may 2016 - mkdp · regional importance for nature conservation. ... (gcn) breeding pond. all ponds...

Milton Keynes Development Partnership

Shenley Brook End, Milton Keynes

ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

May 2016

Ecological Appraisal – Shenley Brook End

\\Fpcr-vm-04\projects\7100\7178\ECO\Eco App\7178 Shenley Brook End.doc

fpcr

THIS REPORT INCLUDES INFORMATION REGARDING THE LOCATION OF BADGER SETTS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL AND ONLY MADE AVAILABLE TO BONA

FIDE ORGANISATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS

FPCR Environment and Design Ltd

Registered Office: Lockington Hall, Lockington, Derby DE74 2RH Company No. 07128076. [T] 01509 672772 [F] 01509 674565 [E] [email protected] [W] www.fpcr.co.uk This report is the property of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd and is issued on the condition it is not reproduced, retained or disclosed to any unauthorised person, either wholly or in part without the written consent of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd. Ordnance Survey material is used with permission of The Controller of HMSO, Crown copyright 100018896.

Rev Issue Status Prepared / Date Approved/Date

- Draft 1 MRD / 23.05.16 RG / 24.05.16

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.fpcr.co.uk/



fpcr

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 1

3.0 RESULTS.............................................................................................................................. 6

4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 11

TABLES

Table 1: Bat survey protocol

Table 2: Summary of bat records from the study area

Table 3: Summary of the extent of the hedgerows and their ecological value

FIGURES

Figure 1: Site location and consultation results plan

Figure 2: Phase 1 habitats plan

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Species list



fpcr

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Milton Keynes Development Partnership commissioned FPCR Environment and Design Ltd.

to complete an ecological appraisal on land located to the south of Manifold Lane, Milton

Keynes, Buckinghamshire. The objective was to determine the habitats and species present

within the site and to make an initial assessment of their ecological value and any potential

ecological constraints to future development of the site for residential development.

This appraisal was completed during 2016 using best practice guidelines. This involved

consultation with local Biological Records Centre and completion of an extended phase 1

habitat survey.

The site was formed predominantly by species-poor semi-improved grassland with additional

habitats including scrub, trees and hedgerow.

The site is not located within the boundary of any designated site of international, national or

regional importance for nature conservation. Neither does it fall within the designation

boundary of any site which has been afforded a local non-statutory designation for its nature

conservation importance.

No protected species have been previously recorded within the site. The habitats present

were considered to be of negligible value for bats, reptiles and great crested newts. No

evidence of badger was recorded during the appraisal process.

Four ponds were identified within 500m from the site, one of which is a known great crested

newt (GCN) breeding pond. All ponds were situated either across Chaffron Way or across a

residential area which are both considered barriers to dispersal. The site is therefore

considered isolated from these ponds and the known population of GCN, therefore no further

survey work is deemed necessary.

Features of notable ecological value (trees and hedgerow) will be retained as part of the

development, and the addition of native tree and shrub species has the potential to make a

contribution to achieving a net biodiversity gain, given the current low ecological value of the

habitats which currently form the site.

Ecological Appraisal – Land off Eastbourne Rd., Uckfield


1

fpcr

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Milton Keynes Development Partnership commissioned FPCR Environment and Design Ltd. to

complete an ecological appraisal of an area of land located to the south of Manifold Lane, Milton

Keynes, Buckinghamshire (central OS grid reference SP 8345 3505).

1.2 The objective of the study was to determine habitats and species present within a defined

boundary (hereafter referred to as the site) and to make an assessment of their ecological value

and any potential ecological constraints to future development of the site for residential flats and

a retail unit. Additional objectives were, where appropriate, to identify the need for additional

surveys if required, and to consider opportunities for ecological mitigation and enhancements

within any future development design.

1.3 Habitats within the application site affected by the proposed development comprise

predominantly species-poor semi-improved grassland with an area of amenity grassland, scrub,

trees and hedgerow.

1.4 The site is located within the village of Shenley Brook End, southwest Milton Keynes (Figure 1).

The site is surrounded by a school to the west and residential housing to the north, east and

south. The wider landscape is dominated by residential development, with the town of Milton

Keynes extending away to the north and east. Numerous areas of amenity grassland associated

with the town are present in close vicinty. Agricultural land with occasional blocks of woodland

extends away to the south and west of the site.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

Desk Study

2.1 In order to compile existing baseline information for the study area, relevant ecological

information was requested from Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Environmental Records

Centre (BMERC).

2.2 In addition, the following resources were interrogated for additional information and context:

Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website1;

Colour 1:25,000 OS base maps2;

Aerial photographs from Google Earth3.

2.3 The geographical extent of the search area for biodiversity information was related to the

significance of sites and species and potential zones of influence which might arise from

development within the site. For this site the following scales of search were considered to be

appropriate:

10km around the site boundary for sites of International Importance (e.g. Special Area of

Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA), Ramsar site);

1 [Online]. http://magic.defra.gov.uk/

2 [Online]. www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk

3 [Online]. www.maps.google.co.uk

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

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/

http://www.maps.google.co.uk/



2

fpcr

2km around the site boundary for sites of National or Regional Importance (e.g. Sites of

Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)), and protected or otherwise notable species records

(including species of Principal Importance under S41 of the Natural Environment and Rural

Communities (NERC) Act (2006) 4 within the last 20 years; and

1km around the site for non-statutory designated sites of County Importance (e.g. Sites of

Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) / Local Wildlife Sites (LWS).

Field Survey

Extended Phase 1 Survey

2.4 Survey methods followed the extended Phase 1 Survey technique as recommended by Natural

England5. This involved a systematic walk over of the site on 11

th April 2016 to classify the broad

habitat types and identify any ‘habitats of principal importance’ for the conservation of biodiversity

as listed within Section 41 (S41) of the NERC Act (2006).

Hedgerow Assessment

2.5 Hedgerows were surveyed using the Hedgerow Evaluation and Grading System (HEGS)7. This

method of assessment includes noting down canopy species composition, associated ground

flora and climbers, structure of the hedgerow including; height, width and gaps, along with

associated features such as the number and species of mature trees, banks, ditches and grass

verges.

2.6 Each hedgerow is given a grade using HEGS with the suffixes ‘+’ and ‘-‘, representing the upper

and lower limits of each grade respectively. These grades represent a continuum on a scale

from 1+ (the highest score and denoting hedges of the greatest nature conservation priority) to 4-

(representing the lowest score and hedges of the least nature conservation priority) as follows:

Grade 1 – High to very high value

Grade 2 – Moderately high to high value

Grade 3 – Moderate value

Grade 4 – Low value

Hedgerows graded 1 or 2 are considered to be a priority for nature conservation.

2.7 The hedgerows were also assessed against the Wildlife and Landscape criteria contained within

Statutory Instrument No: 1160 - The Hedgerow Regulations 19978 to determine whether they

qualified as ‘Important Hedgerows’ under the Regulations. This was achieved using a

methodology in accordance with both the Regulations and DEFRA guidance9.

4 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. [Online]. London: HMSO Available at:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/contents [Accessed 28/01/2016]

5 JNCC. (1990). Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey – a technique for environmental audit. Peterborough: JNCC

7 Clements, D. & Toft, R. (1992). Hedgerow Evaluation and Grading System (HEGS) – a methodology for the

ecological survey, evaluation and grading of hedgerows. Countryside Planning and Management

8 The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 – Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 1160. [Online]. London: HMSO. Available at:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1160/contents/made [Accessed 28/01/2016].

9 DEFRA. (1997). The Hedgerow Regulations 1997. A Guide to the Law and Good Practice. London: HMSO

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/contents

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1160/contents/made



3

fpcr

Fauna

2.8 During the Phase 1 Habitat Survey, observations, signs of, or suitable habitat for, any species

protected under Part I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of

Habitats & Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, were

looked for, and if present recorded. Consideration was also given to the existence and use of the

site by other notable fauna such as bird species listed on Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Wildlife and

Countryside Act, breeding birds, species of Principle Importance under Section 41 of the NERC Act

(2006), Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) or Red Data Book (RDB) species. Such species

included, but were not limited to, badger Meles meles and great crested newt Triturus cristatus.

Bats

Ground Level Tree Assessment

2.9 The trees on site were assessed from ground level during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey for their

potential to support roosting bats and to enable recommendations with respect to the proposed

works. During the survey Potential Roosting Features for bats such as the following were sought

(based on p16, British Standard, Surveying for Bats in Trees and Woodland) 10

:

Natural holes (e.g. knot holes) arising from naturally shed branches or branches previously

pruned back to a branch collar.

Man-made holes (e.g. cavities that have developed from flush cuts or cavities created by

branches tearing out from parent stems.

Woodpecker holes.

Cracks/splits in stems or braches (horizontal and vertical)

Partially detached, loose or platy bark.

Cankers (caused by localised bark death) in which cavities have developed.

Other hollows or cavities, including butt rots.

Compression of forks with included bark, forming potential cavities.

Crossing stems or branches with suitable roosting space between.

Ivy stems with diameters in excess of 50mm with suitable roosting space behind (or where

roosting space can be seen where a mat of thinner stems has left a gap between the mat and

the trunk).

Bat or bird boxes.

Other suitable places of rest or shelter not listed above.

2.10 Certain factors such as orientation of the feature, its height from the ground, the direct

surroundings and its location in respect to other features, may reduce enhance or reduce the

potential value.

2.11 Based on the above, trees were classified into general bat roost potential groups based on the

presence of such features. Table 1 broadly classifies the potential categories as accurately as

10

British Standard 2015. BS8596:2015 Surveying for bats in trees and woodland – Guide, October 2015.



4

fpcr

possible as well as discussing the relevance of the features. This table is based upon Table 4.1

and Chapter 6 in Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines11

.

2.12 Although the British Standard Document (British Standard, Surveying for bats in trees and

woodland – Guide, October 2015) groups trees with moderate and high potential, these have

been separated below (as per Table 4.1 in The Bat Conversation Trust Guidelines) to allow more

specific survey criteria to be applied.

Table 1: Bat survey protocol for trees

Classification of Tree

Description of Category and Associated Features (based on Potential Roosting Features listed above)

Likely Further Survey work

Confirmed Roost

Evidence of roosting bats in the form of live bats, droppings, urine staining, mammalian fur oil staining, etc.

Where the tree(s) will likely be affected by development Natural England derogation licence application will be undertaken. This will require a combination of aerial assessment by roped access bat workers and nocturnal survey during appropriate period (May to August). Replacement roost sites commensurate with status of roost to be provided. Works to be undertaken under supervision using a good practice method statement.

High Potential A tree with one or more Potential Roosting Features that are obviously suitable for larger numbers of bats on a more regular basis and potentially for longer periods of time due to their size, shelter protection, conditions (height above ground level, light levels, etc.) and surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status (i.e. larger roost, irrespective of wider conservation status). Examples include (but are not limited to); woodpecker holes, larger cavities, hollow trunks, hazard beams, etc.

Where the tree(s) will likely be affected by development a combination of aerial assessment by roped access bat workers and nocturnal survey during

appropriate period (May to August). Following additional assessments, tree may be upgraded or downgraded based on findings. After completion of survey work, some good practice removal operations likely to be required.

Moderate Potential

A tree with Potential Roosting Features which could support one or more potential roost sites due to their size, shelter protection, conditions (height above ground level, light levels, etc.) and surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status (i.e. larger roost, irrespective of wider conservation status). Examples include (but are not limited to); woodpecker holes, rot cavities, branch socket cavities, etc.

Where the tree(s) will likely be affected by development a combination of aerial assessment by roped access bat workers and /or nocturnal survey

during appropriate period (May to August). Following additional assessments, tree may be upgraded or downgraded based on findings. After completion of survey work, some good practice removal operations likely to be required.

Low Potential A tree of sufficient size and age to contain Potential Roosting Features but with none seen from ground or features seen only very limited potential. Examples include (but are not limited to); loose/lifted bark, shallow splits exposed to elements or upward facing holes.

No further survey required but some good practice removal operations may

be required in certain circumstances.

Negligible / No potential

Negligible/no habitat features likely to be used by roosting bats

None.

11

Bat Conservation Trust 2016. Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation Trust, London.



5

fpcr

* The Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) affords protection to “breeding

sites” and “resting places” of bats. The EU Commission’s Guidance document on the strict protection of

animal species of Community interest under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, February 2007 states that

these are places “where there is a reasonably high probability that the species concerned will return”.

Foraging / Commuting Habitat

2.13 The potential for the site and immediate surrounds to support foraging and commuting bats was

also assessed, with particular regard being given to the presence of continuous treelines, brooks

and hedgerows providing good connectivity in the landscape, and the presence of varied habitat

such as scrub, woodland, grassland and open water in the vicinity.

Great Crested Newts (GCN)

2.14 Aerial images and OS maps were reviewed for the presence of ponds within a 500m radius of the

site.

2.15 Habitats present within the site were assessed during the extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey for

their potential to provide suitable areas of rest or shelter for GCN.

Badger

2.16 A general walkover and assessment of habitats within the site boundary was undertaken during

the extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey with regard to evaluating the potential of the site to support

badgers. This survey incorporated a search for any evidence of badger activity including setts,

latrines, paths or evidence of digging. This followed the methodology outlined by Harris, Creswell

and Jefferies12

.

Reptiles

2.17 Habitats present within the site were considered for their potential suitability to support reptile

populations, including presence of features which provide opportunities for reptiles to bask,

forage and/or hibernate, and areas of varied vegetation structure in sheltered locations with

sunny aspects and connectivity to other suitable reptile habitats.

Other Species

2.18 The potential for other protected and/or notable species was assessed during the Phase 1

survey. Bird species present at the time of survey were also noted.

12

Harris, S., Cresswell, P. & Jefferies, D. (1989). Surveying for badgers. Occasional Publication of the Mammal

Society No. 9. Mammal Society: Bristol.



6

fpcr

3.0 RESULTS

Desk Study

3.1 Please refer to Figure 1 for the location of the following sites in relation to the study area.

Statutory Designations

3.2 The site is not covered by, or immediately adjacent to, any site of international, national or

regional importance. There are no internationally important sites within 10km of the application

site.

3.3 There are two nationally important sites located within 2km of the application site. Howe Park

Wood SSSI is located approximately to the 400m southwest and supports ancient semi-natural

woodland.13

3.4 Oxley Mead SSSI is situated approximately 1.3km west of the site. The site includes areas of

ancient hay meadow with a nationally rare grassland type forming the main plant community.14

Non-Statutory Designations

3.5 A single Biological Notification Site (BNS) is located within 1km of the site boundary. Shenley

Lodge Ponds BNS lies approximately 950m northeast of the site and comprises a small pond

within a local park.

3.6 Two Milton Keynes Wildlife Corridors fall within 1km of the site. The Wetland Corridor is

approximately 900m to the southeast of the site at its closest point, while the Woodland Corridor

at its closest point is approximately 400m southwest.

Species Records (Figure 1)

3.7 The data search with BMERC returned a number of protected and notable species records from

the study area. A summary of the records from the last 20 years considered to be of particular

relevance to the study is provided below. No records were provided from within the site

boundary.

Bats

3.8 Several bat records were returned from the search area from 1998 to 2012. None are directly

from the site, with the closest records located approximately 0.6km south in Howe Park Wood. A

brief summary of the records is provided in Table 2.

13

Natural England. (Date Unknown). Howe Park Wood – SSSI Description. [online]. Available at: http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1006067.pdf [Accessed 26/02/2016].

14 Natural England. (Date Unknown). Oxley Mead – SSSI Description. [online]. Available at:

http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/2000053.pdf [Accessed 26/02/2016].



7

fpcr

Table 2: Summary of bat records from the study area

Species Number of

records

Dates Distance from Site

Brown long-eared bat

Plecotus auritus

8 2006-

2012

Activity recorded at 1.3km and 1.4km northwest,

1km and 1.1km southwest, 0.6km and 1.6km south,

Common pipistrelle

Pipistrellus pipistrellus

17 1998-

2012

Activity recorded at 0.6km and 1.6km south, 1.6,

1.8km and 2km southwest, 1.1km north and 1.7km

northwest.

Natterer’s bat

Myotis nattereri

1 2006 Activity recorded at 1.6km south.

Daubenton's bat

Myotis daubentonii

3 1998-

2012

Activity recorded at 1.2km south, 1.4km northwest

and 1km north.

Myotis species. 2 2010 Activity recorded at 1km south and 1.7km

northwest.

Soprano pipistrelle

Pipistrellus pygmaeus

1 2006 Activity recorded at 1.4km northwest.

Barbastelle

Barbastella barbastellus

3 2003-

2010

Activity recorded at 1.4km northwest.

Brandt’s bat

Myotis brandtii

1 2012 Activity recorded at 1.5km northwest.

Noctule bat

Nyctalus noctula

11 2003-

2012

Activity recorded at 1.4km northwest, 0.6km and

1.6km south, 1km and 1.6km southwest.

Amphibians and Reptiles

3.9 Six species have been recorded within the search area;

Great crested newt (1998-2014): several records, the closest of which is located

approximately 400m southwest of the site in Howe Park Wood SSSI;

Smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris (2002-2012): several records, the closest of which is located


Palmate newt Triturus Lissotriton helveticus (2009): a single record situated approximately

1km southwest of the site;

Common toad Bufo bufo (1998-2012): several records with the closest located approximately

400m southwest of the site in Howe Park Wood SSSI;

Common frog Rana temporaria (1998-2012): several records, the closest of which is situated


Grass snake Natrix natrix (2002-2012): two records located approximately 1.5km south and

west of the site.

Mammals

Brown hare Lepus europaeus (2010): a single record located approximately 1.5km southwest

of the site;



8

fpcr

Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus (2003-2010): two records situated approximately 1.1km east

and 1.5km north of the site within the residential areas of Milton Keynes; and

Badger Meles meles (2004-2011): Several records concentrated within the Milton Keynes

Woodland Corridor and Ash Pole Spinney over 1km west of the site boundary. Two records

lie within 1km of the site; the first approximately 700m northwest in Westcroft and the second

approximately 800m southwest within Howe Park Wood SSSI.

Invertebrates

3.10 The consultation data received contained 163 records for invertebrates dated between 1990 and

2013. These included moths, butterflies and beetles. The majority of these records came from

Howe Park Wood SSSI located approximately 400m southwest of the site. Records included

butterfly species listed under the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species as: near threatened

(small heath Coenonympha pamphilus and wall Lasiommata megera); vulnerable (dingy skipper

Erynnis tages, grizzled skipper Pyrgus malvae and white admiral Limenitis Camilla), and

endangered (wood white Leptidea sinapis, black hairstreak Satyrium pruni and white-letter

hairstreak Satyrium w-album).

Birds

3.11 Several records for protected and notable bird species records were provided by the record centre

for the search area. Large concentrations of these were from Howe Park Wood SSSI and the

woodland and wetland Milton Keynes Wildlife Corridors to the east, south and west of the site. This

may be a reflection of the quality of habitats present there and/or is a reflection of recording effort.

Of relevance to the application site were records for bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula, dunnock Prunella

modularis, green woodpecker Picus viridis, meadow pipit Anthus pratensis, song thrush Turdus

philomelos, starling Sturnus vulgaris, stock dove Columba oenas, whitethroat Sylvia communis

and willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus which could potentially utilise the trees and hedgerow

within the site for nesting. Furthermore the site provides potential limited foraging opportunities

for the following species present within the records: fieldfare Turdus pilaris, house sparrow

Passer domesticus, redwing Turdus iliacus, swallow Hirundo rustica and swift Apus apus.

Field Survey – Habitats

3.12 The habitats described below correspond to those mapped on Figure 2. Plant species lists for

the habitats are provided in Appendix A.

3.13 The site comprised mainly species-poor semi-improved grassland with a small area of amenity

grassland and areas of dense scrub. The south eastern boundary was formed from a hedgerow,

treeline and scattered trees.

3.14 Coarse tussock forming grasses dominated the sward and included dominant Yorkshire fog

Holcus lanatus, abundant perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne and occasional Italian ryegrass

Lolium multiflorum and timothy Phleum pratense. Creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera was rarely

present. Herbaceous species were limited within the sward and included occasional dandelion

Taraxacum officinale agg. hogweed Heracleum sphondylium, broad-leaved dock Rumex

obtusifolius and rarely present ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata, cleavers Galium aparine and

creeping cinquefoil Potentilla reptans. Tufted vetch Vicia cracca occurred locally frequently while



9

fpcr

cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris and dove’s-foot cranesbill Geranium molle were locally

occasional.

3.15 The north eastern site boundary sloped down to Manifold Lane. Along the slope were areas of

bare ground with short vegetation comprising mainly herbaceous species as detailed above with

the addition of rarely present bristly oxtongue Picris echioides, yarrow Achillea millefolium, red

clover Trifolium pratense and teasel Dipsacus fullonum.

3.16 Along the south western boundary running beside Wallinger Drive was a strip of amenity

grassland. Species present included abundant perennial rye-grass and Yorkshire fog with

occasional cock’s foot, daisy Bellis perennis, common field speedwell Veronica persica, dove’s

foot cranesbill, common mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum, dandelion, tufted vetch, greater plantain

Plantago major and white clover Trifolium repens.

3.17 An area in the southern corner of the site had undergone recent management involving the felling

of a small number of young trees. An area of bare ground with wood chippings was present. A

number of plant species had begun to grow on the areas of bare ground including rarely present

common mallow Malva sylvestris, groundsel Senecio vulgaris, red clover and creeping buttercup

Ranunculus repens.

3.18 Dense scrub comprised predominantly of bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. was present in the

eastern corner of the site and along the southeastern boundary. The site was damper in parts

close to the scrub, and hard rush Juncus inflexus was occasionally present.

3.19 Behind the scrub towards Chaffron Way was a scattered line of outgrown hawthorn Crataegus

monogyna trees with occasional elder Sambucus nigra and willow Salix sp. followed by a row of

poplar Populus sp. and an overgrown hawthorn dominated hedge (H1) which bordered Chaffron

Way. A summary of its extent and ecological value is provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary of the extent of the hedgerows and their ecological value

Hedge

No

Length

(m)

Important

Hedgerow

HEGS SCORES

Structural

Score

Connectivity

Score

Diversity

Score

Associated

Features

Score

Grade Value

1 80 No 14 5 3 0 2

Moderately

high to

high value

3.20 The hedge ground flora was largely species poor in its composition with typical ruderal species

such as bramble Rubus fruticosus agg.

3.21 A small area to the northeast of Manifold Lane is also included within the site boundary. This

comprised bare ground with occasional trees bordering adjacent gardens.

Field Survey – Fauna

Mammals

Bats

3.22 The grassland on the application site provided very limited suitable foraging habitat for bats. The

site lacked any good quality linear lines/features along which bats could commute as the short

section of scrub, trees and hedgerow is fragmented from any neighbouring hedgerows/tree lines.

There were no potential bat roosting sites noted present within the site.



10

fpcr

Badger

3.23 No signs to indicate the presence of badger were noted during any of the field surveys.

Great Crested Newt

3.24 No suitable breeding habitat for GCN was present on the site. Four ponds were identified from

OS maps within 500m of the site boundary, with three located between approximately 370-480m

northeast of the site within the residential area of Shenley Brook. The fourth was located 450m

southwest of the site across Chaffron Way.

3.25 The grassland, trees, hedgerow and scrub within the site were considered to represent limited

suitable habitat for GCN.

Birds

3.26 During the survey the following birds were recorded within the site: magpie Pica pica; blue tit

Cyanistes caeruleus; woodpigeon Columba palumbus and wren Troglodytes troglodytes. All of

the birds noted have been given a Green status on the Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC)

list15

.

Reptiles

3.27 The grassland comprising the majority of the site lacked the structural diversity required by reptile

species for foraging, basking, commuting and shelter, whilst the small line of scrub, trees and

hedgerow provided some limited potential for foraging and shelter.

15

Eaton, M., Aebischer, N., Brown, A., Hearn, R., Lock, L., Musgrove, A., Noble, D., Stroud, D. & Gregory, R.

(2015). Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108 p 708-746. [online]. Available at: http://britishbirds.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BoCC4.pdf

[Accessed 14/04/2016].

http://britishbirds.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BoCC4.pdf



11

fpcr

4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Proposals

4.1 The proposal is to develop a retail unit and residential flats. Species-poor semi-improved

grassland habitats present within the application site would be lost as a result of the proposal.

Trees and hedgerow within the site will be retained.

Statutory Designated Sites

4.2 There are no internationally important sites within 10km of the application site however two

nationally important sites are located within 2km of the application site. These are Howe Park

Wood SSSI located approximately 400m southwest comprising an ancient semi-natural

woodland, and Oxley Mead SSSI ancient hay meadow situated approximately 1.3km west of the

site. The site falls within the zone of influence which has been defined around the SSSI’s by

Natural England via the Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC)

website (www.magic,gov.uk). However due to the small size of the development and its urban

location it does not meet any of the criteria (rural residential development of >100 units) listed on

MAGIC used to determine potential impacts As such no negative impacts upon these SSSI’s are

anticipated.

4.3 Furthermore, Howe Park Wood SSSI is isolated from the site by Chaffron Way and therefore no

direct impacts on the wood are considered likely from the proposals. The wood has open access

to the public with a network of pathways throughout. Due to the small size and nature of the

development for a retail unit and flats, potential increased footfall on the wood is considered

insignificant and therefore no indirect impacts upon this SSSI are anticipated from the

development.

4.4 Oxley Mead SSSI is isolated from the proposed development site by a network of roads and

residential housing. Consequently, it is concluded that development of the site will not affect the

conservation value of this site.

Non-Statutory Designated Sites (Figure 1)

4.5 Shenley Lodge Ponds BNS lies close to 1km northeast of the site while Milton Keynes Wetland

and Woodland Corridors are approximately 900m and 400m from the site respectively. All the

aforementioned are isolated from the application site by a series of roads and residential areas

and as such it is concluded that the development will not impact negatively upon the conservation

value of these sites.

Habitats

4.6 The degree to which habitats receive consideration within the planning system relies on a

number of mechanisms, including:

Inclusion within a specific policy, for example veteran trees, ancient woodland and linear

habitats within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);

A non-statutory site designation;

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



12

fpcr

Habitats considered as habitats of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity as

listed within Section 41 (S41) of the NERC Act (2006); and

Habitats identified as being a Priority Habitat within the local Biodiversity Action Plan

(Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes BAP).

4.7 The field survey identified one habitat, native species hedgerow, which falls within the above

listed categories.

4.8 The habitats present on site consisted primarily of species-poor semi-improved grassland with a

line of scrub, trees and hedgerow Considered both individually and in combination these habitats

are considered to be of low to negligible conservation value and their loss to development would

not be significant in terms of local biodiversity.

4.9 The hedgerow, tree line and scattered trees present within the site are of greater ecological value

and will be retained, It is recommended that the tree line be thinned to encourage a more

abundant and diverse ground flora to grow.

4.10 The planting of trees within the proposals would compensate any minor residual losses. Trees

and shrubs should give preference to the use of locally native woody species throughout the site,

where possible of local provenance, with an emphasis on species bearing nectar, berries, fruit

and nuts, as these enhance the foraging opportunities of local wild fauna including birds and

invertebrates. Species suitable for inclusion within mixed species hedgerows include hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna, hazel Corylus avellana, blackthorn Prunus spinosa, dog rose Rosa canina,

silver birch Betula pendula, crab apple Malus sylvestris, wild cherry Prunus avium, rowan Sorbus

domestica, field maple Acer campestre, honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum and wild privet

Ligustrum vulgare.

4.11 There is opportunity for additional habitat enhancement to be provided through development of

the site through the use of a species rich wildlife flower mix, such as Emorsgate EL1F wildflower

mix for lawns or similar, around the site perimeter.

Protected Species

4.12 Principal pieces of legislation protecting wild species are Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside

Act 1981 (as amended) (WCA) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

(as amended). Some species, for example badgers, also have their own protective legislation

(Protection of Badger Act 1992). The impact that this legislation has on the Planning system is

outlined in ODPM 06/2005 Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation -

Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System.

4.13 This guidance states that as the presence of protected species is a material consideration in any

planning decision, it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the

extent to which they are affected by proposals is established prior to planning permission being

granted. Furthermore, where protected species are present and proposals may result in harm to

the species or its habitat, steps should be taken to ensure the long-term protection of the species,

such as through attaching appropriate planning conditions.

4.14 In addition to protected species, there are those that are otherwise of conservation merit, such as

species of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity under the NERC Act

(2006). These are recognised in the NPPF, which advises that when determining planning



13

fpcr

applications, LPA's should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying a set of

principles including:

If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided………, adequately

mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

Development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity

should be encouraged.

4.15 The implications for the proposed development regarding the various species identified from the

desk study and field survey, or those that are otherwise thought reasonably likely to occur, are

outlined below.

Bats

4.16 The site overall represents poor habitat for bats, being dominated by species-poor semi-improved

grassland which offers minimal physical shelter and limited potential for potential prey species.

There are no roosting opportunities for bats within the site boundary.

4.17 A single short section of hedgerow and tree line (~80m long) are present within the site. These

are isolated within the residential development of Shenley brook and fragmented from nearby

linkages by roads. The hedgerow borders Chaffron Way and is lit by streetlights at night.

4.18 Based on this assessment it is considered that the current proposals would not result in an

adverse impact upon local bat populations and that no further surveys are required. It is further

considered that the use of a lighting scheme designed to limit light spill, and a planting scheme to

include native shrubs and additional standard trees along site boundaries could result in a minor

net gain for local bat populations.

Birds

4.19 Due to its size and limited diversity, the grassland within the site is of limited value for a number

of common and widespread bird species and therefore its loss will not have a significant impact

upon local bird populations.

4.20 The line of trees and hedgerow across the southeastern boundary will be retained as part of the

development and thinned. The retention of these habitats within the site will ensure that the site

continues to provide suitable nesting and foraging opportunities for a range of locally common

bird species post-development.

4.21 Additional tree planting around the site will create suitable habitat for urban edge species such as

dunnock and house sparrow, which have been recorded in the local area and which are NERC

Act (2006) Species of Principal Importance.

Amphibians (specifically Great Crested Newt)

4.22 Within the application site there is no suitable breeding habitat and very limited suitable terrestrial

habitat for GCN. Four ponds were identified within 500m of the site, of which three are located

between approximately 370-480m from the site across the residential area of Shenley Brook End.

The residential area of Shenley Brook End is considered a barrier to dispersal and given the

availability of suitable habitat surrounding the ponds, which are located within a park, it is

considered unlikely that GCN would use the application site for foraging.



14

fpcr

4.23 The fourth pond was situated approximately 450m southwest of the site within Howe Park Wood.

Records for GCN are located within the pond at Howe Park Wood however the site is isolated

from the pond by Chaffron Way which is considered a relatively busy road with raised curbs

along its length and a large round-about in between the site and pond. On this basis it is

considered that the site is isolated from the known GCN population. Given the above it is

considered that no further survey work for GCN is necessary, and the potential for GCN to be

present in the wider locality does not present a constraint to development.

Reptiles

4.24 Two grass snake records were returned from the records centre. Both were located over 1km

from the site and effectively isolated from it by numerous roads and residential housing.

4.25 There is limited suitable habitat that would be considered as being suitable for reptiles within the

site. The grasslands lacked extensive tussocks or a dense under-thatch; features which

important for reptiles. Furthermore, the site is considered relatively isolated as it is bordered by

roads and a recent development to the immediate north.

4.26 Given the nature of the site and its isolation from the only existing reptile records it is considered

that no further survey work is required, and that the risk of harm either to individual reptiles or to

local populations is negligible.

Invertebrates

4.27 Numerous invertebrate species records were returned from the desk study, none of which were

observed during survey. These were concentrated within Howe Park Wood SSSI which is linked

to the wider Milton Keynes Woodland Corridor west of the site.

4.28 Habitats present within the site are common within the wider countryside. Given the availability

of good quality habitat within the nearby woodland corridor the presence of invertebrate species

within the wider countryside is therefore not considered to be a constraint to the development.

SUMMARY

4.29 The proposed development would not have any significant impact on any sites designated for

their nature conservation interest.

4.30 Habitats on site are considered to be of negligible/low value to protected species and as such no

further survey work is recommended.

4.31 The current habitats present on site are generally of low ecological value with most of the site

formed by species-poor semi-improved grassland. Habitats with greater ecological value such as

hedgerow and trees will be retained. Proposed enhancements include planting of trees and

further enhancements such as native shrub planting and creation of species rich grassland

borders are recommended and will result in an overall net gain in biodiversity at the site level as

these mature.



15

fpcr

5.0 APPENDIX A: SPECIES LIST16

16

D = Dominant A = Abundant F = Frequent O = Occasional R = Rare LF/A = Locally frequent/abundant

Grassland

Bristly oxtongue Helminthotheca echioides R

Broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius F

Cleavers Galium aparine R

Cock’s-foot Dactylis hispanica R

Common couch Elytrigia repens R

Common mallow Malva sylvestris R

Common nettle Urtica dioica LF

Cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris LO

Creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera R

Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens F/LA

Creeping cinquefoil Potentilla reptans R

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. F

Dove’s-foot cranesbill Geranium molle O

Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata R

Groundsel Senecio vulgaris R

Hard rush Juncus inflexus O

Hogweed Heracleum sphondylium F

Italian rye-grass Lolium multiflorum O

Perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne A

Red clover Trifolium pratense R

Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata R

Teasel Dipsacus fullonum R

Timothy Phleum pratense O

Tufted vetch Vicia cracca LF

Yarrow Achillea millefolium R

Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus A

Amenity Grassland

Cock’s-foot Dactylis hispanica O

Common field speedwell Veronica persica R/LO

Common mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum O

Daisy Bellis perennis O

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. O

Dove’s-foot cranesbill Geranium molle O

Greater plantain Plantago major R

Tufted vetch Vicia cracca O

White clover Trifolium repens O

Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus A



16

fpcr

Scrub and Trees

Bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. LA

Elder Sambucus nigra LO

Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna LA

Poplar sp. Populus sp. LO

Willow sp. Salix sp. R

SI

FPCR Environment and Desgin Ltd, Lockington Hall, Derby, DE74 2RH t:01509 672 772 f:01509 674 565 e: mail.fpcr.co.uk w: www.fpcr.co.uk

masterplanning environmental assessment landscape design ecology architecture arboriculture

J:\7100\7178\QGIS\Plans\7178-E-02 Phase 1 Habitat Plan.qgs

This drawing is the property of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd and is issued on thecondition it is not reproduced, retained or disclosed to any unauthorised person, eitherwholly or in part without written consent of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd.

Ordnance Survey material - Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Licence Number:100019980

Milton Keynes DevelopmentPartnership

Shenley Brook End, MiltonKeynes

Phase 1 Habitat Plan

Figure 2Scale:nts MRD 24/5/2016

7178-E-02

Site BoundaryScattered treesScrub - dense/continuousCultivated/disturbed land - amenity grassland

SI Poor semi-improved grasslandBroadleaved treesIntact hedge - species-poorFenceBroadleaved tree

Key:

0 10 20 30 40 m

may 2016 - mkdp · regional importance for nature conservation. ... (gcn) breeding pond. all ponds...

Documents