ecology - wordpress.com · 6/6/2014 · (cenv), member of the chartered institute of ecology &...

NSC/6/1

THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK CLASSIFIEDROAD)

SIDE ROADS ORDER 2013

THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK)

COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2013

THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK)

COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (No 2) 2014

EXCHANGE LAND CERTIFICATES IN RESPECT OF SPECIALCATEGORY LAND

Proof of Evidence of

Matthew Bowell

On behalf of North Somerset Council

I n respect of

Ecology

Atkins NSC/6/1 I Version 4.0 I 2 June 2014

Table of contents

Chapter1. Qualifications and Experience

2. Introduction and Scope of Evidence

3. BackgroundEcological Impacts OverviewDescription of SchemeLegal ContextPosition of Statutory ConsulteesEcological ContextSummary of Ecological AssessmentSummary of Ecological Impacts and MitigationDesign DevelopmentRequirement for Compensation Works

4. Objections Relating to EcologyOverviewOBJ/9 (Giannettos); Plot 04/03 & part of 04/01OBJ/16 (Withers); Plots 03/04,03/14 & 03/43OBJ/29 (Burnell); Plots 04/08, 04/19, 04/20, 04/21, 04/22OBJ/30 (Virìdor Waste Exeter Limited): Plot 03/01OBJ/32: (James) Plot 03/26

5. Conclusion

Pages3

4

55

5

577

8

9

1011

13131317182324

27


1. Qualifications and Experience

1.1. My name is Matthew Bowel!. I am a Principal Consultant Ecologist working for

Atkins Limited (Atkins), multi-disciplinary engineering and environmental

consultants, based in their Bristol office.

1.2. i have a BSc in Zoology from the University of Reading and an MSc in Ecology

from the University of Wales, Bangor. I am a Chartered Environmentalist

(CEnv), Member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology & Environmental

Management (MCIEEM) and a member of the British Ecological Society.

1.3. i have over 15 years experience as an ecological consultant with past positions

with EMEC Ecology (Nottingham), Carter Ecological (now RSK) and Ecosulis

Ltd. i have been involved with a wide range of projects including ecological

survey and assessments, advice on legally protected species, Environmental

Impact Assessments and Habitats Regulations Assessment of impacts to

internationally designated sites. My project work has included assessment of

ecological impacts of roads, rail and other infrastructure projects, residential

development, urban regeneration, greenfield development andbrownfield/derelict land reclamation.

1.4. The evidence which I have prepared and provide for this Inquiry within this Proof

of Evidence is true and I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and

complete professional opinions.


2. Introduction and Scope of Evidence

2.1 . This Proof of Evidence has been produced on behalf of North Somerset Council

(NSC) in relation to the proposed South Bristol Link (the Scheme).

Scope of Evidence2.2. To address the objections raised to the Orders promoted by NSC, my evidence

is organised under the following headings:

(a) Section 3 - Background: Summarises the evolution of the Scheme

from an ecological context up to and beyond the grant of planning

permission;

(b) Section 4 - Objections Relating to Ecology: Assessment and response

to the objections to the Orders relevant to this Proof of Evidence;

(c) Section 5 - Conclusion: Summarises the arguments in support of the

Orders in relation to ecology;

2.3. I will confirm that land to be acquired for ecological purposes is needed in order

to deliver the Scheme.

2.4. This Proof of Evidence will draw on the information already provided to North

Somerset and Bristol City Councils and other publicly available sources where

appropriate to respond to the objections.

2.5. For convenience, relevant extracts from key guidance in relation to ecology and

correspondence referred to in this Proof of Evidence are provided as Volume 2

of my Proof of Evidence Appendices (NSC/6/2).

Atkins NSC/6/1 I Version 4.0 I 2 June 2014 4

3. Background

Ecological Impacts Overview3.1. The Scheme has been subject to a suite of ecological field surveys in order to

inform assessment of the potential impacts on ecological receptors. Assessment

was undertaken in line with the standard Guidelines on Ecological Impact

Assessment in the UK (IEEM 2006) (CD5/23). The results of this assessment

are detailed in Chapter 13 of the Environmental Statement (CD4/2). Parts of the

Scheme cross undeveloped countryside with an unavoidable loss of habitat and

associated severance impacts. The overall conclusion of this assessment was

that, with the in-built package of compensation measures, the long-term residual

impacts on ecological receptors would not be significant.

Description of Scheme3.2. The Scheme wil! comprise the construction and realignment of a section of

highway 4.5 kilometres in length from the A370 Long Ashton bypass within North

Somerset to the A38 and onwards to the Cater Road roundabout within the

Hartcliffe area of south BristoL. This incorporates the minor realignment of

sections of existing highway at Highridge Green, King Georges Road andWhitchurch Lane.

3.3. Full Scheme details are given in the Environmental Statement (CD4/1 - 4n) and

are also provided to the Inquiry more fully in evidence from other witnesses.

3.4. Appendix 1 (contained in NSC/6/2) gives an overview of statutory sites in the

broad vicinity of the Scheme.

3.5. Appendix 2 (contained in NSC/6/2) gives an overview of non-statutory sites in

the vicinity of the Scheme.

3.6. The Scheme has been designed to incorporate a number of features to support

wildlife connectivity and biodiversity.

Legal Context

Legislation3.7. Key legislation relevant to ecology in relation to the Scheme is as fol!ows:


i. EC Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild

fauna and flora (92/42/EEC);

ii. Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010;

iii. EC Directive on the conservation of wild birds (2009/147/EC);

iv. Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006;

v. Protection of Badgers Act 1992;

vi. The Hedgerows Regulations 1997; and

vii. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

Planning Policy and Guidelines of Relevance3.8. As wel! as national and local guidance and action plans, the policies and

guidance are relevant to the determination of the Scheme have included:

i. National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (CD2I6);

ii. BCC Core Strategy (CD2n);

iii. NSC Core Strategy (CD2/6);

Planning Determination

3.9. As is described more ful!y in evidence from other witnesses, the Scheme has

been subject to a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in accordance

with The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)

Regulations 2011 and was granted full planning permission (subject to

conditions) by NSC on 2 December 2013 (Planning Ref: 13/P/1204/F2)(CD2/1)

and by Bristol City Council (BCC) on 18 November 2013 (Planning Ref:13/03108/F) (CD 2/2).

3.10. The following planning conditions are relevant to my evidence:

i. NSC Condition 6: Requirements relating to landscape design

including planting commitments made in the ES;

ii. NSC Condition 7: Requirements relating landscape maintenance;

Atkins NSC/6/1 1 Version 4.0 12 June 2014 6

iii. NSC Condition 8: Requirements in relation to tree and hedge

protection fencing;

iv. NSC Condition 25: Requirement to produce and adhere to a

Landscape and Conservation Habitat Management Plan, which

includes a requirement to include 'a detailed Scheme of mitigation,

compensation and biodiversity enhancement...';

v. NSC Condition 26: Relating to creation of ponds;

vi. NSC Condition 27 and BCC Condition 13: Relating to provision of

bird and bat boxes;

vii. NSC Condition 29 and BCC Condition 12: Mitigation plan for

Highridge Common exchange land, which includes a requirement to

translocate turf and also to ensure its establishment and long term

management; and

viii. BCC Condition 15: Landscape management plan.

Position of Statutory Consultees3.11. Consultation with Natural England, the Environment Agency and BCC and NSC

ecologists was undertaken throughout the initial design and planning process.

3.12. The statutory consultees did not object to the Scheme at any stage during the

initial design meetings, nor during the planning application process. Discussions

were held in relation to survey techniques, assessment of impacts, and proposed

mitigation, but these were always constructive and resulted in agreement.

Ecological Context3.13. The northern part of the Scheme lies within a largely rural area, and crosses

farmland consisting of agricultural grasslands, divided by hedges with blocks of

woodland and scrub. Two water courses are crossed: Longmoor Brook and

Colliter's Brook.

3.14. The southern half of the Scheme is on the outskirts of Bristol, on the edge of the

built environment, where it crosses Highridge Common which contains a mosaic

of unimproved and semi-improved grassland habitats and scrub. The Scheme


extends into sub-urban Bristol passing along existing roads. The southern-most

part of the Scheme passes through an area of amenity grassland before joining

Hengrove Way.

3.15. Appendix 3 (contained in NSC/6/2) shows current habitat and land use for the

Scheme and immediate environs.

Summary of Ecological Assessment3.16. The EIA for the Scheme was undertaken by Atkins on behalf of BCC and NSC.

The South Bristol Link Road Environmental Statement July 2013 (the ES) (CD

4/1 - 4n) included a full assessment of the potential ecological impact of the

Scheme undertaken by Atkins; this is reported in Chapter 2.13 of theEnvironmental Statement (ES) (CD4/2).

3.17. The scope of the ecological assessment included:

i. Data-gathering of existing ecological information within the vicinity of

the Scheme from appropriate sources, this included a 'Phase l'habitat survey and protected species scoping report produced for the

Scheme in 2010 (Mott MacDonald, 2010). Additional 'Phase 2'

ecological survey work was undertaken by Atkins in 2011-2013.

These were reported in 11 separate survey reports that are appended

to the ES document (CD 4/3-4/5);

ii. Evaluation of ecological features within and adjacent to the Scheme

with regard to their ecological importance;

iii. Provision of mitigation measures to minimise negative impacts from

the Scheme on those receptors;

iv. Assessment of the significance of potential ecological impacts from the

proposals, including habitat loss, disturbance to animals and off-site

impact from the Scheme; and

v. Enhancement measures to increase the biodiversity value of the landwithin the Scheme.

Atkins NSC/6/1 1 Version 4.012 June 2014 8

Summary of Ecological Impacts and Mitigation3.18. Scheme design has been developed with a considered and proportionate

schedule of mitigation elements. This includes planting of trees and scrub,

translocation of turf and soil and management of habitats for biodiversity

enhancement. These elements have been designed to be sympathetic with the

design and the existing and retained habitats.

3.19. Table in Appendix 7 (NSC/6/2) summarises the principal impacts on ecological

receptors relevant to the Inquiry.

3.20. One European site designated for nature conservation importance was identified

within 2 km of the Scheme: Avon Gorge Woodlands Special Area of

Conservation (SAC). The Severn Estuary SAC, Special Protection Area (SPA)

and Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar site) is linked to the Scheme

via a hydrological pathway and lies approximately 10 km downstream from the

centreline of the Scheme. Five Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) with bats

as qualifying features have been identified within 30 km of the Scheme. Two

nationally designated sites lie within 2 km of the Scheme: Avon Gorge Site of

Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Ashton Court SSSI. Statutory nature

conservation designations are shown in Appendix 1 (NSC/6/2). No significant

effects as a result of the Scheme are predicted on any of these European or

nationally important sites.

3.21. Of the eight non-statutory designated sites within 1 km of the Scheme, three are

directly affected by the Scheme: Highridge Common Site of Nature Conservation

Interest (SNCI), Colliter's Brook SNCI, and Hanging Hill Wood Wildlife Site

(WS1). These designations are shown in Appendix 2 (NSC/6/2). Habitat lossand fragmentation at Highridge Common SNCI is regarded as an impact with the

potential to be significant at a county/regional scale (IEEM 2006) (CD5/23) and a

programme of habitat translocation is proposed. With appropriate monitoring

and management the level of impact on the integrity of the SNCI will be reduced

to a level where impacts will not be significant. Impacts on the other two non-

statutory designated sites are regarded as minor and not significant. Impacts on

Hanging Hill Wood will be compensated by woodland planting and translocation

of top soil and elements such as coppice stools where possible.

1 WS and SNCI are equivalent designations used by NSC and BCC respectively

Atkins NSC/6/1 I Version 4.012 June 2014 9

3.22. Habitats within the Scheme corridor include broadleaved woodland, mature and

veteran trees, hedgerows, unimproved and semi-improved grassland, and open

water. The Scheme will result in the loss of some of these habitats but with

habitat translocation and creation as part of the overall landscape proposals,

including woodland and hedgerow planting, and surface water attenuation ponds

to be created as part of the drainage management, the impact of any loss will be

minimised and the impacts on the conservation status of the habitats are not

significant.

3.23. The Scheme corridor provides habitat for bats including use for foraging and

commuting and at least one location used as a roost by common pipistrelle bats.

3.24. Delivery of the Scheme would require a licence from Natural England to relocate

the common pipistrelle roost and any others which might be found in pre-works

surveys. There is no reason why a licence for these should not be forthcoming.

3.25. The Environmental Statement concluded that due to mitigation and

compensation built into the design, there will be no long term significant impact

on bats. There will be a short term impact on lesser horseshoe bats using the

area for foraging and commuting. However, within 10 years mitigation and

compensation planting will have matured and this impact will no longer be

significant.

3.26. Habitats within the Scheme corridor also provide food and nesting opportunities

for badgers, birds, reptiles, otters, hedgehogs and terrestrial invertebrates.

However, the implementation of mitigation measures means that, impacts will not

be significant in relation to the conservation status of these species.

Design Development3.27. As is the expectation of any EIA scheme, the design has been developed to take

into account requirements of policy and guidance. With highways schemes, this

means finding a balance which minimises negative impacts on various receptors

whilst delivering the essential elements of the scheme and seeking to maximise

any positive opportunities. In this case, ecological design involved influencing

the highway alignment to avoid particular receptors, influencing works extent to

minimise impacts on certain receptors and providing designs to reduceseverance impacts caused by the Scheme (in particular culvert and bridge

Atkins NSC/6/1 1 Version 4.0 1 2 June 2014 10

design). This process also involved recommendations for habitat creation as

compensation for certain impacts. The Scheme minimises impacts on Highridge

Common SNCI by largely following the edge of the grassland, impacts the

narrowest part of the Hanging Hill Wood WS and requires no loss of Colliter's

Brook SNCI or its adjoining wildlife network sites.

Requirement for Compensation WorksOne of the areas of objection to the CPO for the Scheme in relation to nature

conservation relates to the land required for ecological compensation works in

the form of tree planting or other habitat creation and works to increase the

biodiversity of existing habitats and the rationale for the extent and the location of

these compensation works. In this Scheme, compensation has been usedbecause despite the use of 'mitigation by design' to reduce ecological impacts,

some habitat loss and severance has been unavoidable.

3.28. Compensation is defined in the ecological impact assessment guidelines (IEEM

2006) (CD5/23) as:

'Measures taken to make up for the loss of, or permanent damage to,biological resources through the provision of replacement areas. Any

replacement area should be similar to or, with appropriate management, have

the ability to reproduce the ecological functions and conditions of those

biological resources that have been lost or damaged. '

3.29. As summarised in Chapter 5 of the ecological impact assessment guidelines

(IEEM 2006) (CD 5/23) there is an expectation that compensation measuresincluding habitat creation will be undertaken where impacts are unavoidable.

Relevant planning policy documents also place a strong emphasis on this as

detailed below:

(a) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (CD2I6) Paragraph 109:

'minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in

biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government's

commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by

establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to

current and future pressures';


(b) Bristol Core Strategy (CD2n) Policy BSC9: '. ..Development should

incorporate new and/or enhanced green infrastructure or an

appropriate type, standard and size. Where on-site provision of green

infrastructure is not possible, contributions will be sought to make

appropriate provision for green infrastructure off site;

(c) North Somerset Core Strategy (CD2/8) Policy CS4, items 2 and 5:

'2) seeking to ensure that new development is designed to maximise

benefits to biodiversity, incorporating, safeguarding and enhancing

natural habitats and features and adding to them where. possible,

particularly network habitats. A net loss of biodiversity interest should

be avoided, and a net gain achieved where possible;'

'5) promoting native tree planting and well targeted woodland creation,

and encouraging retention of trees with a view to enhancing

biodive rsity.'

3.30. In addition to the above, as detailed in Natural England's statutory consultation

response letter dated 6th August 2013 (Appendix 9; NSC/6/2):

The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity

of the site if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in

accordance with Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural

Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that 'Every

public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is

consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of

conserving biodiversity'. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that

'conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of

habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat'

3.31. I consider that the inclusion of ecological compensation works are a necessary

component of the Scheme.


4. Objections Relating to Ecology

Overview4.1. Those elements of objections to the CPO submissions which concern ecological

matters and are responded to in this proof of evidence are as follows;

4.2. OBJ/9 (Giannetto), Plots 04/03 & part of 04/01: Objector argues that land

required for tree planting is not necessary to mitigate the Scheme.

4.3. OBJ/16 (Withers), Plots 03/04, 03/14 and 03/43: Objector comments about

general ecological impacts.

4.4. OBJ/29 (Burnell), Plots 04/08, 04/19, 04/20, 04/21 & 04/22: Various objections

relating to the size of plot required as exchange land, choice of Option 1 over

Option 2, and access agreements regarding survey work.

4.5. OBJ/30 (Viridor Waste Exeter Ltd.), Plot 03/01: Objector comments about impact

on Hanging Hill Wood and measures to protect wildlife along Colliters Brook and

Hanging Hill Wood.

4.6. OBJ/32 (James), Plot 03/26: Objector argues that land is not required for

compensatory tree planting.

4.7. In the remainder of this section I will address each of these objections in the

context of the evidence I have set out in previous sections and any other

information specifically relevant to that objection.

4.8. Appendix 4 (NSC/6/2) shows these above plots on a 'Phase 1 habitat' map of

the Scheme.

OBJ/9 (Giannettos); Plot 04/03 & part of 04/014.9. Sub-section 5 ('Ground 2') of this objection relates to plot 04/01 and part of

04/03, land to be acquired for tree planting. The objectors argue that this tree

planting is not necessary to mitigate the Scheme. The second sentence of

OBJ/9 para 5.2 appears to refer to an alternative parcel of land for this tree

planting, does not indicate exactly where this in relation to Plots 04/03 and 04/01.


Response4.10. Plots 04/01 and 04/03 form a parcel of land formed by division of an existing field

by the Scheme, it is proposed for tree planting in the form of a proposed native

tree and scrub belt.

4.11. As stated in Section 3 of my evidence, the Scheme will result in permanent loss

of habitats including ancient woodland at Hanging Hill Wood, broadleaved

plantation woodland, trees, scrub and hedgerows. Whilst it is preferable to avoid

impacts on important habitats such as woodland and trees, where this is

unavoidable compensation planting is an accepted and appropriate mechanism

to reduce the overall impacts at a scheme leveL. The tree planting referenced by

OBJ/9 is part of the compensation works for the Scheme. I will assess this in

terms of the footprint area and location of the proposed planting.

Area

4.12. As indicated in sub-sections 13.6.29 to 13.6.39 of the ES (CD4/2), the Scheme

will involve a loss of 0.1 ha of ancient woodland, two plots of 0.2 ha of

broadleaved plantation woodland, 161 trees and 1.5 ha of scrub (including some

broadleaved trees).

4.13. Proposed planting on the Scheme includes broad leaved woodland planting

adjacent to Hanging Hill Wood and blocks scattered along the Scheme.

4.14. Appendix 8 (NSC/6/2) summarises the woodland and scrub planting

compensation ratios for the Scheme overall and this is broken down to describe

the rationale for each planting element.

4.15. The overall ratio of woodland and scrub planted to woodland and Scheme is

approximately 5 planted: 1 lost. A large proportion of this is a large block of

planting providing specific compensation relating to Hanging Hill Wood. The

remaining element of planting comprises native tree and scrub belts in small

blocks throughout the Scheme at a ratio of approximately 1.05 planted: 1 lost

(see Appendix 8; NSC/6/2).

4.16. The planting referred to in OBJ/9 is not associated with the ancient woodland

planting and therefore is a component of the native tree and scrub belt element

with a planting ratio of 1.05: 1.

Atkins NSC/6/1 1 Version 4.0 I 2 June 2014 14

4.17. Where planting of new habitats is used as a means of compensating for loss of

existing habitat, a compensation ratio of 1: 1 would normally be considered as an

absolute minimum. Planning policy as outlined in paragraph 3.27 of my

evidence enforces this expectation, in particular:

i. The aspiration for '...net gain...' in NPPF (CD2/6) paragraph 109;

ii. Bristol Core Strategy (COW) Policy BSC9; '...Development should

incorporate new and/or enhanced green infrastructure'.

iii. NSC Core Strategy Policy CS4 (CD2I8) '...A net loss of biodiversity

interest should be avoided, and a net gain achieved where possible.'

4.18. Compensation ratios of 1: 1 or greater are expected because new habitat will

take time to establish and may never achieve the ecological value of the lost

habitat. In this case, establishment includes growth and development of trees,

development of habitat structure elements and colonisation by other plants and

animals. In 2013, the UK government undertook a consultation on the use of

'metric' for the purposes of calculating 'biodiversity offsetting'. A technical paper

produced in 2012 as part of this consultation includes suggestions of multiplying

factors to be applied in habitat restoration and re-creation (relevant extracts of

this technical paper are given in Appendix 11; NSS/6/2). Multipliers include:

risks to success; time for complete establishment; location of receptor in relation

to the impacted habitats and wider spatial aspirations. These multipliers do not

provide a fixed ratio for compensation or replacement, but do serve to illustrate

why a ratio of above 1:1 is required.

4.19. I consider that the compensation planting ratio of 1.05: 1 of which this is part is

appropriate and not excessive.

Location

4.20. In identifying locations for compensation planting, it is necessary to take account

of existing retained vegetation and attempt to try and recreate the habitat

distribution which has been lost. The Scheme will result in the loss of woodland

blocks, trees and patches of scrub. It is therefore appropriate to recreate this

with a series of native tree and shrub planting blocks throughout the Scheme.

Atkins NSC/6/1 1 Version 4.012 June 2014 15

4.21. Planning policy as outlined in Section 3 of my evidence enforces this

expectation, in particular:

i. The aspiration for '...establishing coherent ecological networks...' in

NPPF (CD2/6) paragraph 109;

ii. Bristol Core Strategy (CD2n) Policy BSC9; '...Development should

incorporate new and/or enhanced green infrastructure or anappropriate type, standard and size.

iii. NSC Core Strategy Policy CS4 (CD2I8) '. ..enhancing natural habitats

and features and adding to them where possible.'

4.22. This is also expressed in the ecological impact assessment guidelines (IEEM

2006) (CD5/23): 'Any replacement area should be similar to or, with appropriate

management, have the ability to reproduce the ecological functions... '

4.23. This is a more appropriate mechanism to minimise loss of biodiversity than

simply putting the woodland in one convenient location irrespective of context.

4.24. I consider it appropriate that there are blocks of native tree and shrub planting

along the Scheme.

4.25. The proposed planting on land parcels 04/03 and part of 04/01 form part of

Scheme wide compensation works. The proposed planting is situated in a small

portion of a field severed by the main Scheme alignment. This proposed planting

is adjacent to existing hedgerow and scrub and is therefore in an ecologically

appropriate location.

4.26. I conclude that scrub and tree planting within land parcels 04/01 and 04/03

comprises part of a necessary package of compensation planting.


OBJ/16 (Withers); Plots 03/04, 03/14 & 03/434.27. OBJ/16 contains a generic objection to the CPO and Scheme, although there is

one reference which is specific to nature conservation which states:

'There will be much removal of very established native tree and wildlife which

even with a replanting plan will be lost forever, some of the trees and fauna

are ancient'.

Response4.28. As stated in Section 3 of my evidence, the ES recognises that the Scheme will

result in permanent loss of habitats including ancient woodland at Hanging Hill

Wood, broadleaved plantation woodland, trees, scrub and hedgerows as well as

impacts on fauna. There is no suggestion either in the objection from the

Withers (nor from any other party that I am aware of) that there has been any

under estimation of the potential ecological impacts of the Scheme. The

information regarding the impacts of the Scheme was presented to both NSC

and BCC planning authorities in order to inform the planning application. In

determining to grant planning permission for the Scheme, it was the considered

opinion of both authorities that any potential residual negative impacts

(ecological or otherwise) were outweighed by the benefits of the Scheme.

4.29. Subject to the implementation of ecological compensation and mitigation

measures, the Scheme will have no significant long term adverse ecological

effects.

Atkins NSC/6/1 I Version 4.0 1 2 June 2014 17

OBJ/29 (Burnell); Plots 04/08, 04/19, 04/20, 04/21, 04/224.30. Elements of OBJ/9 relevant to this proof of evidence are subsections 2.1 to 2.11

which deal with the above plots required for the exchange land ('Option 1 '). The

key objections relevant to the ecological case in these paragraphs are as follows:

i. Land required is too large and therefore not justified (ss 2.1-2.4);

ii. Lack of justification due to uncertainty of translocation success (ss 2.5-

2.6);

iii. No access has been provided for intrusive surveys (ss 2.7);

iv. Lack of potential benefit due to low quality donor habitat (also in ss

2.7); and

v. Alternative land (Option 2) also meets requirements and is preferable

to the objector (ss 2.8-2.11).

ResponseGeneral context

4.31. Land parcels referred to in OBJ/29 form part of the compensation package for

impacts on Highridge Common. It is proposed that the land will form an area of

open grassland which will fulfil two separate purposes, firstly compensation for

loss of common land, secondly compensation for loss of species rich grassland.

4.32. My evidence deals with the ecological reasons for requiring this land.Justification of need in relation to common land is given in evidence provided by

Nicholas Rowson (NSC/5/1).

4.33. It is important to note that the extent of the SNCI designation for Highridge

Common is not the same as the extent of the common land as well as the open

area designated as common land, the designation also includes a small field

immediately north of Highridge House. This field is crossed by the Scheme.

Extents of common land and the SNCI designation are both are shown in

Appendix 6; NSC/6/2. As indicated in the ES, the Scheme will result in direct

impacts to approximately 0.75 ha of Highridge Common SNCI, as well as

additional impacts through severance and disturbance.


4.34. Ecological mitigation within the exchange land area will comprise management

of the existing grassland to increase species diversity and translocation of

between 0.3 and 0.5 ha of species diverse turf from directly impacted areas of

the Common. The exact extent will depend on the construction works foot

required by the contractor. Commitment to undertake turf translocation was

made in the ES and has also been taken into account in NSC Planning Condition

29 and BCC Planning Condition 12 (CD2/1 and 2/2).

Land required is too large and therefore not justified

4.35. The objection suggests that the ratio of land to be acquired to that impacted by

the Scheme is in the order of 2.3:1 or 2.6:1. The total area of permanent habitat

loss from the SNCI under the footprint of the works is 5,240 m2. As stated in the

ES, the total area of permanent and temporary impacts is approximately 0.75ha

(7,500 m2). As is shown in Appendix 6 (NSC/6/2) plots 04/08, 04/21 and 04/22are already designated as part of Highridge Common SNCI. The principal

ecological gain is in respect to Plots 04/19 and 04/20. The total area of these

plots 21,245 m2 (20,822 m2 and 423 m2 respectively - CD1/1). Overall, the ratio

of land to be acquired in plots 04/19 and 04/20 (21,245 m2) to that permanently

lost (5,240 m2) is approximately 4: 1. Whereas, the ratio of land to be acquired in

plots 04/19 and 04/20 (21,245 m2) to that subject to temporary and permanent

impacts (7,500 m2) is approximately 2.8:1.

4.36. As detailed previously in my evidence there is an expectation that ecological

compensation ratio of 1: 1 as an absolute minimum which should be bettered

where possible because factors including the time taken for establishment and

the ecological value of the lost habitat. In 2013, the UK government undertook a

consultation on the use of 'metric' for the purposes of calculating 'biodiversity

offsetting'. A technical paper produced in 2012 as part of this consultation

includes suggestions of multiplying factors to be applied in habitat restoration

and re-creation (relevant extracts of this technical paper are given in Appendix

11; NSS/6/2). Multipliers include: risks to success; time for completeestablishment; location of receptor in relation to the impacted habitats and wider

spatial aspirations. These multipliers do not provide a fixed ratio forcompensation or replacement, but do serve to illustrate why a ratio in excess of

1: 1 is expected.


4.37. This is reiterated in relevant planning policy as set out in paragraph 3.27 and4.17 above.

4.38. As well as complying with requirements to provide a compensation ratio greater

that 1: 1, the current habitat status of the land to be acquired also influences the

land which is offered as compensation. The proposed exchange land already

has a gradation of grassland quality from species poor semi-improved grassland

in the west relative to species rich unimproved grassland in the east. The

species poor western portion of this field is an ideal location for the receptor site,

as the translocated turf will complement the existing species rich turf in the east

of the field. There would be significantly less ecological gain in translocating turf

onto the species rich turf in the east of the field. It is therefore appropriate for

translocated turf to be located in the west of the field. This is illustrated in

Appendix 5 (NSC/6/2).

4.39. One additional point regarding the size of the land required relates to the need

for an establishment period. This will require the translocated turf to be left

fenced off to ensure that it is undisturbed for a period of time to allow it to

establish. During this time, establishing turf cannot be accessed by the public

and commoners. To ensure this the area will be temporarily fenced for up to six

months in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Works on Common Land

(Exemptions)(England) Order 2007 (or any amended version in force at the time)

(Extracts in Appendix 13; NSC/6/2).

Lack of justification due to uncertainty of translocation success

4.40. There is a very good prospect that translocated turf will be successfuL. There are

established principles for successful relocation of turf (in particular in: Habitat

Translocation, A best practice guide. CIRA Guidance C600, Anderson, P. 2003)

Extracts in Appendix 12 (NSC/6/2). The 'biodiversity offsetting' technical paper

(Appendix 11; NSS/6/2) lists recreation of lowland meadow as being of Medium

technical difficulty.

4.41. A commitment was made in the ES to develop a management plan for the

purpose of assisting this habitat to establish. This has also been accounted for

in NSC Planning Condition 29 and BCC Planning Condition 12 (CD2/1 and 2/2).

On-going monitoring will be undertaken to maximise this success. In the unlikely


event that turf translocation fails, introduction of soil and seed bank material and

long-term management will allow the habitat to establish.

No access has been provided for intrusive surveys

4.42. Access was provided to NSC's then land agents Persona Associates in August

2011. A copy of the agreement to access the site is contained in Appendix 10

(NSC/6/2).

Lack of potential benefit due to low quality donor habitat

4.43. Habitat under the road footprint is a mosaic of unimproved neutral grassland;

species rich semi-improved neutral grassland; marshy grassland and scrub.

Appendix 5 (NSC/6/2) shows that the donor habitat forms only part of the area

of permanent grassland loss. Other areas are turf of lower ecological botanical

diversity or scrub, these areas are not proposed for translocation. Areas of

damp grassland and rush pasture are of ecological value diverse and will be

translocated. It is proposed that the receptor site will be prepared to include

locations which allow damper habitats establish.

Alternative land (Option 2) also meets requirements and is preferable to the

objector (2.8-2. 11)

4.44. Two options were available for the compensation/exchange land. Theapproximate location and extent of these options are shown in Appendix 5

(NSC/6/2). A variety of ecological and non-ecological factors were used tochoose the preferred option. An ecological appraisal of the two options is given

below.

4.45. Both options are contiguous with the grassland of the Common. Option 1 is

closer to the more species rich habitats in the northern half of the Highridge

Common and therefore provides opportunities for the retained and new common

areas to function as a single habitat area allowing flow of species and genetic

material over the medium to long term. Option 2 is adjacent to less species

diverse grassland in the southern half of the common. Proximity to the more

diverse grassland gives a better opportunity to create a continuous parcel of

diverse grassland and makes Option 1 preferable in this respect.


4.46. In order to provide open access between the retained and exchange common

land, Option 1 would require the removal of a small section of species rich

hedgerow between plots 04/19 and 04/21. This hedgerow is already severed by

the Scheme itself. Option 2 would be likely to require the removal of a longer

section of hedge (curving diagonally across the hedge). A greater loss of

hedgerow makes Option 2 less preferable in this respect.

4.47. The Option 1 land has a gradation of grassland quality from relatively species

poor in the west side to relatively species rich in the east. Translocation of turf to

the species poor west side will complement the existing grassland habitat and

with sensitive management, there is the opportunity for a large area of species

rich grassland to be created. Option 2 is poorer quality grassland habitat, so

there is less certainty of successfully establishing an area of species rich

grassland and this is likely to take significantly longer than on Option 1.

4.48. Overall, Option 1 clearly gives the best possibility of providing an area of

grassland which will adequately compensate impacts on HighridgeCommon

SNCI in an acceptable timeframe.

4.49. As explained in the evidence of Nicholas Rowson (NSC/5/1) the ecological

attributes of the common are an important component of its amenity value and

thus relevant in considering the appropriateness of the land provided in

Exchange.


OBJ/30 (Viridor Waste Exeter Limited): Plot 03/014.50. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of OBJ/30 relate to measures to prevent potential impacts

on wildlife and habitats in Hanging Hill Wood and Colliter's Brook during

construction. There is also a comment relating to ancient woodland status and

Tree Protection Orders within Hanging Hill Wood.

Response4.51. As stated in Section 3 of my evidence, the ES recognises that the Scheme will

result in permanent loss of habitats including ancient woodland at Hanging Hill

Wood, broadleaved plantation woodland, trees, scrub and hedgerows as well as

impacts on fauna. In the mitigation section of the ecology chapter, paragraph

13.7.20 states: 'During the construction phase, woodland in the vicinity of the

construction zone will be fenced and protected from damage and disturbance

from construction traffic in line with BS5837:20 12 Trees in Relation to Design,

Demolition Construction - Recommendations'. The same paragraph is repeated

at 13.7.23 in relation to Colliter's Brook SNCI (CD4/2).

4.52. This commitment is also reinforced in NSC planning Condition 8 (CD2/1) which

relates to requirements to provide and adhere to plans in relation to construction

phase tree and hedge protection fencing. The Viridor land is only within the

North Somerset part of the Scheme.

4.53. Impacts in relation to any TPOs are covered by the granting of planning

permission.

4.54. I conclude that the potential impacts mentioned in the objection are adequately

addressed and provided for in the Scheme and carried into conditions of the

planning permission.

Atkins NSC/6/1 1 Version 4.0 I 2 June 201423

OBJ/32: (James) Plot 03/264.55. An objection in relation to plot 03/26 was received and relates to land required

for planting as partial mitigation of impacts on Hanging Hill Wood. Objectors

question the extent of the land required and also offer alternative locations for

this planting.

Response4.56. In Section 3 of my evidence and in my response to the Gianetto objection

(above), I have established that there is a need for compensation planting as

part of the Scheme.

4.57. The Scheme results in the loss of approximately 0.1 ha of Hanging Hill Wood

WS, as well as additional impacts through disturbance. Compensation for the

loss of ancient woodland and other impacts is provided through measures

including planting on an area of land adjacent to WS. The 1 ha of planted

woodland to the 0.1 ha lost gives a ratio of 10:1.

4.58. Natural England recently published standing advice on ancient woodland Natural

English Nature and Forestry Commission England 2014 Standing Advice for

Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees (Extracts in Appendix 14; NSC/6/2).

Although this document was not available in this form at the time of the ES or

planning determinations, the Scheme is in line with the recommendations

therein. Paragraph 1.1 of the standing advice states that ancient woodland is an

irreplaceable resource. In relation to creating new native woodland as acompensation measure the document states in paragraph 6.5.2:

'Creating new woodland cannot provide a direct replacement for ancient

woodland - the habitat is irreplaceable. However, if an area of ancient

woodland is lost to development native woodland habitat creation at a large

scale, could be considered as part of a compensation package. '

4.59. To ensure the compensatory woodland planting provides the best ecological

function, it is proposed in a location which is contiguous with the existing area of

Hanging Hill Wood and an area of more recent planted broadleaved woodland.

This location is poor semi-improved grassland of low botanical diversity so of

relatively low ecological value, thereby increasing the potential for biodiversity

gain.


4.60. Natural England and Forestry Commission do not quantify the 'large scale'

quoted in the reference above (Appendix 14; NSC/6/2) but I the planting ratio of

10: 1 adequately fulfils this. I am not aware of any authoritative guidance on what

would be an appropriate ratio of compensation planting for ancient woodland

4.61. As stated earlier in my evidence, a technical paper produced in 2012 as part of a

UK government consultation into biodiversity offsetting included suggestions of

multiplying factors to be applied in habitat restoration and re-creation (relevant

extracts of this technical paper are given in Appendix 11; NSS/6/2). Multipliers

include: risks to success; time for complete establishment; location of receptor in

relation to the impacted habitats and wider spatial aspirations. These multipliers

do not provide a fixed ratio for compensation or replacement, but values relating

to establishment time do back up the assertion of a large compensation ratio

(see extracted para 67 and Appendix 2 in my Appendix 11).

4.62. Other non-ecological factors were also used to determine its location and extent;

these are covered by other witnesses.

Alternatives proposed by objector

4.63. The objectors propose two alternative locations. My interpretation of these

locations is shown in Appendix 6 (NSC/6/2).

4.64. The objection suggests previously capped landfill land to the north of Colliter's

Brook as a potential alternative (my understanding of this is shown as Alternative

1 on Figure 6, Volume 2). This is within CPO Plot 02/26. Habitats are relatively

species poor so there is an opportunity for biodiversity gain, it is also relatively

contiguous with Hanging Hill Wood. However, it is somewhat isolated from other

habitats by the existing landfill site, railway and the Scheme itself. i also

understand that this land is already intended to be planted with trees as part of

remediation works included in the quarry/landfill planning consent. This means it

is not possible to use this land for compensation planting as part of the Scheme.

4.65. Overall I conclude that from an ecological perspective, Alternative 1 is a

potentially suitable alternative, not as preferable as the proposed location 1.

However, this land is already committed for tree planting under an existing

planning consent relating to the Yanley Quarry site (NSC Planning reference

Atkins NSC/6/1 1 Version 4.0 I 2 June 2014 25

08/P/1374/F (Amendments to conditions): Proposed Restoration Masterplan:

Reference: Plan-2286913, determined 11 th August 2008. Shown as Plot PW3) A

copy is given in Appendix 15 (NSC/6/2). This makes it unavailable for tree

planting by the Scheme.

4.66. The objectors also propose a second location which they describe as 'north of

the SBL'. My understanding of this is shown as Alternative 2 in Appendix 6;

NSC/6/2). I believe that this would be in the land adjacent and to the east of the

Scheme in the vicinity of Hanging Hill Wood. This habitat is within close

proximity to the existing wood, improved and semi-improved grassland so there

is an opportunity for biodiversity gain. However, it would be isolated from the

existing Hanging Hill Wood by the Scheme. There is considerable advantage in

a new habitat being adjacent to the new habitat as it will enables colonisation

and quicker establishment. Whilst Alternative 2 is potentially suitable for tree

planting, lack of contiguity with Hanging Hill Wood would considerably reduce its

suitability.

4.67. The proposed option (Plot 03/26) is considerably more ecologically appropriate

and preferable than Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Alternative 1 is unavailable

due to existing planning commitments and Alternative 2 is unsuitable due to

severance from the existing Hanging Hill Wood.

Atkins NSC/6/1 I Version 4.0 1 2 June 2014 26

5. Conclusion

5.1. The Scheme comprises construction of a road on the south west fringe of Bristol

City. It has been subjected to a statutory Environmental Impact Assessment

which has been submitted with a planning application to Bristol City and North

Somerset Council planning departments. The Environmental Statement

concluded that there would be no significant long term impacts on ecological

receptors. There were no statutory environmental objections to the proposal and

both authorities have awarded planning permission.

5.2. The Scheme is compliant with national and local planning policy in respect of

ecology and there are no foreseen impediments to obtaining licences for any

anticipated protected species issues.

5.3. The proposed design includes some elements of ecological compensation works

including habitat creation outside the footprint of the road itself in some instances

at a ratio greater than 1: 1. This approach is an expectation of the planning

process and national policy.

5.4. Several objections relating to ecology relate to this land to be acquired for habitat

compensation. In my evidence, I demonstrate that this is a necessary

requirement of the Scheme design.

5.5. Other objections relate to generic comments about ecological impacts. The

Scheme has been subject a full EIA which concluded that it will have no

significant long term adverse ecological effects and this conclusion was accepted

by the NSC and BCC planning authorities.

5.6. Therefore, i conclude that objections relating to ecological impact should not be

given any substantial weight.


ecology - wordpress.com · 6/6/2014 · (cenv), member of the chartered institute of ecology &...

Documents