ecological survey & assessment - rossendaleecological survey & assessment. ribble ecology...

Ecological Survey & Assessment. Ribble Ecology (August 2012) 1

Land at the junction of Greens Lane & Brooklands Avenue, Helmshore

Ecological Survey & Assessment

August 2012

RB-12-107

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 2

2.0 METHODOLOGIES..................................................................................................... 3

3.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 7

4.0 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 14

5.0 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 18

6.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 18

SUMMARY

This report presents the results of an ecological survey and assessment, undertaken at land and features located south of Greens Lane, where it meets with Brooklands Avenue, at Helmshore. The scope of survey and assessment has included: a) vegetation and plant species; b) protected species of fauna; c) UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority species and habitats; and d) other, local, biodiversity values. This work has been requested in connection with a proposed planning application for residential development to create three houses on the land. The results have indicated that there are ecological considerations are in respect of the following matters:

There is potential for future occurrence of Water vole (a protected species) along the stream channel;

There is one small stand of Japanese knotweed (an invasive species and ‘controlled waste’) at the north end of the Site;

There is Himalayan balsam (an invasive species) along the banks of the stream.

There is a clump of Montbretia (an invasive species) at the west side of the Site. Guidance on appropriate mitigation measures is presented within Section 4.3 of this report. The specified measures are all practical and achievable, and can be enforced by

20 Hall Road, Fulwood, Preston, PR2 9QD 07887 532666 [email protected]


means of appropriately worded planning conditions. To that end, it is anticipated that full compliance with wildlife legislation and planning policy is achievable in relation to the planning proposal.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview In summer 2012, Ribble Ecology was commissioned to undertake an ecological survey and assessment at land to the south of Greens Lane, where it meets with Brooklands Avenue, at Helmshore. The land is centred at grid reference SD 78677 21434 and it spans approximately 0.1 hectares (ha). The request for an ecological survey and assessment was made in connection with a proposed planning application for residential development to create three houses. A plan showing the red-line boundary and proposed layout was supplied with the commission. Hereafter within this report, the land within the red-line boundary is termed the ‘Site’ or the ‘Application Site’.

1.2 Objectives Ribble Ecology identified the objectives of the survey and assessment to be as follows:-

Investigate all vegetation and habitat types, in accord with the JNNC guidelines1, compiling plant species lists where appropriate.

Identify any occurrences of rare and/or protected plant species at the Site and also any non-native and invasive plant species, as listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981).

With the aid of aforementioned plant species lists identify NVC communities and UK BAP priority habitats.

Undertake habitat appraisal for protected species such as Bats, Badger, Water vole, Great crested newt and Schedule 1 birds.

Undertake habitat appraisal and search for field signs demonstrative of the presence of UK BAP priority species and other wildlife such as breeding birds.

Where possible, include searches for field signs and evidence of the actual presence of protected and priority species.

From the survey results, identify any ecological concerns or constraints and provide feedback on appropriate mitigation and compensation measures to avoid impacts on protected species and other local wildlife.

1 Ref: Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a technique for Environmental Audit” published by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC 2003).


2.0 METHODOLOGIES

2.1 Personnel All survey and assessment has been undertaken by Ms Lorna Bousfield B.Sc. (Hons). MIEEM. Ms Bousfield is Principal Ecologist at Ribble Ecology and holds Natural England survey licenses in respect of Great crested newt (licence number 20113939) and bats (licence number 20114211). She is an experienced consultant with a wide skill base in respect of ecological surveying and assessment, including plant species and habitat identification, detection of protected faunal species, assessment of potential impacts in accord with IEEM Guidance on EcIA’s and also the design and implementation of mitigation, compensation and habitat enhancement schemes. She is an active member of the north and south Lancashire bat groups, the north and south Lancashire amphibian and reptile groups, the Barn Owl Conservation Network and the Lancashire badger group. Throughout the survey Ms Bousfield was accompanied by Ms Gemma Coar, who is a keen amateur naturalist, a student at Edge Hill College and a member of the east Lancashire bat group. She attended the survey in order to gain experience of ecological consultancy work, namely field survey skills in this case.

2.2 Desk study As standard, Ribble Ecology used a range of desk and internet based resources to obtain background information prior to attending the Site. The desk study covered an area of 5km radius around the Site, with the internet resources being as follows:

Bing Maps (www.bing.com/maps) and Google Earth for aerial photographs.

Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) collaborative database website (www.magic.defra.co.uk), for information on key environmental schemes and statutory designations.

Maps & Related Information Online (MARIO) – Lancashire County Council’s interactive mapping website. (http://mario.lancashire.gov.uk/agsmario/)

The Rossendale Borough Council ‘Adopted Proposals Map, Core Strategy DPD: The Way Forward 2011-2026’ (adopted November 2011), for the locations of non-statutory Biological Heritage Sites (BHSs) and Rossendale Wildlife Sites (Rws).

National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway (www.nbn.org.uk), for collated low-resolution records of protected and priority species occurrence.

2.3 Survey date, weather conditions & any limitations

The survey work was undertaken on 8th August 2012. No access limitations were encountered. The seasonal timing and weather conditions were appropriate for completing all aspects of the survey, being sunny, calm (Beaufort 2), dry and with an air temperature of up to 15 Celsius during the survey.

2.4 Vegetation & habitats An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was carried out throughout the Application Site. The Phase 1 Habitat Survey is a standardised method used to record habitat types and characteristic vegetation, as set out in the “Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a technique for Environmental Audit” published by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC 2003). It is ‘Extended’ through the additional recording of specific features

http://www.bing.com/maps

http://www.magic.defra.co.uk/

http://mario.lancashire.gov.uk/agsmario/

http://www.nbn.org.uk/


indicating the presence, or likely presence, of protected species or other species of nature conservation significance. Plant species lists were compiled where appropriate and the Site and survey area was searched for uncommon plant species, UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority Species and plant species listed as protected in the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981. Searches were carried out for the presence of invasive species listed on Schedule 9 in the WCA 1981 (as amended) (Schedule 9 as updated April 2010). All higher plant nomenclature within this report is written in accord with Stace's New Flora of the British Isles (Stace, C. A. 1997). Any occurrences of UK BAP priority habitat were to be noted and where possible the plant species lists were to be used to identify National Vegetation Classification (NVC) communities (Rodwell, J. S. Volumes 1 – 5, 1991 – 2000), as the NVC provides a systematic and comprehensive analysis of British vegetation.

2.5 Fauna Bat species UK bat species are provided full legal protection under Schedule 5 (section 9) of the WCA 1981 (as amended) and under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, making them European Protected Species. In combination this legislation makes it illegal to intentionally kill, injure, harm or disturb bats and illegal to damage, disturb or obstruct access to bat roosts. Bats will use a range of features for roosting, including trees, buildings and other man-made structures such as bridges. During the the walkover survey, the Application Site was searched for such features, but as they were absent there was no requirement for further survey work. The Site’s potential value for foraging and commuting bats was also considered, as could be estimated from the structural composition of the vegetation and whether or not there would be sheltered flight lines for bats to use. Badger Badgers (Meles meles) and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. This legislation makes it illegal to kill, injure or take Badgers or to interfere with a Badger sett, with the Act defining ‘a sett’ as being “any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use by a Badger”. The Site was searched for evidence of Badger, with the aim of identifying any combination of the following field signs:

a) Sett holes, wider than high, often with spoil heaps in front, sometimes also with discarded bedding;

b) Disturbed ground and small holes from foraging activity;

c) Trampled dispersal pathways and breach points under boundary fences;

d) Distinctive hairs, snagged on fences etc. or found at sett entrances;

e) Dung pits/ latrines;


f) Characteristically shaped footprints;

g) Scratching at the base of trees and other features. Birds Wild birds, their nests and their eggs are protected under Part 1 of the WCA 1981, which makes it illegal to kill or injure a bird and to destroy its eggs or its nest whilst it is in use or being built. Game birds are an exception and are protected under the separate Game Acts, which fully protect them during the close season. In addition, certain bird species (such as Barn owl and Kingfisher) are specially protected under Schedule 1 of the WCA 1981 (as amended), making it illegal to disturb these birds and their young at the nest. All visible and audible birds were recorded during the survey, following the standard recording methodology and codes of the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) Common Birds Census (Marchant 1983). Habitats at the Site were assessed for their potential value for nesting, roosting, feeding, and wintering birds, as indicated by the amount of shelter and species diversity amongst the vegetation and features in the Site. Great crested newt & other amphibians Great crested newts (GCNs) (Triturus cristatus) are provided full legal protection under Schedule 5 (section 9) of the WCA 1981 (as amended) and under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, making them a European Protected Species. In combination this legislation make it illegal to intentionally kill, injure, harm or disturb GCN and illegal to damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place used by sheltering or breeding GCN. Whilst the species breeds in water it forages, shelters and hibernates on land, typically within 250m of its breeding pond but sometimes up to 500m from the breeding pond. Prior to attending the Site an Ordnance Survey map and Google Earth were checked for evidence of ponds within 250m unobstructed dispersal range of the Site. It appeared likely that there were two ponds to the east, within the grounds of the adjacent golf course, and possibly one online pool to the south, associated with a stream. The presence or absence of these ponds was checked during the walkover survey and where possible they were made the subject of Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) appraisals, to assess their potential value for Great crested newt. This was in accord with ARG UK Advice Note 5 (May 2010), which quotes (Oldham et al. 2000). HSI scoring is a method of assessing the quality of a pond in terms of GCN breeding and associated habitat requirements, quantifying ten standard Suitability Index (SI) parameters, including water quality, flora, and impacts from waterfowl. The final HSI score reflects the suitability of the pond for breeding GCN and it is interpreted as follows:

HSI score Pond Suitability for GCN

<0.5 Poor

0.5-0.59 Below Average

0.6-0.69 Average

0.7-0.79 Good

>0.8 Excellent

In addition, the ponds’ suitability for common toad Bufo bufo (a BAP Priority Species) was taken into consideration.


Water vole Water voles (Arvicola amphibious) and their habitat are provided full legal protection under Schedule 5 (section 9) of the WCA 1981 (as amended), which makes it illegal to intentionally kill, injure or take Water voles and to damage, disturb or destroy their ‘place of shelter’, i.e. their habitat. Water voles occupy the banks and margins of a wide range of aquatic habitat types, including ponds, field drains, reservoirs, wetlands and rivers. As there is a stream passing through the Site, habitat appraisal and species-specific survey work was applied for Water vole. The survey was conducted in accord with the Water Vole Conservation Handbook (Strachen 2006) and entailed walking within the water-course and searching the margins and banks for field signs indicative of the species, namely any combination of the following:

a) Burrows and bolt-holes in the banks, with diameters of 4 - 8cm;

b) Footprints in any soft mud and silt at the margins

c) Cylindrical, blunt-ended droppings, often deposited in ‘latrines’ to mark range boundaries or favoured spots close to burrows;

d) Chewed lengths of vegetation, roughly 10cm long and deposited in feeding stations

e) Trampled runways through bankside vegetation;

f) Occasionally above-ground nests of finely shredded vegetation;

g) Feeding ‘lawns’ around burrow entrances (typically most evident mid-late in the breeding season).

Notably there were visual constraints because of the abundance of tall ruderal vegetation, which precluded full visibility of the banks. In addition, there was evidence that water levels had recently been very high, with a high wash line, so it was anticipated that the footprints or latrines (if present) would have been eliminated. Otter In England and Wales Otters (Lutra lutra) are protected under Section 9(4)(b) and (c) and (5) of the WCA and they are fully protected under the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010. Collectively, this makes it illegal to deliberately or intentionally capture, injure, kill, harm or disturb Otter and illegal to damage, destroy or obstruct access to an Otter holt. Otters are characteristically associated with a wide range of aquatic habitat types, including ponds, field drains, reservoirs, wetlands and rivers, but typically where there are fish for them to prey upon and where there is connectivity and shelter for them to use for dispersal. Habitat appraisal was applied along the stream within the Application Site and a check for field signs of Otter was undertaken in conjunction with the Water vole survey, again with the same constraints. The search was for any combination of the following:

a) Holts (a secure and typically underground resting and breeding site) and couches (above-ground resting places, of which one otter may have several);

b) Spraints (otter faeces, often left in prominent positions, on large stones, trees fallen across the river, man-made debris etc);

c) Footprints, left in mud or silt at the margins;


d) Feeding remains;

e) Trampled runways (pathways across fields, usually at bends in streams or rivers);

f) Slides and haul-out places. Other wildlife Any evidence of other wildlife occurrences was noted during the survey. Consideration was given to reptiles, Brown hare, Hedgehog and invertebrates, but no species-specific survey work was conducted.

2.6 Evaluation methods Evaluation of the vegetation and habitats has not only made reference to the UK BAP but also the Lancashire BAP. Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) have been developed as part of the British Government’s strategy for the implementation of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, to protect a number of rare species and habitats and to reverse the declines of more widespread, but declining, species and habitats. Under the CRoW Act 2000, the English Government has a duty to have due regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity, so it is good practice for development schemes to take into consideration UK BAP and Local BAP (LBAP) species and habitats.

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Desk study The Site is centred at grid reference SD 78673 21435. There are no statutorily designated sites of ecological value at this location, or within 1km radius of the Application Site. There are no non-statutory Biological Heritage Sites within 600m radius. The closest is Musbury Valley BHS, which is approx. 630m south of the Site at its nearest boundary. This is a broad valley, extending from Causeway End Farm in the west to Carr Lane Farm in the east. It supports a range of upland habitats including acid grassland, flushes and woodland, but is not notable for significant faunal species or assemblages. It is located significantly beyond the zone of influence of any proposed work at the Site. As shown on Fig. 1 (appended), which gives an extract from the Rossendale Adopted Proposals Map, Core Strategy DPD, there are also three ‘Rossendale Important Wildlife Sites’ in the wider surrounding area, but the closest of these is situated 570m east, which is again a long way beyond the zone of influence of the Application Site. In relation to protected species, known occurrences of protected species in the wider 2km radius around the Site are as follows:

Common pipistrelle Kingfisher

Common crossbill Little ringed plover

Common lizard Peregrine falcon

Daubenton’s

In the first instance, all of these species have been given consideration during the survey, to determine their likelihood of occurrence at the Application Site and whether or not


species-specific surveys are required.

3.2 Vegetation and habitats

3.2.1 Location & surroundings Fig. 2, below, presents a labelled map (courtesy of LCC MARIO maps) and an aerial photograph of the Application Site and its surrounds (© Google Earth).

As shown, the Site meets with roads to the north (Greens Lane and Brooklands Avenue), beyond which there is housing. There is a compacted stone access track running adjacent to the eastern boundary, beyond which there is a planted belt of young broadleaf trees, which is associated with Rossendale Golf Course. The golf course is situated south-east, with the crushed stone access track denoting its westernmost boundary. Immediately to the south of the Application Site there is a small plot of unmanaged land. This is followed by the mown playing fields of a school, situated to the south-west of the unmanaged land. There is also a small row of terraced houses to the south-west, with the rear garden of one such property backing onto the Site. In summary, the Site is situated in a relatively built-up area, with a large amount of green space immediately around its southern and eastern sides, but with a high proportion of this green space comprising short-mown grassland.


3.2.2 Features within the Site There is significant variation in the ground levels within this relatively small Application Site. A recessed stream channel meanders roughly north-south through the centre of the plot and the land rises steeply on either side of this channel. The land is unmanaged and it does not appear to be accessed or used by members of the public. Fig. 3 (below) presents a vegetation and habitat map, as prepared using the survey results from the walkover survey. Photographs and descriptions of the vegetation composition are provided in the following paragraphs.

Mosaic of coarse grassland and tall-herb vegetation With the exception of the stream channel, the habitat throughout the entire Application Site comprises a mosaic of unmanaged, mesotrophic grassland and tall-herb vegetation, with localised garden escapes and invasive species. A collective species list for the whole Site is presented in Table 1 (appended) and annotated Photo 1 illustrates the


composition, as viewed from the north, facing south-west.

Photo 1

Locally the vegetation is dominated by coarse grasses, with abundant False oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), frequent Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus) and locally frequent Cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerata). There is also very locally frequent Soft rush (Juncus effusus), Meadow vetchling (Lathyrus pratensis), Field horsetail (Equisetim arvense) and Common bent (Agrostis capillaris). This composition is a species-poor and patchy example of the MG1: Arrhenatherum elatius NVC community. Tall-herb vegetation is dominant across a high proportion of the Site. In patches this comprises very abundant Common nettle (Urtica dioica), accompanied by frequent Creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) and locally frequent Cleavers (Galium aparine), but also merging with locally frequent Great willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum) and Hedge bindweed (Calystegia

sepium). This vegetation is an example of the OV25: Urtica dioica – Cirsium arvense NVC community, which is of widespread occurrence throughout lowland Britain. It does not support rare or protected plant species and is not an example of BAP Priority Habitat. A high proportion of the tall-herb vegetation comprises very abundant Rosebay willowherb (Chamerion angustifolium), again with occasional Great willowherb, Hedge bindweed and Common nettle, but representative of the OV27: Chamerion angustifolium NVC community. Again, there are no rare or protected plant species and is not an example of BAP Priority Habitat. There is also patchy occurrence of Yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus), plus a belt of iris that runs parallel with the course of the stream, but offset to the west by a couple of metres. Invasive species and garden exotics There is one stand of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) at the northern end of the Site. The approximate location of the stand is shown on Fig. 3 (page 9). Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) is locally very frequent along the banks of the small stream, and occasional, lone plants are present elsewhere in the mosaic of tall-herb. There is also one clump of Montbretia (Crocosmia crocosmiiflora) near the west boundary. There is no evidence of other species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, but there is abundant occurrence of Spiraea billiardii, which is a quick-growing, large, suckering, garden shrub that has formed small thickets in the west half of the Site.

Route of the stream channel

Abundant tall-herb vegetation

Himalayan balsam


Small stream The small stream enters the Site at the northern boundary. It is unclear as to where its origin lies, but it appears likely it must be spring-fed as there is no channel to the north of the road. An approximately 55m long section of the water-course runs through the Site, all of which was surveyed. In addition the survey covered another approx. 8m long stretch of the channel immediately to the south-west, as this was contiguous in its channel and bankside structure. For the surveyed section, the stream is recessed, with steeply sloping banks on both sides. The bankside vegetation comprises the aforementioned mosaic of coarse grassland and tall-herb vegetation, with a high proportion of Himalayan balsam. This greatly overhangs the channel and obscures it from view at several points. The channel has a stony bed, with shallow margins and with a width that varies between 1m and 1.5m. At the time of survey, the water was moderately fast flowing and was clear and only 0.05m deep throughout the northern half of the Site. In the southern half of the surveyed section (at approx. grid reference SD 78686 21428) a porcelain inflow pipe was conveying mucky water with a grey colouration into the channel. Coupled with a small accumulation of dead branches just down-stream of this pipe, the water flow was slowed and the depth was up to 0.2m. In the southern half of the surveyed section, occasional bricks and lumps of concrete were also present in the channel. No aquatic vegetation was present. There was no example of an aquatic NVC community and no example of BAP priority habitat.

Shrubs and trees There are no trees within the red-line boundary and aside from the locally abundant Spiraea shrubs there is negligible occurrence of shrubs within the Site, with just single occurrences of a Dog rose (Rosa canina) and a small Dogwood (Cornus sanguinea).

3.2.3 Adjacent habitats The belt of young trees immediately to the east of the Application Site comprises a mixture of broadleaf specimens that are approximately to heights of 8 – 10m. Alder and Ash are the most abundant species. There is negligible shrub layer and there is a ground flora of grassland. Rossendale Golf Course to the south is a neatly tended course, with short-mown greens. There are small clusters of trees and shrubs, plus there are two ponds that were created as part of the course’s landscaping scheme. These are described in more detail in section 3.3 of this report, in relation to amphibians. To the south, the small stream continues through a small patch of unmanaged land that is contiguous with that of the Application Site in terms of its structure and vegetation composition. The stream then continues south for at least 100m, remaining recessed in relation to nearby land and passing through a linear corridor of unmanaged land. Again, there is frequent Himalayan balsam along the stream channel and there is tall-herb vegetation elsewhere, plus occasional Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and Goat willow (Salix caprea) shrubs.


3.3 Fauna

3.3.1 Bats There is no habitat for roosting bats at the Application Site, or immediately alongside its boundaries. There is limited potential value for foraging bats because although the mosaic of unmanaged vegetation is likely to attract insects, there are no shrubs or trees to provide sheltered flight lines for bats. It is likely that only low numbers of opportunistic Common pipistrelles will occasionally forage here.

3.3.2 Badger There is no evidence of the presence of Badger within Site, or of Badger entering the Site from adjoining land. From this it is judged that Badgers do not require further consideration in relation to the planning proposal.

3.3.3 Birds No evidence of Schedule 1 birds has been detected within the Application Site. There is no habitat for nesting Barn owl, or for other Schedule 1 bird species. The stream is too small and overgrown to provide habitat for foraging or nesting Kingfisher. The only bird species recorded during the walkover survey were outside the red-line boundary and comprised Robin, Goldfinch and Magpie.

A range of other garden bird species is also likely to be present in the immediate surrounding area, but there is no habitat for passerine (small, perching) birds to nest within the Site.

3.3.4 Great Crested Newt & other amphibians There is no pond within the Application Site or within 50m radius of its boundaries. The water in the stream is moderately fast flowing and is unsuitable for use by breeding amphibians. This is also the case for the online pool that is situated approximately 90m south of the Site (as labelled on Fig. 2, page 8) because although aerial photographs make this appear like a pond, it has the same properties as the stream on which it is situated. However, there are two ponds in the golf course, both labelled on Fig. 2 and described below. Pond 1 is approx. 105m away and Pond 2 is approx. 225m away from the Site. Pond 1 has a water surface area of approx. 390m2 and it appears deep and permanent. It is unfenced and the shallow-sloping banks support short-mown grassland right up to the water margins. There is localised occurrence of Yellow iris, Soft rush, Reed canary-grass (Phalaris

arundinacea), Marsh-marigold (Caltha palustris) and Greater spearwort (Ranunculus lingua) at the margins, and abundant Canadian waterweed (Elodea Canadensis) throughout the water body. There is low invertebrate diversity and there is an abundance of fish in the pond. The SI scores and HSI value for the pond are presented on the following page.


Pond 1

Criterion Score Criterion Score

SI1 Location Zone A = 1.0 SI6 Fowl None = 1.0

SI2 Pond area 390m2 = 0.65 SI7 Fish Major = 0.01

SI3 Pond drying Never = 0.9 SI8 Ponds 2 others = 0.55

SI4 Water quality Poor-moderate = 0.5 SI9 Terrestrial habitat Poor = 0.33

SI5 Shade <10% = 1.0 SI10 Macrophytes Est. 85% = 0.95

HSI score (SI1 x SI2 x SI3 x SI4 x SI5 x SI6 x SI7 x SI8 x SI9 x SI10) 1/10 = 0.47 (Poor)

Pond 2 has a water surface area of approx. 450m2 and also appears deep and permanent. It is unfenced and although the banks are steeply sloping, they support short-mown grassland right up to the water margins. There is locally abundant Lesser bulrush around the margins, and locally abundant White water lily in the pond. There is potential for a low number of waterfowl to breed here, and again there is low invertebrate diversity and an abundance of fish in the pond. The SI scores and HSI value for the pond are as follows: Pond 2

Criterion Score Criterion Score

SI1 Location Zone A = 1.0 SI6 Fowl None = 1.0

SI2 Pond area 450m2 = 1.0 SI7 Fish Major = 0.01

SI3 Pond drying Never = 0.9 SI8 Ponds 2 others = 0.55

SI4 Water quality Poor-moderate = 0.5 SI9 Terrestrial habitat Poor = 0.33

SI5 Shade <10% = 1.0 SI10 Macrophytes Est. 85% = 0.7

HSI score (SI1 x SI2 x SI3 x SI4 x SI5 x SI6 x SI7 x SI8 x SI9 x SI10) 1/10 = 0.47 (Poor)

In summary, both ponds score very badly due to the abundance of fish, coupled with the very low number of other ponds within a wider 1km radius and also the poor invertebrate content of the water-bodies. Further, when running a fine-meshed net through the water to check for invertebrates, no evidence of larval newts, of any species, was detected. The netting was not carried out to a level of rigour and duration that would qualify it as a full Great crested newt survey, but it gave a clear indication that newts were not prevalent in either pond. It is concluded that there is negligible potential for Great crested newt to be present and that the species does not require further consideration in relation to planning proposals for the Application Site. In relation to Common toad, there is a higher potential for this species to use Ponds 1 and 2 because toad tadpoles have toxic skin that makes them unpalatable to fish. However, if this species is present at the ponds there is no ‘habitat corridor’ to encourage the dispersal of terrestrial Common toads towards the Application Site and there is no reasonable likelihood of significant numbers of toad using the Site for shelter or foraging.

3.3.5 Water Vole The habitat along the surveyed section of the small stream is sub-optimal for Water vole because of the abundant tall-herb vegetation casting heavy shade and because there are no aquatic plants. Further, although the water-channel was only very shallow at the time of the survey, a wash-line on the vegetation indicates that the water will rise by at least 0.3m after periods of heavy rain, with such an occurrence evidently having taken place quite recently. No evidence of Water vole was detected during the survey, and it is judged likely that this is an accurate result and that the species is absent, but it must be noted that the visibility of upper banks was precluded by the density of the tall-herb vegetation and that the


search for field signs along the channel and margins would have been affected by the aforementioned recent fluctuation in water levels. It is assessed that on a precautionary basis, Water vole should still be regarded as a material consideration in relation to the planning proposals.

3.3.5 Otter

The stream is sub-optimal for Otter as it is very small and enclosed, with no evidence of fish within the channel at the time of survey. No evidence of Otter was detected during the survey and it is judged that this species does not require further consideration.

3.3.6 Other wildlife Habitat assessment indicates there is negligible potential for occurrence of reptiles at the Application Site and in the immediate surrounding area. It is concluded that reptiles do not require further consideration in relation to the proposal. No other notable wildlife, or field signs indicative of such wildlife, were recorded during the survey.

4.0 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Summary The results from the desk study, data search and walkover survey, show that there are the following ecological considerations at the Site: Statutory/non-statutory sites of ecological interest = no concerns or constraints.

BAP priority habitats and/or rare or protected plant species = no concerns or constraints.

Invasive plant species = presence of Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and Montbretia requires consideration to ensure that the proposal does not cause the spread of these species in the wild. Japanese knotweed is not only listed on Schedule 9 of the WCA 1981, making it illegal to cause its spread in the wild, but is also classed as ‘controlled waste’ under the Environmental Protection Act (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991.

Bats, Badger, Great crested newt, Common toad, breeding birds, Otter and reptiles = no concerns or constraints.

Water Vole= precautionary consideration of this species remains necessary as it has not been possible to conclusively demonstrate its absence.

4.2 Assessment of the proposals plan

The proposals plan for the Application Site shows an intention to construct 3 detached residential properties, one with vehicular access coming off Greens Lane at the north boundary and two coming off the compacted stone track along the eastern boundary of the Site. It is understood that existing vegetation would have to be cleared from throughout the Site, and that re-grading and levelling of the land would be required to some extent. In relation to botanical and wildlife implications, this clearance would have no significant


negative impacts, though the provision of appropriately diverse garden planting would be required in order to retain a comparable amount of biodiversity value at the Site. Appropriate precautions would be required in order to prevent the spread of invasive species. Guidance on this matter is presented in Section 4.3 of this report. Notably, the layout includes a proposal to re-align an approximately 21m long section of the stream channel so that it is slightly further west than its current location, which is to allow two houses to be accommodated to the east of it. As there is no notable botanical value associated with the stream there would be no significant impact in this respect, however further checks for Water vole would be required, and appropriate mitigation implemented if this species was detected. It would be important for details of the design and implementation of the stream re-alignment to be agreed with the council (and Lancashire County Council’s Ecologists) prior to its implementation. With an appropriate design there would be no significant negative impact during the implementation and there would also be scope to enhance the botanical value of the channel and its potential value for Water vole. Preliminary guidance on this matter is given in section 4.3 of this report. In summary, guidance in relation to the proposal must primarily relate to the following:

Preventing the spread of invasive plant species

Precautionary protection of Water vole

Provision of good quality stream channel, stream bank and garden habitats to maintain or enhance the Site’s long-term biodiversity value.

4.3 Preliminary guidance and recommendations

4.3.1 Standard legal measure: Prevent spread of invasive species

The proposed work must not cause the spread of Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam or Montbretia onto nearby land or elsewhere in the wild. Japanese knotweed Images of Japanese knotweed are shown below. The approx. location of the stand is shown on Fig. 3 (page 9).

Japanese knotweed develops huge underground rhizomes that extend to at least 1m below the ground once the plants are established. Instead of spreading by seeding or suckering, it germinates clone plants whenever the rhizome is broken up. This means that any soil that is contaminated with the plant’s rhizome must be eradicated by chemical control and/or excavated and disposed of at a suitably licensed landfill. Chemical eradication of

Winter - woody growth

Spring- germination Summer – foliage & flowers


the plant, by suitably experienced contractors, will only be successful if the herbicide is applied repeatedly and at appropriate times of the year. Images of Montbretia are shown below. The approx. location of the clump is shown on Fig. 3 (page 9). This is another species that has underground rhizomes/corms, which can go as deep as 0.3m. It is not a controlled waste, so excavation and disposal at a household waste disposal site is the most appropriate course of action.

Images of Himalayan balsam are shown below. This species spreads by explosive seed dispersal (typically between late May and August) and as the balsam plants are mostly alongside the stream channel, any release of seeds would convey them downstream, causing the species to spread in the wild.

The plants are best hand-pulled whilst still young and then left with their roots exposed so that they die (they are annuals). All elimination action must be implemented prior to the balsam plants reaching the stage of flowering. Throughout invasive work at the Site, the same treatment (i.e. hand-pulling) must be applied to any balsam plants that are detected at any stage during the works. No soil from within the Site should be spread outside the red-line boundary of the Site, thus not allowing any Himalayan balsam seeds in the soil to be spread.

4.3.2 Precautionary protection of Water vole and sensitive implementation of stream works There are two protection aspects relating to the proposed realignment of the stream:

Aspect 1: Direct protection of Water vole

The presence or absence of Water vole must be conclusively determined by means of survey work, optimally in April when herbaceous vegetation remains low and visibility of the stream channel is greatest. The banks need to be visible and searched as far

Spring- germination

Rhizome / corms

Red roots


back as 5m from the water’s edge, ensuring that any signs of burrows, trampled pathways and latrines can be detected.

If no evidence of Water vole is detected, no further actions are required, except those covered by Aspect 2.

If Water voles are present, a Mitigation Method Statement for their protection must be compiled and approved by Lancashire County Council’s Ecologist. If the species is present along the stretch that is to be realigned, sensitively timed displacement must be implemented. If they are present at a location that will not be realigned, but will experience disturbance, sensitive timings and protective measures will apply.

Aspect 2: Sensitive re-alignment methodology and stream profile

Details of the proposed method for stream diversion need to be compiled, calling upon the skills of an experienced engineer and ecological consultant to ensure that the timing and methods will have no significant impact on wildlife.

Compliance with the Environment Agency’s ‘Pollution Prevention Guidelines: Works and maintenance in or near water: PPG5’ (2007) will be necessary.

The design of the new section of stream should maximise its potential value for wildlife, including Water vole. The banks are to be steeply sloping and supporting diverse, native-species wildflower grassland, in accord with a specified seed-mix that is to be approved as part of the design.

Additional shelter for Water vole could be introduced by transplanting localised clumps of Yellow iris into the stream margins (washing the corms clean first, so that there is no Himalayan balsam seed) and/or by introducing localised patches of an attractive ‘wetland plants’ seed mix, containing species such as Meadowsweet (Fillipendula

ulmaria), Great willowherb, Greater bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus pedunculatus) and Water forget-me-not (Myosotis scorpioides).

It will be important to manage the banks so that Himalayan balsam does not colonise during the early years when the grassland is becoming established.

4.3.3 Opportunities for biodiversity retention and enhancement

Other opportunities to retain and/or enhance biodiversity value at the Site are listed below:

Lighting

Outdoor lighting typically deters wildlife, so to allow continued use of the Site after residential development has been undertaken, the use of outdoor lighting is to be kept to a minimum and lights are to be directional, low-level and/or screened or hooded. They must not illuminate the stream and its banks, nor any shrubs or trees in the nearby surrounding area. This will permit bats, birds, possibly Water vole and other wildlife to use the features for feeding and shelter.

Planting

Where there is landscape planting and garden planting, this is to favour a mixture of trees and shrubs that produce flowers, and berries or fruits, plus night-scented plants. This is with the aim of providing shelter and food for a wide array of wildlife, including insects, which are prey for foraging bats. An array of trees, shrubs and plants are suitable for gardens, but some suggestions are listed below:

Trees: Rowan (Sorbus acuparia), Alder (Alnus glutinosa), Apple (Malus sp.), Plum (Prunus sp.).


Shrubs: Holly (Ilex aquifolium), Hazel (Corylus avellana), Forcythia sp., Lilac (Syringa vulgaris).

Climbers: Honeysuckle (Lonicera periclymenum), Clematis sp., Climbing roses (Rosa

sp.), Wisteria floribunda.

Night-scented: White jasmine (Jasminum officinale), Tobacco plant (Nicotiana

sylvestris / alata), Night-scented stock (Matthiola bicornis / oxyceras).

Herbs: Lavender (Lavendula angustifolia), Sage (Salvia officinalis), Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis), Mint (Mentha sp.), Oregano (Origanum vulgare).

5.0 CONCLUSION In conclusion, there are no substantive ecological concerns or constrains in relation to the proposal for residential development at the Application Site, but there are material considerations in relation to the potential for Water vole, and the avoidance of spreading invasive plant species. As the guidance on appropriate mitigation measures in Section 4.3 of this report is practical and achievable, and can be enforced by means of appropriately worded planning conditions, it is anticipated that full compliance with wildlife legislation and planning policy is achievable for the planning proposal.

6.0 REFERENCES English Nature. (2001). Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough.

Entwistle, A. C. et al. (2001) Habitat Management for Bats. JNCC.

Fitter, R., Fitter, A. and Farrer, A. (1984) Grasses, Sedges, Rushes and Ferns of Britain and Northern Europe. Collins.

Gent & Gibson. (1998). Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual

Google Earth 6.1. http://earth.google.co.uk

Hundt, L. (2012) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee. (2003). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a technique for Environmental Audit. Joint Nature Conservancy Committee. Peterborough.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) UK BAP Priority Species. http://.gov.uk/page-5717

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) UK BAP Priority Habitats. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5718

Langton, T., Beckett, C., Foster. (2001). Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook. Froglife, Halesworth.

Marchant, J.H. (1983) Common Birds Census instructions. British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), Tring.

Multi-agency Geographical Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) (2000). www.magic.defra.gov.uk

http://earth.google.co.uk/

http://www.magic.defra.gov.uk/


Mitchell-Jones, A. J. Bat Mitigation Guidelines. Jan 2004. English Nature.

Mitchell-Jones, A. J. & McLeish, A. P. The Bat Workers’ Manual. 3rd ed. 2004. JNCC.

National Biodiversity Network Gateway (2000) www.nbn.co.uk

Natural England. (November 2010). Template for Method Statement to support application for licence under Regulation 53(2)(e) in respect of great crested newts Triturus cristatus. Form WML-A14-2.

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Office of the Deputy Prime Minster (August 2005) Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System. H.M.S.O., London.

Rodwell, J. S. (ed.) (1991). British Plant Communities. Volume 1. Woodlands and Scrub. Cambridge University Press.

Rodwell, J. S. (ed.) (1992) British Plant Communities. Volume 3. Grasslands and Montane Communities. Cambridge University Press.

Rodwell. J. S. (ed.) (2000) British Plant Communities. Volume 5. Maritime communities and vegetation of open habitats. Cambridge University Press.

RSPB website. http://www.rspb.org.uk Stace, C. A. (1991). New Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

The UK Biodiversity Steering Group Report. Volume 2. Action Plans. H.M.S.O. (1995), London.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). H.M.S.O., London.

http://www.nbn.co.uk/


Table 1. Collective species list for the Application Site

Species common name Species Latin name Distribution Estimated % cover

Woody species (including boundary shrubs)

Dogwood Cornus sanguinea R <1%

Dog rose Rosa canina R <1%

Spiraea ‘Triumphans’ Spiraea billardii LvA 5%

Mosaic of grasses and herbaceous plants

Bramble Rubus fruticosus vLF <1%

Broad-leaved dock Rumex obtulifolius vLF 2%

Broad-leaved willowherb Epilobium montanum vL <1%

Cleavers Galium aparine LF 1%

Cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata vLF 2%

Common bent Agrostis capillaris LF 2%

Common couch Elymus repens vL <1%

Common nettle Urtica dioica vLF 10%

Common ragwort Senecio jacobaea O <1%

Common sorrel Rumex acetosa LF <1%

Crane’s-bill species Geranium sp. vL <1%

Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens O 1%

Creeping thistle Crisium arvense LF 3%

Dandelion Taraxacum officinalis O <1%

False oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius LF 12%

Field horsetail Equisetum arvense LF 2%

Great willowherb Epilobium hirsutum O/LF 5%

Hedge bindweed Calystegia sepium O/LvF 2%

Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera vLF 3%

Imperforate St John’s wort Hypericum maculatum O <1%

Male fern Dryopteris filix-mas vL <1%

Meadow vetchling Lathyrus pratense vL 1%

Montbretia Crocosmia crocosmiiflora R <1%

Red fescue Festuca rubra VLF <1%

Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea vL <1%

Rosebay willowherb Chamerion angustifolium, LA/vLD 25%

Selfheal Prunella vulgaris vL <1%

Silverweed Potentilla anserine LF 1%

Soft rush Juncus effusus LF 5%

Spear thistle Cirsium vulgaris vL <1%

Timothy Phleum pratense vL <1%

Tufted hair-grass Deschampsia cespitosa vL <1%

Yellow iris Iris pseudacorus vLA 3%

Yellow loosestrife Lysimachia vulgaris vLF <1%

Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus F/vLA 10%

Bryophytes

Moss species Rytidiadelphus squarrosus LF 2%

Key: D = Dominant; A = Abundant; F = Frequent; O = Occasional; R = Rare; L = Locally, v = very

ecological survey & assessment - rossendaleecological survey & assessment. ribble ecology...

Documents