentilla erecta (Tormentil) [RDB] Ranunculus flammula (Lesser Spearwort) [RDB] 1.32

Map Label Status

SINC Ref SINC Name

Central Grid Ref.

SINC Criteria

Species supported that meet Section 6 of SINC Selection Criteria

Area (ha)

20 SINC HA0227 Fleet Pond Woods (East) SU82705530 3A/3Bi 9.39 21 SINC HA0228 Foxlease Meadow 5 SU82805670 2A/5B/6A Carex rostrata (Bottle Sedge) [nHS]

Carex vesicaria (Bladder-Sedge) [CS] Potentilla anglica (Trailing Tormentil) [nHS] 1.99

22 SINC HA0229 Foxlease Meadow 4 SU82805680 2A/2B/5B/6A

Potentilla anglica (Trailing Tormentil) [nHS] 3.02

23 SINC HA0230 Foxlease Meadow 6 SU82905660 2A/5B/6A Carex rostrata (Bottle Sedge) [CS] Carex vesicaria (Bladder-Sedge) [CS] Potentilla anglica (Trailing Tormentil) [CS] 1.70

24 SINC HA0275 Foxlease Meadow 84 SU82905735 5B/6A Carex vesicaria (Bladder-Sedge) [RDB] 1.98 25 SINC HA0231 Foxlease Watch Field SU82925613 5B 4.34 26 SINC HA0232 Pyestock Hill/Pondtail Heath SU83005400 3A/3Bi/6A Carex vesicaria (Bladder-Sedge) [CS]

Eleocharis multicaulis (Many-Stalked Spike-Rush) [nHS] Myrica gale (Bog Myrtle) [nHS] 64.79

27 SINC HA0233 Foxlease Meadows (field 10) SU83205613 2B 1.49 28 SINC HA0234 Bramshot Copse SU83305640 1A 2.67 29 SINC HA0235 Foxlease Meadow 8 SU83305660 2A/2B/5B/

6A Carex vesicaria (Bladder-Sedge) [CS]

2.96 30 SINC HA0238 Bramshot Common SU83405530 3A/3Bii 30.40 31 SINC HA0240 Pyestock (North Grasslands) SU83435457 2A/6A Moenchia erecta (Upright Chickweed) [nHS] 5.06 32 SINC HA0241 Foxlease Meadows, Field 11 (T) SU83455641 6A Carex vesicaria (Bladder-Sedge) [CS] 3.73 33 SINC HA0242 Foxlease Meadow 7 SU83505695 2B/5B 1.69 34 SINC HA0245 Whitehouse Farm Meadow SU83805630 2B 0.78 35 SINC HA0248 Hawley Common SU83905740 3A/3Bi/5A/

6A Lycopodiella inundata (Marsh Clubmoss) [NR]

57.16 36 SINC RU0040 M3 Junction 4A Meadow SU83995673 2B 1.89

Figure 4: Phase 1 habitat plan, target notes and photographs

Target notes

1 Earth bank with rhododendron marks the northern site boundary. Several small holes (likely rabbit) and some mammal runs.

2 Rhododendron dominant in the understorey.

]

Target notes

3 Small area cleared of rhododendron.

4 Introduced shrub consisting of shrubs such as rhododendron and laburnum.

Target notes

5 Shallow (approximately 20cm deep), slow-flowing stream approximately 1m wide.

6 Semi-mature oak with several broken limbs. Low to moderate bat potential.

Target notes

7 Relatively young, planted broadleaved woodland dominated by beech. Evidence of planting in the form of tree guards, but trees now well-established.

8 The rhododendron understorey has been cleared in this section of semi-natural broadleaved

woodland (south and east of the dry ditch).

Target notes

9 Dry ditch approximately 1m wide.

10 Young broad-leaved trees planted, still in tree guards.

Target notes

11 Power lines with a 10m cleared buffer either side comprising bramble scrub, saplings, dead bracken and purple moor-grass tussocks.

12 Wet ditch approximately 2m wide with emergent vegetation.

Target notes

13 Slow-flowing stream with overhanging vegetation (nettle, ferns, bramble and hemlock water-dropwort). Potential for otter and water vole.

14 Oak with moderate bat potential.

15 Thin strip of semi-natural broadleaved woodland adjacent to the stream, with some mature oaks with bat potential.

Target notes

16 Mature oak with holes, cracks and broken limbs – moderate bat potential.

17 Wet ditch with floating sweet-grass and pondweed sp. Great crested newt potential.

Target notes

18 Wet ditch with marginal vegetation, including soft-rush, tufted hair-grass, bramble and lady fern. Great-crested newt potential.

19 Dry ditch – no marginal vegetation.

Target notes

20 Farm sheds constructed of breeze block and corrugated steel – negligible to low bat potential, possible barn owl and swallow potential.

21 Older barn/stables – moderate to high bat and barn owl potential.

Target notes

Target notes

22 Species-poor semi-improved grassland (not grazed) with some allotment beds and a patch of tall ruderal. Good reptile potential.

Target notes

23 Old orchard (Priority Habitat) with species-poor semi-improved grassland.

24 Species-poor semi-improved grassland, sheep-grazed, with a large horse chestnut (low bat

potential).

Target notes

25 Wet ditch approximately 1m wide, likely to frequently dry up. Bordered by scattered trees (alder).

26 Mature dead oak with low to moderate bat potential.

Target notes

27 Area of marshy grassland – currently fenced from horses.

28 Wet ditch with soft-rush, sharp-flowered rush and yellow flag-iris. Some great-crested newt

potential, but very shallow and muddy – may dry out.

Target notes

29 Species-poor non-native hedge (leylandii). Contained mature oak with moderate bat-roost potential.

30 Variegated yellow archangel (Schedule 9 species).

Target notes

31 Pond with minimal marginal vegetation. Shaded, but likely to dry out in summer. Low great crested newt potential. Surrounding wooded remnant, canopy of horse chestnut, with hazel and holly understory. Ground flora contains bluebell, pignut, primrose and wood anemone.

32 Stables with negligible to low bat potential. Scrap piles, dung pile, tall ruderal and scattered scrub round the edges – good reptile potential.

Target notes

33 Old brick building with high bat potential.

34 Dense laurel.

Target notes

35 Old house and gardens (walled) – no access. Moderate to high bat potential.

36 Larger pond with brick edges, open water and minimal marginal vegetation (yellow flag iris).

Water fowl (mallard) present. Low great-crested newt potential.

Target notes

37 “The Lodge” – private residence with garden, no access. Moderate to high bat potential.

38 Small area of non-grazed, species-poor semi-improved grassland.

Target notes

39 Wet ditch approximately 1m wide. Likely to frequently dry out.

40 Wet ditch approximately 2m wide bordered by pendulous sedge.

Target notes

41 Disused badger hole on edge of dry ditch – single outlier.

42 Rhododendron in the understorey.

Target notes

43 2 (possibly more) disused badger holes – outlier sett in sycamore stand.

44 Damp semi-improved grassland.

Target notes

45 Defunct hedge-line – now line of mature horse chestnut and oak, some with moderate to high bat potential.

46 Mixed plantation woodland – sound barrier from motorway. Very little understorey and

ground flora. Occasional mature oak tree with bat potential.

47 Earth bank with tall ruderal.

Figure 5. Indicative SANG Strategy Plan

Appendix 1: Relevant wildlife legislation

Wildlife legislation

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) These Regulations, also referred to as the ‘Habitats Regulations’, implement the EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna (92/43/EEC) and the EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC). The Regulations provide for the designation and protection of ‘European Sites’ (Natura 2000 sites). They convey a statutory requirement for local planning authorities to undertake a ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment’ of the potential impacts of plans and projects, including development proposals, on European Sites. The provisions also include protection of ‘European Protected Species’ (EPS). Under the Regulations, local planning authorities have to consider three ‘derogation tests’ when deciding whether to grant permission for a development that affects an EPS, which are as follows:

• the development must be for over-riding public interest or for public health and safety; • there are no satisfactory alternatives to the proposed development; and • the favourable conservation status of the EPS concerned must be maintained.

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) This Act is the principal wildlife legislation in Great Britain. It includes provisions for important habitats to be designated and protected as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Numerous plant and animal species, and the places that they use for shelter and protection, are also protected under the Act, including all birds, their nests and eggs.

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 Referred to as the CROW Act, this legislation increases the protection of SSSIs and strengthens wildlife enforcement action. The Act also strengthens the protection of protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) through the introduction of a new offence of ‘reckless disturbance’.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 This Act places a duty on all public bodies and statutory undertakers to have due regard to the conservation of biodiversity in all their functions. It also requires the publication of a list of habitats and species of principal importance for the conservation of the biodiversity. This list, known as the Section 41 list, includes all Priority Habitats and Species of Principal Importance for the Conservation of Biodiversity in England.

Protection of Badgers Act 1992 This Act was introduced primarily for animal welfare reasons, as opposed to species conservation. It provides protection of badgers and their setts.

Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (as amended) These Regulations include provisions for the protection of hedgerows and make it an offence to remove ‘important’ hedgerows without consent from the local planning authority. Where planning permission is granted for a development proposal, the removal of ‘important’ hedgerows is deemed to be permitted.

1 Invertebrates A number of UK invertebrates are protected by international and national legislation, including the EC Habitats Directive (1992) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). In addition, many are Species of Principal Importance for Conservation in England (Priority Species).

2 Plants All wild plants are protected against unauthorised removal or uprooting under Section 13 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Plants listed on Schedule 8 of the Act (e.g. stinking goosefoot, red helleborine, monkey orchid) are afforded additional protection against picking, uprooting, destruction and sale. Bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta) is protected against sale only. Further species are also protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species 2010.

Notable plant species include those that are listed as:

• Nationally vulnerable – A taxon is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A-E for Vulnerable, and is therefore considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild (Cheffings C M & Farrell L (Eds) (2005) Species Status No. 7 – The Vascular Red Data List for Britain, JNCC (online)

• Nationally scarce – species recorded in 16-100 hectads in Great Britain • Nationally rare – species occurring in 15 or fewer hectads in Great Britain

Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) prohibits the planting of certain invasive plant species in the wild, or otherwise causing them to grow there. Prohibited plants are listed on Part 2 of Schedule 9 and include Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed.

3 Amphibians There are seven native amphibian species present in Britain. These are afforded varying degrees of protection under national and European legislation. Great crested newts and their habitat are afforded full protection under UK and European legislation, including the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species 2010. Together, this legislation makes it illegal to:

• Deliberately or intentionally capture, kill or injure a great crested newt. • Damage or destroy any place used for shelter or protection, including resting or breeding places;

or intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to such a place. • Deliberately, intentionally or recklessly disturb great crested newts.

Great crested newt and common toad are Priority Species.

4 Reptiles Slow-worm, viviparous/common lizard, adder and grass snake are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) against intentional killing and injuring. These species are also Priority Species.

5 Birds The bird breeding season generally lasts from March to early September for most species. All birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended) and the Countryside & Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000. This legislation makes it illegal, both intentionally and recklessly, to:

• kill, injure or take any wild bird; • take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is being built or in use; • take or destroy the eggs of any wild bird

Furthermore, birds listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) are protected against intentional or reckless disturbance whilst nest building and when at or near a nest containing eggs or young. Dependent young of Schedule 1 species are also protected against disturbance.

In addition to this legal protection, the leading governmental and non-governmental conservation organisations in the UK have reviewed the population status of the birds regularly found here and produced a list of birds of conservation concern. Of the 246 species assessed, 52 were placed on the Red List of high conservation concern, 126 on the Amber List of medium conservation concern and 68 on the Green List of low conservation concern:

Red list species are those that are Globally Threatened according to IUCN criteria; those whose population or range has declined rapidly in recent years; and those that have declined historically and not shown a substantial recent recovery.

Amber list species are those with an unfavourable conservation status in Europe; those whose population or range has declined moderately in recent years; and those with internationally important or localised populations.

A number of birds are also Priority Species.

6 Badgers Badger (Meles meles) is a widespread and common species. However, they are legally protected under The Protection of Badgers Act 1992, due to animal welfare concerns. Under this legislation it is illegal to:

• Wilfully kill, injure, take, or cruelly ill-treat a badger, or attempt to do so • Intentionally or recklessly interfere with a sett by disturbing badgers whilst they are occupying a

sett, damaging or destroying a sett, or obstructing access to it.

A badger sett is defined in the legislation as “any structure or place, which displays signs indicating current use by a badger”.

7 Bats There are 17 species of bats found in the UK. The UK conservation status of these species is summarised in the table below:

Common name Scientific name UK conservation status

Priority Species

Greater horseshoe Rhinolophus ferrumequinum

Endangered Yes

Lesser horseshoe Rhinolophus hipposideros Endangered Yes Daubenton’s Myotis daubentonii Not threatened No Brandt’s Myotis brandtii Endangered No Whiskered Myotis mystacinus Endangered No Natterer’s Myotis nattereri Not threatened No Bechstein’s Myotis bechsteinii Rare Yes Greater mouse-eared

Myotis myotis Status unknown No

Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus Not threatened No Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus Not threatened Yes

Common name Scientific name UK conservation status

Priority Species

Nathusius’s pipistrelle

Pipistrellus nathusii Rare No

Serotine Eptesicus serotinus Vulnerable No Noctule Nyctalus noctula Vulnerable Yes Leisler’s Nyctalus leisleri Vulnerable No Barbastelle Barbastella barabastellus Rare Yes Brown long-eared Plecotus auritus Not threatened Yes Grey long-eared Plecotus austriacus Rare No

All bat species are afforded full protection under UK and European legislation, including the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species 2010. Together, this legislation makes it illegal to:

• Deliberately or intentionally capture, kill or injure a bat. • Damage or destroy a bat roost; or intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to bat roosts. • Deliberately, intentionally or recklessly disturb bats.

A bat roost is defined in the legislation as “any structure or place which a bat uses for shelter or protection”. Roosts are protected whether or not bats are present at the time.

8 Otter Otters (Lutra lutra) are fully protected under UK and European legislation, including the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). Together, this legislation makes it illegal to:

• Deliberately capture, injure or kill an otter • Damage or destroy any structure or place used for shelter or protection by an otter; or

intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to such a place. • Deliberately, intentionally or recklessly disturb an otter whilst it is occupying a structure or place

which it uses for shelter or protection

Otter is listed as a Priority Species.

9 Water vole Water vole are afforded full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), which make it illegal to:

• Kill, injure or take a water vole. • intentionally or recklessly destroy, damage or obstruct access to any structure or place that is used

by a water vole for shelter or protection. • intentionally or recklessly disturb a water vole whilst it is in a place used for shelter or protection.

Water vole is also a Priority Species.

10 Common/Hazel dormouse The common dormouse is fully protected under UK and European legislation, including the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 and the

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). Together, this legislation makes it illegal to:

• Deliberately capture, injure or kill a dormouse. • Damage or destroy any structure or place used for shelter or protection by a dormouse; or

intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to such a place. • Deliberately, intentionally or recklessly disturb a dormouse whilst it is occupying a structure or

place which it uses for shelter or protection.

The dormouse is a Priority Species.

Appendix 2: Relevant national, regional and local

biodiversity planning policies

National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) includes the Government’s policy on the protection of biodiversity through the planning system. Local plan policies and planning decisions should seek to minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible. Planning policies should promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations (e.g. Habitats and Species of Principal Importance) linked to national and local targets.

“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;

• proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;

• development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted;

• opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged; • planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of

irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.”

The NPPF establishes the need to identify a hierarchy of international, national and local wildlife sites through planning policy. However, it does not specifically address policy in relation to the protection of European Sites (such as Special Areas of Conservation) as these are dealt with separately through the process of Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended).

Planning Practice Guidance associated with the NPPF provides guidance on the practical implementation of the NPPF. The majority of the guidance relating to Ecology and Nature Conservation is set out in ‘Planning Practice Guidance relating to the Natural Environment: Biodiversity, Ecosystem and Green Infrastructure’ (DCLG, 2014).

Regional Planning Policy

POLICY NRM6: THAMES BASIN HEATHS SPECIAL PROTECTION AREA

New residential development which is likely to have a significant effect on the ecological integrity of Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) will be required to demonstrate that adequate measures are put in place to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects. Such measures must be agreed with Natural England. Priority should be given to directing development to those areas where potential adverse effects can be avoided without the need for mitigation measures. Where mitigation measures are required, local planning authorities, as Competent Authorities, should work in partnership to set out clearly and deliver a consistent approach to mitigation, based on the following principles:

i. a zone of influence set at 5km linear distance from the SPA boundary will be established where measures must be taken to ensure that the integrity of the SPA is protected;

ii. within this zone of influence, there will be a 400m “exclusion zone” where mitigation measures are unlikely to be capable of protecting the integrity of the SPA. In exceptional circumstances, this may vary with the provision of evidence that demonstrates the extent of the area within which it is considered that mitigation measures will be capable of protecting the integrity of the SPA. These small locally determined zones will be set out in local development frameworks (LDFs) and SPA avoidance strategies and agreed with Natural England;

iii. where development is proposed outside the exclusion zone but within the zone of influence, mitigation measures will be delivered prior to occupation and in perpetuity. Measures will be based on a combination of access management, and the provision of Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspace (SANG).

Where mitigation takes the form of provision of SANG the following standards and arrangements will apply:

iv. a minimum of 8 hectares of SANG land (after discounting to account for current access and capacity) should be provided per 1,000 new occupants;

v. developments of fewer than 10 dwellings should not be required to be within a specified distance of SANG land provided it is ensured that a sufficient quantity of SANG land is in place to cater for the consequent increase in residents prior to occupation of the dwellings;

vi. access management measures will be provided strategically to ensure that adverse impacts on the SPA are avoided and that SANG functions effectively;

vii. authorities should co-operate and work jointly to implement mitigation measures. These may include, inter alia, assistance to those authorities with insufficient SANG land within their own boundaries, co-operation on access management and joint development plan documents;

viii. relevant parties will co-operate with Natural England and landowners and stakeholders in monitoring the effectiveness of avoidance and mitigation measures and monitoring visitor pressure on the SPA and review/amend the approach set out in this policy, as necessary

ix. local authorities will collect developer contributions towards mitigation measures, including the provision of SANG land and joint contributions to the funding of access management and monitoring the effects of mitigation measures across the SPA

x. large developments may be expected to provide bespoke mitigation that provides a combination of benefits including SANG, biodiversity enhancement, green infrastructure and, potentially, new recreational facilities.

Where further evidence demonstrates that the integrity of the SPA can be protected using different linear thresholds or with alternative mitigation measures (including standards of SANG provision different to those set out in this policy) these must be agreed with Natural England. The mechanism for this policy is set out in the TBH Delivery Framework by the TBH Joint Strategic Partnership and partners and stakeholders, the principles of which should be incorporated into local authorities' LDFs.

Hart District Council: Draft Local Plan Policies

Policy NE1: Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA)

Where new development is likely to have a significant effect on the ecological integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA) it should be demonstrated that adequate measures will be put in place to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects.

Where mitigation measures are required for residential or similar forms of development the Council will adopt a consistent approach to mitigation, based on the following principles:

a) there is a “zone of influence” set at between 400m and 5km linear distance from the TBHSPA boundary. Mitigation measures will be required for all net new dwellings and must be delivered prior to occupation and in perpetuity. Measures must be based on a combination of Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) and the provision, improvement and/or maintenance of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). If not provided an Appropriate Assessment will be required to demonstrate that the development will not harm the integrity of the TBHSPA;

b) there is an ‘exclusion zone’ set at 400m linear distance from the TBHSPA boundary. Permission will not be granted for development that results in a net increase in residential units within this zone unless it can be demonstrated through an Appropriate Assessment that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the TBHSPA; and

c) Residential development of at least 50 net new dwellings that falls between five and seven kilometres from the TBHSPA may be required to provide mitigation measures. This will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The provision of SANG will meet the following standards and arrangements:

d) a minimum of 8 hectares of SANG land (after discounting to account for current access and capacity) should be provided in perpetuity per 1,000 new occupants;

e) developments must fall within the catchment of the SANG that provides mitigation, except developments of fewer than 10 net new residential units;

All development, which either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, is likely to have a significant effect on the ecological integrity of the TBHSPA without appropriate mitigation will not be supported.

Where further evidence demonstrates that the integrity of the TBHSPA can be protected using different linear thresholds or with alternative mitigation measures these must be agreed with the Council and Natural England.

Policy NE3: Biodiversity and Geodiversity

1. Development proposals will be supported where significant harm to biodiversity and/or geodiversity resulting from a development can be avoided or, if that is not possible, adequately mitigated and where it can be clearly demonstrated that there will be no:

a) adverse impact on the conservation status of key species; b) adverse impact on the integrity of designated and proposed European designated sites; c) harm to nationally designated sites; d) harm to locally designated sites including Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs); e) loss or deterioration of a key habitat type, including irreplaceable habitats; and f) harm to the integrity of linkages between designated sites and key habitats.

The weight given to the protection of nature conservation interests will depend on the national or local significance and any designation or protection applying to the site, habitat or species concerned.

2. Where development proposals do not comply with the above they will only be supported if it has been clearly demonstrated that there is an overriding public need for the proposal which outweighs the need to safeguard biodiversity and/or geodiversity and there is no satisfactory alternative with less or no harmful impacts. In such cases, as a last resort, compensatory measures will be secured to ensure no net loss of biodiversity and, where possible, provide a net gain.

3. Proposals for development must include adequate and proportionate information to enable a proper assessment of the implications for biodiversity and geodiversity.

4. To secure opportunities for biodiversity improvement, relevant development proposals will be required to include proportionate measures to contribute, where possible, to a net gain in biodiversity and/or geodiversity, through the creation, restoration, enhancement and management of habitats and features including measures that help to link key habitats.

5. Approaches to secure improvements could be achieved through:

a) a focus on identified Biodiversity Opportunity Areas and Biodiversity Priority Areas as identified in the council’s Green Infrastructure Strategy (and subsequent updates); or b) on-site and/or off-site provision linked to development in accordance with the council’s adopted green space standards; or c) measures through compensation, such as biodiversity offsetting.

Policy I8: Strategic SANG

The following sites are allocated as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) as part of the avoidance measures required for the Local Plan (the amount in hectares is indicative):

• Hartland Village SANG – Land north of Pyestock, Fleet c27.9ha. • Murrell Green on site SANG c.36ha. • Cross Farm, Crookham Village on site SANG c.25ha.

Planning permission for alternative uses will be not be supported.

Hart District Council: Adopted Local Plan Policies

CON 1 European Designations

CON 1 DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATURE CONSERVATION VALUE OF CLASSIFIED OR PROPOSED SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS OR CANDIDATE OR DESIGNATED SPECIAL AREAS OF CONSERVATION (DESIGNATED UNDER EUROPEAN LEGISLATION IN RECOGNITION OF THEIR INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE) WILL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS AND THERE ARE IMPERATIVE REASONS OF OVER-RIDING PUBLIC INTEREST, INCLUDING THOSE OF A SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC NATURE. IN THE CASE OF SPA AND SAC WHICH SUPPORT A “PRIORITY” HABITAT OR SPECIES, PLANNING PERMISSION MAY ONLY BE GRANTED IF THE DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED ON THE GROUNDS OF HUMAN HEALTH, PUBLIC SAFETY OR BENEFICIAL CONSEQUENCES OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE TO THE ENVIRONMENT.

CON 2 National Designations

CON 2 DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATURE CONSERVATION VALUE OF A SITE OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST OR NATIONAL NATURE RESERVE EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED IF IT CAN BE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS THAT WILL PREVENT DAMAGING IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE HABITATS OR OTHER NATURAL FEATURES OF IMPORTANCE ON THE SITE OR IF OTHER MATERIAL FACTORS ARE SUFFICIENT TO OVERRIDE THE NATURE CONSERVATION INTEREST.

CON 3 Local Designations

CON 3 DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATURE CONSERVATION INTEREST OF SITES OF IMPORTANCE FOR NATURE CONSERVATION WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED IF OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS OUTWEIGH THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SITE TO LOCAL NATURE CONSERVATION.

CON 4 Replacement and Habitats

CON 4 WHERE DEVELOPMENT IS PERMITTED WHICH WOULD BE LIKELY TO HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON FEATURES OF NATURE CONSERVATION INTEREST IN A DESIGNATED AREA COVERED BY POLICIES CON 1, CON 2 AND CON 3 OR SPECIES OR THEIR HABITATS REFERRED TO IN POLICY CON 5, THAT ADVERSE EFFECT SHOULD BE REDUCED WHERE IT IS PRACTICABLE TO DO SO BY THE PROVISION OF ADEQUATE REPLACEMENT HABITAT ON THE SITE OR IN OTHER APPROPRIATE LOCATION.

CON 5 Species Protected by Law

CON 5 PLANNING PERMISSION WILL NOT BE GRANTED FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON PLANT OR ANIMAL SPECIES OR THEIR HABITATS PROTECTED BY LAW UNLESS CONDITIONS ARE ATTACHED OR PLANNING OBLIGATIONS ENTERED INTO REQUIRING THE DEVELOPER TO TAKE STEPS TO SECURE THEIR PROTECTION.

CON 6 Heathlands

CON 6 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS LIKELY TO CAUSE SIGNIFICANT HARM TO EXISTING AND FORMER HEATHLAND HABITATS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, WILL NOT NORMALLY BE PERMITTED.

CON 7 Riverine Environments

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WHICH WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE AFFECT ON THE NATURE CONSERVATION, LANDSCAPE OR RECREATIONAL VALUE OF RIVERINE ENVIRONMENTS (WHICH INCLUDE THOSE OF THE RIVERS HART, WHITEWATER AND BLACKWATER), WETLANDS AND PONDS WILL NOT BE PERMITTED.

CON 8 Trees, Woodland & Hedgerows: Amenity Value

WHERE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD AFFECT TREES, WOODLANDS OR HEDGEROWS OF SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE OR AMENITY VALUE PLANNING PERMISSION WILL ONLY BE GRANTED IF THESE FEATURES ARE SHOWN TO BE CAPABLE OF BEING RETAINED IN THE LONGER TERM OR IF REMOVAL IS NECESSARY NEW PLANTING IS UNDERTAKEN TO MAINTAIN THE VALUE OF THESE FEATURES. PLANNING CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED TO REQUIRE THE PLANTING OF NEW TREES OR HEDGEROWS TO REPLACE THOSE LOST.

Hart District Council: Interim Avoidance Strategy for the Thames Basin Heaths SPA 2010: SANG Plan

Appendix 3: Botanical species list

Scientific Name Common Name Trees Acer campestre Field maple Acer platanoides Norway maple Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore Aesculus hippocastanum Horse chestnut Alnus glutinosa Alder Betula pendula Silver birch Coniferae sp. Conifer sp. Corylus avellana Hazel Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn Fagus sylvatica Beech Fraxinus excelsior Ash Ilex aquifolium Holly Larix deciduosa European larch Picea sp. Spruce sp. Pinus sp. Pine sp. Pinus sylvestris Scots pine Populus sp. Poplar sp. Prunus sp. Cherry sp. Prunus spinosa Blackthorn Quercus sp Oak Sorbus aucuparia Rowan Salix sp. Willow sp. Sambucus nigra Elder Tilia x europea Common lime Tilia sp. Lime sp. Shrubs Cotoneaster sp. Cotoneaster sp. Laburnum sp. Laburnum sp. Laurus nobilis Bay laurel Rhododendron ponticum Rhododendron Herbs

Ajuga reptans Bugle Anemone nemorosa Wood anemone Angelica sylvestris Wild angelica Bellis perennis Common daisy Cardamine pratensis Cuckoo flower Cardamine sp. Bittercress sp. Cerastium fontanum Common mouse-ear Circium arvensis Creeping thistle

Scientific Name Common Name Cirsium palustre Marsh thistle Cirsium vulgare Spear thistle Conopodium majus Pignut Digitalis pupurea Common foxglove Filipendula ulmarai Meadowsweet Galium aparine Cleavers Geranium robertianum Herb robert Hedera helix Ivy Hyacinthoides non-scripta Common bluebell Hypochaeris radicata Common cat’s-ear Iris preudacorus Yellow flag iris Lamiastrum galeobdolon subsp. Argentatum

Variegated Yellow archangel

Lamium album White dead-nettle Lathyrus pratensis Meadow vetchling Lonicera periclymenum Common honeysuckle Lotus pedunculatus Greate bird’s-foot trefoil Lycopus europaeus Gypsywort Matricaria discoidea Pineapple weed Mentha aquatica Water mint Molinia caerulea Purple moor grass Narcissus sp. (Garden) Daffodil Oenanthe crocata Hemlock water dropwort Oxalis acetosella Wood sorrel Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain Potamogeton sp. Pondweed sp. Potentilla anserina Silverweed Potentilla erecta Tormentil Primula vulgaris Primrose Pulicaria dysenterica Common fleabane Ranunculus acris Meadow buttercup Ranunculus ficaria Lesser celandine Ranunculus flammula Lesser spearwort Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup Rubus fruticosus Bramble Rumex acetosa Common sorrel Rumex obtusifolius Broad-leaved dock Rumex sanguineus Wood dock Rumex sp. Dock sp. Scrophularia nodosa Common figwort Stellaria holostea Greater stitchwort Stellaria media Common chickweed Taraxacum agg. Dandelion Teucrium scorodonia Wood sage

Scientific Name Common Name Trifolium repens White clover Trifolium pratense Red clover Urtica dioica Common nettle Valeriana officinalis Common valerian Veronica chamaedrys Germander speedwell Veronica serpyllifolia Thyme-leaved speedwell Vicia sativa Common vetch Vinca sp. Periwinkle sp. Viola reichenbachiana Early dog-violet Viola sp. Violet sp. Grasses, sedges, rushes and ferns

Agrostis capillaris Common bent Alopecurus pratensis Meadow foxtail Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet vernal-grass Athyrium filix-femina Lady fern Carex acutiformis Lesser pond-sedge Carex flacca Glaucous sedge Carex hirta Hairy sedge Carex pendula Pendulous sedge Carex remota Remote sedge Carex sylvatica Wood sedge Dactylis glomerata Cock’s-foot Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hair-grass Dryopteris affinis Scaly male-fern Dryopteris dilatata Broad buckler-fern Glyceria fluitans Floating sweet-grass Holcus lanatus Yorkshire fog Holcus mollis Creeping soft-grass Juncus acutiflorus Sharp-flowered rush Juncus articulatus Jointed rush Juncus effusus Soft rush Lolium perenne Perennial rye-grass Luzula campestris Field woodrush Molinia caerulea Purple moor-grass Poa annua Annual meadow grass Poa trivialis Rough meadow-grass Pteridium aquilinum Bracken

Appendix 4: Conservation Objectives for Thames Basin

Heaths SPA and Thursley, Ash, Pirbight and Chobham

SAC

ecological deliverability report...ecology, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the...

Documents