ecology report - crawley · 2017-05-21 · breem ecology report for csh 1. introduction 1.1....

Ecology Report

57 Poynings Road, crawley RH11 0TL

BREEAM Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH)

Duncan Ferns

May 2014

BREEM Ecology Report for CSH

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Code for Sustainable Homes ................................................................................................... 1

1.3. Scope of the Assessment ........................................................................................................ 1

2. METHOD .......................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1. Site Survey ............................................................................................................................... 3

2.2. Surveyor Experience ............................................................................................................... 3

2.3. Limitations............................................................................................................................... 3

3. BREEAM ECOLOGY REPORT TEMPLATE .......................................................................................... 4

3.1. Section A1: Contact Details ..................................................................................................... 5

3.2. Section A2: Development Details ........................................................................................... 5

3.3. Section B1: Suitably Qualified Ecologist’s Questions .............................................................. 6

3.4. Section B2: Report Verification ............................................................................................... 7

3.5. Section C: Site Survey .............................................................................................................. 8

4. Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 19

5. PHOTOGRAPHS ............................................................................................................................. 20

Duncan Ferns is the founder of Best Habitats – the ‘suit in boots’. The suit refers to his experience as a Director

of a Plc management consultancy working with public sector environment agencies.

The boots refer to his practical habitat management experience– complete with chainsaw qualifications - in his

50 acre woodland and large wildlife garden. He has wide experience of business cases, contract management,

project outcomes and benefits, backed by a PhD in Plant Sciences. After focusing on what he really wants to do

- he has established Best Habitats building on his eclectic mix of experience.

http://www.besthabitats.com/

mailto:[email protected]


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background Best Habitats Ltd has been commissioned by Colin Smith (Planning Consultant), on behalf of the

freeholder, to undertake an ecological survey of a site adjacent to 57 Poynings Road, Crawley RH11

0TL. The purpose of this survey is to establish the nature conservation value of the site and set a

baseline to appraise the development’s ecological impact using the Land-use and Ecology criteria of

the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH).

The site is being assessed by the freeholder for the build of two new starter homes. This report

details a site visit prior to planning permission being submitted and prior start of any site

preparation works. It is therefore possible to fully assess the development proposals against the

CSH method, should the development proceed at a future date.

1.2. Code for Sustainable Homes The CSH scheme is designed to improve the overall sustainability of new homes by setting a single

framework within which developers can design and construct environmentally sustainable

buildings that function at standards higher than those set by the Buildings Regulations (2000). The

achievement of this is recognised and rewarded by the Building Research Establishment (BRE)

issuing of a certificate detailing the grade achieved by the development. The CSH rates properties

against a six level system, with Code Level 1 being the entry level pass (significantly above the level

of the building regulations) and Code Level 6 being the highest level, reflecting exemplar

sustainable development and representing a true carbon-neutral building.

The CSH measures the sustainability of new developments against nine categories: energy and CO2

emissions; water; materials; surface water run-off; waste; pollution; health and wellbeing;

management; and land use and ecology. Each category is allocated a total maximum score in terms

of percentage points. The total number of percentage points establishes a level and star rating for

each category by which an overall Code Level is awarded on the basis of achieving both a set of

mandatory minimum standards and a minimum overall score.

1.3. Scope of the Assessment This report is only concerned with the Land-Use and Ecology section of the Code. This section is

composed of five criteria, Eco1 to Eco5, that address topics including the minimisation of ecological

damage, the protection of existing features of ecological interest and the enhancement of the site’s

ecological and nature conservation value.

This report will consider four of these five criteria, Eco1 to Eco4 inclusive. Eco5 assesses the

efficiency of the development’s use of land and is outside the scope and brief of this report, being

most appropriately calculated by the project architect.


Please be aware that this report does not constitute a formal CSH assessment. Whilst all due care

has been taken during the preparation of this report, formal assessment by the appointed assessor

and BRE’s Quality Assurance process will determine the total number of credits achieved within the

CSH scheme.


2. METHOD

2.1. Site Survey The site was visited on 14 May 2014 by Dr Duncan Ferns, prior to the commencement of site

preparation works. The site survey method broadly followed the guidelines for Phase 1 Habitat

assessment as detailed by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee1. However, these guidelines

were modified to account for the small scale and urbanised nature of the site, and to incorporate

an examination of the site’s potential to support fauna (particularly those species that are afforded

legal protection). In accordance with guidelines set by BRE, a 3m buffer zone around the site

boundary was also inspected.

2.2. Surveyor Experience Dr Duncan Ferns is a Senior Environmental Manager and Ecologist and full member of the

Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (MCIEEM) who meets the

requirements of a ‘suitably qualified ecologist’ as determined by the CSH guidelines. Following a

PhD, he has over 25 years professional experience in management consultancy for environmental

clients, the last decade with Defra, Natural England, Rural Payments Agency and The Highways

Agency. Previous employers include Logica plc, Hedra plc, PA Consulting Group and Mouchel plc

where he held the post of Director, Environmental Business Consulting. He established Best

Habitats Ltd as Director in 2011 and has successfully delivered environmental projects and grant &

planning applications for Estates, farmers and property developers.

2.3. Limitations The survey was undertaken in May which is within the optimum survey period for habitats (March

– September). Whilst it is felt unlikely that significant factors have been overlooked, due to the

nature of the subjects of ecological surveys it is feasible that some species on-site may not have

been recorded by virtue of their seasonality, or being not visible under the dominant vegetative

cover. It is considered that sufficient data was gathered to enable an appropriate level of

assessment to be conducted.

Please note that where guidance is provided regarding legislation, it is given in good faith. Best

Habitats is not a specialised legal practice and in cases of any doubt, the reader should approach a

legal practice specialising in environmental law for advice.

1 Joint Nature Conservancy Council (2003) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (2003 revision). JNCC,

Peterborough, UK.


3. BREEAM ECOLOGY REPORT TEMPLATE

This report template is to be used by Suitably Qualified Ecologists providing reports which address

Ecology 1, 2, 3 and 4 issues. It is a mandatory requirement that this document is completed in a

Code for Sustainable Homes submission of evidence (CSH 2007 p 187).

The appointed, licensed Code assessor is to pass this document to the appointed ecologist who

conducted/ will conduct the ecology work.

The appointed ecologist is to complete all sections of this report and return it completed with all

relevant documentation in the Appendix to the assessor.

An ecologist may have been appointed to carry out ecological site surveys and to produce an

ecology report without being aware that a Code assessment has been, or is to be conducted. In this

instance, the ecologist should fill in the relevant details required for the Code in this report

template.

The assessor is to use this report in conjunction with the latest version of the relevant Code

Guidance and information provided by the developer / client, to carry out the assessment for the

Ecology Category issues stated above.

There are 6 sections (sections A - F) in this document.

Section A1 requires contact details for the ecologist and developer / client; section A2 requires the

development details.

Section B1 determines whether the appointed ecologist is ‘suitably qualified’ (under the Code); and

if not, section B2 determines whether the report has been verified by an ecologist who is ‘suitably

qualified’.

Section C determines whether the findings of the report have been based on data collected from site

surveys conducted at appropriate times of the year to determine whether different species are

evident.

(Note: If ‘No’ is recorded for either Section B or C then the contents of the ecology report cannot be

used to determine compliance with the Code requirements).

NOTE:

Text in grey represents the standard questions of the BREAM CSH Questionnaire.

Text in Black is the response.


Section D provides the assessor with the necessary information to base the assessment on for the

various Ecology credits.

Section E provides details of the documentation / information to be included within the appendix of

this guidance.

Section F requires the signature of the appointed ecologist who has completed this document.

3.1. Section A1: Contact Details

3.1.1 Ecologist’s Details

Company name: Best Habitats Limited

Website: www.besthabitats.com

Company address: Yewdells, Dungates Lane, Buckland, Surrey RH3 7BD

Contact name: Duncan Ferns (BSc, PhD, MIEEM, FIBC)

Contact telephone number: 07786 966841

Ecology Report Reference:

3.1.2 Developer / Client Details

Contact name: Mr Colin Smith (Planning Consultant)

Company address: The Logans, 146 Brambletye Park Road, Redhill, Surrey RH1 6ED

Contact telephone number: 07879 472627

3.2. Section A2: Development Details

BRE Reference Number:

Client Reference Number:

Development Name:

Development Address: 57 Poynings Road, Crawley, West Sussex RH11 0TL


3.3. Section B1: Suitably Qualified Ecologist’s Questions

1. Do you hold a degree (or equivalent qualification, e.g. N/SVQ level 5) in ecology or related

subject?

Yes

If Yes, please provide details:

BSc Hons Physical Geography & Geology (incl. biogeography & soil science), University of Reading

1980.

PhD – Mapping Mineral & Air Pollution stress in Vegetation. Dept of Pure & Applied Biology,

Imperial College, University of London, 1983

2. Are you a practising ecologist with a minimum of 3 years relevant experience within the last 5

years?

Relevant experience must clearly demonstrate a practical understanding of factors affecting ecology in relation to

construction and the built environment and will include acting in an advisory capacity to provide recommendations for

ecological protection, enhancement and mitigation measures, e.g. ecological impact assessments.

Yes


Duncan Ferns has spent 8 years from 2000-2010 in consulting for positions in government

environmental bodies, including Defra, Natural England, the Rural Payments Agency and the

Highways Agency. In 2011 he established Best Habitats Ltd to work for Estates, landowners, and

planning consultants, particularly helping them to submit grants and establish new projects to

optimise revenue. He has undertaken training in BREEAM assessments and the Conservation

Management System (CMS) methodologies. His experience includes wildlife garden design,

woodland management, successful applications for Natural England’s Environmental Stewardship

Grants (ELS & HLS), and the Forestry Commission’s England Woodland Grant Scheme (e.WGS). He

is specifically interested in garden/woodland schemes and their valuable contribution to

conservation.

3. Are you bound by a professional code of conduct and subject to peer review*?

A full member of one of the following organisations will be deemed suitable: Chartered Institution of Water and

Environmental Management (CIWEM); Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM); Institute of

Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA); Landscape Institute (LI).

Yes

Full Member CIEEM



Duncan Ferns is a full Member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental

Management (MCIEEM), and Fellow of the Institute of Business Consulting (FIBC) - and abides by

the professional standards of both these bodies. Certificates are available on request.

*Peer review is defined as the process employed by a professional body to demonstrate that potential or current full

members maintain a standard of knowledge and experience required to ensure compliance with a code of conduct and

professional ethics.

Note: If the answer to any question in Section B1 is ‘No’ then the ecologist writing the report does not meet the

requirements of a Suitably Qualified Ecologist under the Code. The ecology report therefore cannot be used in the Code

assessment unless it is verified by a ‘Suitably Qualified Ecologist’. If this is the case, proceed to Section B2.

If the ecologist does meet the requirements of a Suitably Qualified Ecologist, proceed to Section C.

3.4. Section B2: Report Verification

If the appointed ecologist does not meet the requirements of a Suitably Qualified Ecologist, the report must be verified by

an individual who does meet these requirements. Otherwise the ecology report cannot be used in the Code assessment.

The person who verifies the report must provide written confirmation that they meet the requirements of a Suitably

Qualified Ecologist in accordance with Section B1 above.

Details on verifying an ecology report for a Code assessment:

The individual verifying the report must provide written confirmation that they comply with the definition of a Suitably

Qualified Ecologist (as detailed above in Section B1).

The individual verifying the report must confirm in writing they have read and reviewed the report and found it to:

represent sound industry practice

report and recommend correctly, truthfully, and objectively

be appropriate given the local site conditions and scope of works proposed

avoid invalid, biased, and exaggerated statements.

Written confirmation from the third party verifier on all the points detailed under 1 and 2 above (for Section B2) must be

included in the Appendix to this report (see Section E).

Duncan Ferns meets the criteria of a Suitably Qualified Ecologist and requires no further

verification.


3.5. Section C: Site Survey

1. Have the findings of the ecology report been based on data collected from a site survey(s)?

Yes

If yes, please provide details to confirm this (e.g. date(s) and scope of site survey(s))

The site, centred on Ordnance Survey Grid Reference TQ 24010 36317, was surveyed on 14 May

2014. 57 Poynings Road is an end-of terrace home, estimated to be 15-20 years old. Sited at the

end of the cul-de-sac, the freeholder also owns adjoining land around the end of the cul-de-sac

which is the subject of a planning application. This adjoining land is outlined in red on the site

block plan. The land to the north of the cul-de-sac outlined in blue is also owned by the same

owner.

Both the development plot (in red) – Area A - and land to the north of the cul-de-sac outlined in

blue – Area B - have been subject to the ecological survey.

Figure 1. Block Plan: Ecological Survey Area: (A) proposed development site in red & (B) the

adjacent site to the north also in the applicants ownership, and from which 4 car parking spaces are

proposed

B

A


The site survey method broadly followed the guidelines for Phase 1 Habitat assessment as detailed

by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee2. However, these guidelines were modified to account

for the small scale and urbanised nature of the site, and inaccessibility afforded by dense bramble

thicket on part of the site. An assessment was made of the site’s potential to support fauna

(particularly those species that are afforded legal protection). In accordance with guidelines set by

BRE, a 3m buffer zone around the site boundary was also inspected.

Note: If ‘No’ has been answered to Question 1 of Section C the ecology report cannot be used to determine compliance

with the requirements of the relevant Code credits.

2. On what date did/ will initial site preparation works commence?

Note: If the site survey was carried out after initial site preparation works commenced, the ecology report cannot be used

to determine compliance with the requirements of the relevant Code credits.

The start date for site preparation is not known and entirely dependent on the success of a future

planning application. This report has been prepared in the format of the BREEAM Ecology Report

Template for the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH), in order that it might contribute to the

baseline documentation for relevant Code credits for any future development.

2 Joint Nature Conservancy Council (2003) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey (2003 revision). JNCC, Peterborough, UK.


3.6 Section D: Details from the Site Survey

3.6.1 Eco 1: Ecological Value of Site

1. Is the construction zone of low or insignificant ecological value?

The construction zone includes any land used for buildings, hard standing, landscaping, site access and any other land

where construction work is carried out (or land being disturbed in any way), plus a 3 metre boundary in either direction

around these areas. It also includes any areas used for temporary site storage and buildings.

Yes /No

Answer: Yes

The site, identified by the yellow pin, is on the urban fringe of Crawley, separated from a golf

course by a strip of natural woodland and a stream.

The survey site does not support any statutory wildlife site designation or non-statutory wildlife

site designation.

AREA ‘A’ – the Development Plot

Area A, the development plot, is on the East side of the cul-de-sac. It can be described either as

‘disturbed wasteland’ or an ‘encroaching woodland edge’ habitat, depending on your point of view

- but both are correct. It is certainly not managed at present, and has been unmanaged for 15 or

20 years, and hence the species present have largely self-seeded, many from the adjacent mature

woodland to the north. If this area were left untouched, it would likely revert to mixed deciduous

woodland, expanding the woodland boundary to the north. However the spacing of trees would


have to be managed at some future point as the oaks could not be left to mature in the positions

they are in without being a nuisance to adjacent existing properties.

The species cover on area A is dominated by Bramble (Rubus futicosus), in thickets 1.5 to 2.5m

high, with a smaller area of mixed long grasses. There is very poor species diversity within this,

excepting self-seeded tree saplings of Oak (Quercus Robur), ash (Fraxina excelsior), hawthorn

(Crataegus monogyna) and blackthorn (Prunus spinosa). The bramble cover has practically no

under-storey due to its denseness, and it makes much of the development site inaccessible,

excepting a few narrow breaks in the brambles.

Area A would be the development site for the build of two starter-homes, each with a small garden

to the rear.

AREA B – Adjacent to the cul-de-sac and site of car parking spaces

This area is part of a belt of mixed deciduous woodland, at this point being approximately 15m in

width (N-S), with the site of the proposed car parking on the south side, and a golf course on the

north side.

This are supports a number of mature oak (Quercus Robur), hawthorn (Crataegus monognya), holly

(Ilex aquifolium) & ash (Fraxina excelsior). Although the width of the woodland is limited at this

point it forms part of the east-west corridor of woodland which joins the larger block of XXXX

Wood about 500m to the west. Two factors suggest that Area B has been woodland for some time

(e.g.50-100 years):

The mature oaks which have reached a mature height of 15-25m

The ground flora which includes Wild Garlic (Allium triquetrum), Herb Robert (Geranium

robertianum), Sulphur Cinquefoil (Potentilla recta), mature Ivy (Hereda helix) & birthwort

(Aristolochia clematis).

There are NO indicator species for Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland (ASNW).

At the ‘head’ of the cul-de-sac where the woodland edge literally adjoins the tarmac, there is

considerable evidence of dumping – hedge cuttings, dumped topsoil, grass cuttings, and

domestic/garden dumped rubbish. This rubbish dumping even encroaches into the stream (Hyde

Hill Brook). The ground flora, including Cleavers (Galium aparine) and a species of garden bulb

(Allium neapolitanum – or similar sub-species) planted on the kerb-edge are also typical of

disturbed land.

The proposed development would entail a minor encroachment of Area B with the creation of four

adjacent car parking spaces. It would seem that the development of four car park spaces would

require the removal of 4 trees: a field maple, crack willow (already ‘felled’ and re-growing from the

stump), and a wing-nut tree. All the mature Oaks that give area B its distinctive character would

not require any felling for the proposed development.


TREES – planted garden species

No. Latin Name Common Name Approx height (m)

Number of trees (approx.) in Areas A+B

1 Acer campestre Field maple 3 1

2 Quercus robur Oak 1-20 20+

3 Crataegus monognya Hawthorn 2-6 5

4 Fraxina excelsior Ash 3 5

5 Pterocarya fraxinifolia Caucasian Wingnut 3 1

4 Salix fragilis Crack Willow 4 1

6 Sambusus nigra Elder (x 2) 4 2

7 Sorbus aucuparia Mountain Ash 4 1

8 Ilex aquifolium Holly 3-5 3

9 Prunus spinosa Blackthorn 1-3 2

Ground flora Species Description/Common name

Allium neapolitanum (or similar sub-species) White flowering garden bulb (planted by kerb-edge)

Allium triquetrum Three cornered garlic

Aristolochia clematis Birthwort

Chaerophyllum temulum Rough Chervil

Daphne laureola Spurge Laurel

Elytrigia repens Common Couch (grass)

Festuca rubra Red fescue (grass)

Fumaria muralis Common ramping fumitory

Galium aparine Cleaver

Geranium robertianum Herb Robert

Glechoma hederacea Ground Ivy

Hedera helix Common ivy

Indian Balsam Impatiens glandulifera

Phleum pratense Timothy (grass)

Potentilla recta Sulphur cinquefoil

Rubus fruticosus Bramble

Urtica Dioica Nettle

Wildlife

The current environment is species-poor, and lack of flora biodiversity does not encourage

biodiversity of insect, butterfly, bird and mammal diversity. The oaks and brambles are both good

species for insect life and bird habitat.


The panel fencing to the south of area A is well maintained. No evidence was found of under-

fence animal tracks or burrows as would be left by foxes, rabbits or badgers.

There is a strong likelihood of urban foxes in this urban fringe location, and a likelihood of grey

squirrels in the mature oak trees in area B. None were seen during the survey period.

It is highly likely that bats may use the woodland corridor in area B, and they are a protected

species. However, as the planning proposal does not infringe on these trees, no concern need be

raised. There is no evidence to suggest that any protected species would utilise the development

site.

Due to the high density housing, domestic cats are abundant (four were seen on the survey visit).

In summary, we can conclude that the construction zone has insignificant ecological value.

2. If yes, is there any land outside the construction zone but inside the development site of

ecological value?

Yes /No

Answer YES

Please give details:

As referred to above, the east-west woodland strip containing mature oaks and the ‘Hyde Hill

Brook’ stream has ecological value as a mixed woodland corridor habitat. This contributes to

woodland habitat at a landscape scale, being the eastern extension of a woodland corridor that is

approximately 2 Km long. Corridor habitats provide an ecological network enabling species to

move through the landscape and increase their foraging range, hence maintaining adequate food

sources, and enabling increasing populations of wildlife.

The principle of maintaining and expanding ecological corridor networks for habitat was strongly

promoted by the Lawton Review – ‘Making Space for Nature’ (September 2010) in his

government advisory report; in subsequent Living Landscapes programme managed by the Wildlife

Trusts; and in PPS12 Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) implemented by Local Authorities.

It is noted that there are specific areas designated within the LDF to the south and west of Crawley

(Area SX08) that are designated in the South-East Ecological network, but this site does NOT fall in

this designated are, nor it is directly linked to it.

3. If yes, is it possible for all areas / features of ecological value to remain undisturbed by the

construction works?


Yes. The species removed for the car parking spaces are of little ecological value. We would hope

that the impact of the development and car parking spaces may have a positive effect on the site,

namely to reduce fly-tipping of the garden waste and household rubbish on the woodland margins.

3.6.2 Eco 2: Ecological Enhancement

1. Has the developer / client required you to provide advice and recommendations for enhancing

site ecology?

Answer: YES

2. If yes, please provide a brief statement outlining all of your KEY recommendations*:

Legal Considerations:

The bramble species covering c.60% of Area A, the development site, provide excellent

habitat for nesting birds (e.g. blue tits, great tits, wrens, sparrows, blackbirds, robins, etc).

Whilst no specifically legally protected or notable bird species were recorded during the

survey, the nests of all British birds (except for eleven derogated pest species) are afforded

legal protection. The site should therefore be cleared outside the bird nesting season (the

nesting season is generally accepted as being March to August inclusive) or a thorough

check should be undertaken by an appropriately qualified person immediately prior to site

clearance, and appropriate mitigation employed should bird nests be found.

3. If yes, please provide a brief statement outlining all of your ADDITIONAL recommendations*.

A positive action would be to remove any dumped materials (garden waste, household

rubbish) from the woodland margin and stream-side.

The two properties will each have a small garden. Features to consider wildlife can be

incorporated into the garden landscape, for example:

Installation of a water feature of a design suitable to provide a drinking place for birds, or

alternatively a bird bath, should be incorporated within the landscaping. Access to

freshwater for birds is often severely limited within the urban environment. In order to

drink and bathe, birds need to be able to stand in or adjacent to shallow water. This

feature should be sited in an open area, not under a tree canopy.

Nesting boxes can be attached to trees or panel fences

All landscaping planting should be conducted using peat-free composts.

No selective herbicides should be used during the establishment of any grassed areas.

(Whilst establishing amenity grassland areas, one method frequently used is to spray the

lawn with a selective weed-killer following the first cut. This kills the broad-leaved plant

species and produces a finer sward, but reduces the biodiversity).

Whilst it is accepted that lawns are of intrinsically low nature conservation value, they are

still considered an improvement on hard-standing or decking, and lawns with a diverse

assemblage of broad-leaf plants can support a range of common invertebrates.


Ornamental flower beds should be planted with native species and/or ornamental species

of known benefit to wildlife. Ornamental species with no proven benefit for British wildlife

may still be planted provided that they do not account for more than 20% of the planting

mix. Species selection should be guided by the English Nature publication ‘Plants for

Wildlife-Friendly gardens’ (ISBN 1 85716) catalogue code IN18.7 available from

www.naturalengland.org.uk.

Flower beds planted in this way may be used to contribute to the credits gained under

Section Eco4 – Change in Ecological Value. In order to consider this recommendation

achieved, at least 80% of the proposed scrub/flower bed planting proposed must be of

“wildlife friendly” species, with at least 10 different species present.

Water butts to collect rainwater could be installed, to collect water for use in the garden of

both the existing and new property.

Compost bins could be provided so as to provide suitable fertiliser for use in the gardens of

the existing and new property. The residents should also be provided with a leaflet on

suitable items to place in the compost. Grass clippings from the communal garden should

also be placed in the compost.

Rubble or log piles should be placed in sheltered areas within the shrub and flower beds, so

as to provide shelter for invertebrates.

Bumble-bee nesting box and multi-tube hibernation boxes could be located in sunny,

relatively un-disturbed areas of the landscaping.

The owner/tenant of the both the existing and new development should be provided with

a leaflet on attracting wildlife to urban areas, including information on wildlife gardening,

bird tables and feeders etc.

* The client / developer will be required to adopt / implement all KEY recommendations and 30% of ADDITIONAL

recommendations.

3.6.3 Eco 3: Protection of Ecological Features

Note: Eco 3 looks at protecting all existing features / areas of ecological value on the site and boundary area. If a feature

of ecological value is to be removed as part of the development works, e.g. site clearance, then this credit cannot be

achieved. If you have deemed the whole development site to be of poor ecological value then there will be no features of

ecological value to protect. If the construction zone is of low ecological value but the wider site is not, give protection

measures here. If there is an area(s) or feature(s) of low or insignificant ecological value you wish to advise be retained

and enhanced / improved, e.g. a species-poor hedgerow to a species-rich hedgerow, then full details of this advice should

be entered as a recommendation under Eco 2 Ecological Enhancement.

1. Are there any existing features/ areas of ecological value on the site or at the boundary of the

site?

Yes /No

Answer: YES


In Area A – the development site, there are NO ecological features to protect. In Area B, there are

NO ecological features to protect in the areas where the car parking provision is indicated.

2. If yes, please provide a brief statement outlining the advice/ recommendations given for

protecting all existing features and areas of ecological value:

The remaining portion of Area B should be protected by minimal intervention and should have no

further disturbance. There should be no disturbance of the stream-side ground flora (including

wild garlic patches) or the mature oaks. No pollutants must enter the stream watercourse.

The woodland edge at the north side of the cul-de-sac must not be used for building plant,

temporary sheds or machinery, or the depositing of any waste materials. [These should be kept on

the tarmac surface only or within the development plot of Area A].

3.6.4 Eco 4: Change of Ecological Value of Site

1. Are you able to provide the following information for before and after construction: habitat

types and an estimate of the number of floral species present per habitat type (based on

appropriate censusing techniques and confirmed planting regimes)?

Yes/ No

Answer: Yes

2. If yes, please provide the following information:

a. A brief description of the landscape and habitats surrounding the development site

The survey site is a species-poor mix of grass, brambles and tree seedlings, probably self-seeded

from adjacent natural deciduous woodland.

b. The total site area (this will be the same both before and after development):

Houses and gardens plot: approx 190 m2

Parking spaces plot: approx 40 m2

Total : 230 m2

3. Has your client / developer requested you to carry out the calculation for Eco 4 Change in

Ecological Value of Site? The calculation must be carried out in line with the methodology provided in the most

current version of the Code Guidance.

Yes /No

If yes, please complete the table below:


Average number of species before development

Habitat Type Area of Habitat Plot

(m2)

No of Species No of Species x Area

of Plot

Waste land/Emergent

woodland

230 28 6440

* identified species, excluding small weed species

Average Number of Species after development (to be completed following detailed development

plans)

Habitat Type Area of Habitat Plot No of Species No of Species x Area

of Plot

It should be noted that it is possible to achieve an extra credit under ECO4, through the

incorporation of wildlife planting into the development scheme.

As noted in the requirement for ECO2, the use of at least 10 species of native or wildlife attracting

plants in the scrub/flowers beds within the development is recommended. This development

could increase the number of garden species significantly beyond this by diverse planting.


4. Summary

The proposed development site is on the urban fringe, and adjoining an ecologically

valuable woodland corridor populated by mature oak trees.

The development site itself is previously wasteland, which has developed self-seeded tree

saplings from the neighboring woodland; a number of invasive weed species (bramble,

nettle, mixed grasses), and species that favour wasteland (nettles, brambles, cleavers).

The site is ecologically poor and has a limited number of species. If left alone for many

more years, it would naturally become an extension of the natural adjoining woodland (As

the trees develop a higher closed canopy, the bramble will die back due to lack of light). It

would require some future long-term management to thin the self-seeded oaks, which are

likely to become a nuisance by their proximity to the existing neighboring properties and

gardens. This nuisance would be caused by root damage (to paving, drains and property)

and shading, blocking light from properties. It is borderline whether the woodland edge

can be extended in this way without causing such difficulties with existing properties.

There is no principled objection to the application from an ecological perspective, as long

as certain features of the adjacent woodland to the north (Area B) are protected, notably

the mature canopy of oak trees and the ground flora by the stream (e.g. wild garlic). The

removal of a few woodland edge trees for the car parking in Area B will not affect the key

elements of Area B that afford protection.

I confirm that the information provided in this document is truthful and accurate at the time of

completion.

Name of ecologist: Duncan Ferns (BSc, PhD, MCIEEM, FIBC)

Signature of ecologist:

Date: 18 May 2014


5. Conditions

This report has been prepared by Best Habitats Limited with all reasonable skill, care and diligence,

and taking account of the manpower and resources devoted to it by agreement with the client.

Information reported herein is based on the interpretation of data collected and has been accepted

in good faith as being accurate and valid.

This report is for the exclusive use of the client; no warranties or guarantees are expressed or

should be inferred by any third parties.

Best Habitats disclaims any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside

the agreed scope of the work.


6. PHOTOGRAPHS

1. The development site to the east of the turning circle. [The Mountain Ash on the right is

outside the development site and not in the ownership of the applicant]

2. Close up of bramble thicket which is typically 1.5-2.5m in height, and largely impenetrable


3. The plot from the back (SE) corner, looking west, showing neighbouring panel fence and

access path (which will be retained)

4. The plot from the back (SE) corner, looking North


5. Stream in Area B (left, looking West, right, looking East)

6. Dumping of garden objects, waste and topsoil on woodland edge (Area B)


7. Mature oak canopy – looking up into area B. These oaks with climbing ivy are a great

habitat for insects and birds and must not be disturbed. Their importance is heightened by

being part of a 2 Km woodland corridor. However, they are outside the development area,

and it would not be difficult to provide them protection if the development were to be

approved.

ecology report - crawley · 2017-05-21 · breem ecology report for csh 1. introduction 1.1....

Documents