Gladman Developments Ltd.
Land South of Bishopswood Lane, Tadley
Ecological Appraisal
November 2015
Ecological Appraisal fpcr
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 NJL / 29.07.14 AL / 29.07.14 Draft 2 HES / 19.10.15 AL 19.10.15 Final HES / 21.10.15 DAH / 10.11.15
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 1 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 4
2.0 METHODOLOGY ...... 6
3.0 RESULTS...... 10
4.0 DISCUSSION ...... 26
5.0 SUMMARY ...... 37
TABLES
Table 1: Local Sites of Nature Conservation Interest
Table 2: Protected and Notable Species Records
Table 3: Summary of Hedgerow Survey Results
Table 4: Reptiles Recorded During Each Survey
Table 5: Schedule 1, NERC S.41, BoCC Red- and Amber-Listed Bird Species Recorded at Land off Bishopswood Lane, Tadley during Breeding Bird Surveys 2015 and their Recent Status within Hampshire.
FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location, Statutory and Non-Statutory Sites Plan
Figure 2a: Site Location and Consultation Data Plan – Protected Species
Figure 2b: Site Location and Consultation Data Plan – Protected Species
Figure 3: Phase 1 Habitat Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Detailed Survey Methodologies
Appendix B: Vegetative Species Lists
Appendix C: NVC and FEP Quadrat Data and Analysis
Appendix D: Photographs and Additional Target Note Details
Appendix E: Great Crested Newt Report
Appendix F: Bat Report
Appendix G: Reptile Report
Appendix H: Hazel Dormouse Report
Appendix I: Breeding Bird Report
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 2 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
Appendix J: Lighting Strategy Report
Appendix K: Badger Report
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 3 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The following report details the results of an ecological appraisal undertaken by FPCR Environment and Design Ltd on behalf of Gladman Developments Ltd for a proposed residential development on land south of Bishopswood Lane, Tadley, Hampshire (central grid reference: SU 584 618).
1.2 Prior to the initial visits, Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC) surveyed a number of the fields and the central wet woodland during 2012 and these were subsequently designated as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC; non-statutory nature conservation designation in Hampshire).
1.3 Detailed assessments of these specific habitats, as well as Phase 1 habitat and initial protected species surveys were undertaken by FPCR over a number of survey occasions in July,November 2014 and June 2015. These surveys were commissioned in order to provide baseline ecological information and to assess the potential for the site to support protected species. The assessment highlights any potential ecological constraints associated with the proposed development and provides recommendations for mitigation measures to ensure that the development complies with relevant legislation.
1.4 During these surveys, potential habitat for a number of protected species was identified within the site and subsequently further surveys were commissioned. These included surveys for great crested newt Triturus cristatus , badger Meles meles , bats, reptiles, hazel dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius , and birds, all of which are detailed within separate appended reports; please refer to Appendices E – K inclusive for full details of methodologies, results and conclusions/mitigation.
1.5 Following discussions in September 2015, one large field (field 10) was removed from the site boundary. As such, the protected species surveys completed during 2015 were inclusive of this field.
Site Context
1.6 The site comprises nine contiguous field compartments (approximately 12.96 ha), the majority of which were managed as cattle grazed pasture, with two fields within the northern extent grazed by horses. Fields were bound and bisected by hedgerows, trees and woodland with Bishop’s Wood Stream running centrally and along the western boundary of the site.
1.7 The site lies on the western fringe of Tadley, largely surrounded by residential development on the northern, western and eastern aspects. The wider area supports a large tree resource, with pockets of woodland between areas of development directly to the north, east and west. Bishopswood Lane runs alongside the northern and eastern boundaries, with a public footpath running through a strip of woodland (off-site), partially alongside the western boundary.
1.8 Bishopswood Golf Course driving range lies directly adjacent to the site’s southern boundary, with the remaining nine-hole course to the east of Bishopswood Lane. Further land to the south comprises arable and grazed fields and large private residences. The wider surroundings include development to the north, with a mix of agricultural land and woodland on all aspects.
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 4 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
Development Proposals
1.9 Proposals are for outline permission for the creation of up to 145 residential dwellings, retirement living (up to 60 dwellings) and associated infrastructure including footpaths, play and attenuation areas. The SINC sites are to be retained, one of which (Field 1) will provide a proposed village green. Additional Green infrastructure (GI) will be incorporated alongside the existing hedgerows and woodlands.
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 5 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Desk Study
2.1 In order to compile existing baseline information, relevant ecological information was requested from both statutory and non-statutory nature conservation organisations including:
• Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) 1;
• Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC)
2.2 Further inspection of colour 1:25,000 OS base maps (www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk) and aerial photographs from Google Earth (www.maps.google.co.uk) was also undertaken in order to provide additional context and identify any features of potential importance for nature conservation in the wider countryside.
2.3 The search area for biodiversity information was related to the significance of sites and species and potential zones of influence, as follows:
• 15km around the application area for sites of International Importance (e.g. Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Ramsar sites).
• 2km around the application area for sites of National or Regional Importance (e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).
• 1km around the application site for sites of County Importance (e.g. Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) / Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) and species records (e.g.: protected, Species of Principal Importance as listed on Schedule 41 of the NERC Act [2006] 2 or other notable species).
Extended Phase 1 Survey
2.4 The field surveys were conducted by an appropriately experienced and qualified ecologist on the 15 th July and 27 th November 2014, followed by detailed surveys of field 3 and the central wet woodland on 9th June 2015. The site was revisited on numerous occasions during 2015 to review habitat continuity and note any changes since the previous assessment was undertaken.
2.5 Survey methods followed the standard Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Methodology as recommended by Natural England 3. This involved a systematic walk over of the site by an experienced ecologist to classify the broad habitat types and to particularly identify any habitats of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity as listed within Section 41 (S41) of NERC Act (2006). Habitats were marked on a base plan and where appropriate, target notes were made. Species lists were compiled with assessments of abundance made using the DAFOR scale 4. An inspection of the site for the presence of any invasive weed species was also carried out. Features such as trees were considered with regard to their ecological value and potential to provide suitable habitats for protected species.
1 www.magic.defra.gov.uk [Accessed 12.11.15] 2 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. [Online]. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/contents [Accessed 11/11/2014] 3 JNCC. (1990). Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey – a technique for environmental audit. Peterborough: JNCC 4 Kent M. & Coker P. (1992) Vegetation description and analysis: a practical approach. CRC Press.
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 6 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
2.6 Hedgerows were surveyed individually using the Hedgerow Evaluation and Grading System (HEGS) 5 to enable identification and evaluation of hedgerows of nature conservation importance within the site. Hedgerows were graded on a scale of 1-4, within which grades 1 and 2 are generally considered to be of nature conservation priority:
1= high to very high value
2 = moderately high to high value
3 = moderate value
4 = low value.
2.7 Hedgerows were also considered against the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 Wildlife and Landscape criteria 6, to identify any hedgerows, which would be classified as “important” for nature conservation under this part of the act. Under this methodology, hedgerows are considered according to the average number of woody species per 100m of hedgerow. Additional features which enhance hedgerows, when found in association with the hedge, such as mature trees, ditches and hedge banks are also considered. Hedgerows may also qualify as important under the archaeological and historical criteria, although this has not been assessed within this report. This methodology is broadly consistent with that outlined in The Hedgerow Survey Handbook, guidance published by DEFRA 7.
Detailed Botanical Surveys
Phase 2 Botanical Surveys (Appendix A)
2.8 The grassland habitats identified by HBIC as meeting SINC designation were subject to more detailed botanical surveys as recommended in the National Vegetation Community (NVC) Classification Users’ handbook 8 and Natural England’s (NE) survey methodology as detailed in the Farm and Environment Plan (FEP) Manual 9.
National Vegetation Community (NVC) Surveys – Fields 1 and 2
2.9 Areas of homogenous grassland within fields 1 and 2 (Whitehouse Meadow SINC and St. John’s Paddock SINC) were subject to NVC surveys on 15 th July 2014.
2.10 Sampling of grasslands were carried out as recommended in the National Vegetation Classification: Users’ handbook 10 and was used to describe vegetation types present as described in British Plant Communities Volume 2 11 and British Plant Communities Volume 312 .
5 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 6 The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 – Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 1160 . [Online]. London: HMSO. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1160/contents/made [Accessed 11/11/2014]. 7 DEFRA (2007) The Hedgerow Survey Handbook . 2 nd Ed. 8 Rodwell J. S (2006) National Vegetation Classification: Users’ handbook. JNCC, Peterborough. 9 Natural England. (2010). Higher Level Stewardship – Farm Environment Plan (FEP) Manual. Third Edition – March 2010. [online]. Available at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20150607000001/http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/32037 [Accessed 12/10/2015]. 10 Rodwell J. S (2006) National Vegetation Classification: Users’ handbook. JNCC, Peterborough. 11 Rodwell, J.S. [Ed.]. (1991). British Plant Communities Volume 2 – Mires and Heaths. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 12 Rodwell, J S (ed.) (1992) British Plant Communities, Vol. 3: grasslands and montane communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 7 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
2.11 The survey methodology requires sampling to be undertaken in homogenous stands of vegetation (e.g. uniform in both its species composition and structure). Using this methodology a total of five 2m x 2m quadrats were recorded in each sampled stand. A species list was compiled of all vascular plants within each quadrat and an estimate made of each species cover/abundance using the Domin scale 13 (See Appendix A and C).
2.12 The data gathered during the survey was analysed using a vegetation key, comparison of floristic tables and community descriptions and computer analysis (MAVIS 14 ). This vegetation analysis software package provides a similarity coefficient for given NVC vegetation types which can then be analysed for the most likely community matches.
Farm Environment Plan (FEP) Surveys – Field 3
2.13 Survey work was undertaken on the main body of Field 3 (excluding the marshy area – TN4) using methodology as detailed in the FEP Manual on 9 th June 2015 9. This involved a structured walk through the area of dry grassland following an approximately W-shaped route. Ten stops were made and a 1m x 1m quadrat was surveyed at each stop. A species list was compiled of all vascular plants within each quadrat and an assessment of % cover was made for the following:
• Wildflowers and sedges (excluding white clover, creeping buttercup and injurious weeds)
• Perennial rye-grass
• White clover
2.14 In accordance with the NE FEP methodology each species was assigned an abundance value on the basis of how many of the quadrats it occurred in, as follows.
• Occurs in 1-2 quadrats out of 10 = rare
• Occurs in 3-4 quadrats out of 10 = occasional
• Occurs in 5 or more quadrats out of 10 = frequent
2.15 The FEP manual provides a key through which the field data can be run to assist with determining the grassland type present.
Further Analysis
2.16 Habitats subject to detailed Phase 2 surveys were also assessed to determine whether they met criteria as Habitats of Principal Importance (NERC Act, 2006), SINCs and/or Priority Habitats listed within Hampshire’s Biodiversity Action Plan (detailed background and methodologies – Appendix A).
Fauna
2.17 During the survey of the site, observations, signs of or suitable habitat for any species protected under Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) 15 and the Protection of Badgers Act
13 Allaby M. (2010) A Dictionary of Ecology – Domin Scale . Fourth Edition 14 Dart Computing & Smart S. Modular Analysis of Vegetation Information System (MAVIS) . Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. 15 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (as amended 2012). [Online]. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/490/contents/made [Accessed 11/11/2014]
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 8 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
1992 16 were noted with particular attention being given to the potential presence of badger , bats, reptiles, great crested newt, hazel dormouse, white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes and water vole Arvicola amphibius . Consideration was also given to the existence and use of the site by other notable fauna such as Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan, Red Data Book (RDB) species, BoCC red & amber listed bird species and Species of Principal Importance under the NERC Act, 2006.
2.18 A result of findings of the desk study and the Extended Phase 1 Survey, further faunal surveys were undertaken for a number of species / assemblages as identified below;
• Great crested newt presence / absence survey and population class assessment;
• Badger survey;
• Bat surveys: including roost assessment, transect surveys and automated (static) surveys to identify potential foraging and commuting routes;
• Water vole / white-clawed crayfish;
• Breeding bird surveys;
• Reptile presence / absence surveys;
• Hazel dormouse surveys
2.19 Detailed reports of these surveys are appended to the current report and these include all survey methodologies, results and conclusions. Summaries of these are presented in Sections 3, 5 and 6.
2.20 Due to limited field signs of water vole and white-clawed crayfish observed within the site, no separate report has been produced for these species. A water vole survey was carried during September 2015. The survey followed the standard methodology described in the Water Vole Handbook17 which involves identification of water vole activity and signs within the survey area, such as latrines, feeding stations and burrows (Appendix A).
16 The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended) . London: HMSO [Online]. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/51/contents [Accessed 03/05/2014]. 17 Strachan , Moorhouse & Gelling (2011 ) Water Vole Conservation Handbook 3rd. Edition . WildCRU, Oxford.
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 9 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
3.0 RESULTS
Desk Study
Statutory Sites of International Conservation Value
3.1 The Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website indicates that there are three internationally designated sites within 15km of the site boundary including: Kennet & Lambourn Floodplain SAC (8.1km north-west of the site); River Lambourn SAC, (10.7km north- west) and Kennet Valley Alderwoods (14.5km north-west). Thames Basin Heath SPA is located outside of 15km.
3.2 Kennet & Lambourn Floodplain is designated for supporting one of the most extensive known populations of the Annex II species Desmoulin’s whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana in the UK. The site supports bogs, marshes, fen, running and standing water habitats.
3.3 The River Lambourn SAC is designated for containing Annex I habitats (water courses of plain to montane levels) with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachoin vegetation. It is one of the least modified rivers of this type. The river also supports the Annex II bullhead Cottus gobio as well as the qualifying species brook lamprey Lampetra planeri .
3.4 The Kennet Valley Alderwoods SAC is designated for comprising the largest fragment of Annex I habitat of alluvial forest with alder-ash woodland.
Statutory Sites of National Conservation Value
3.5 There are six Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) within 2km of the site (Figure 1), however none lie within 1km of the site.
3.6 Ashford Hill Woods and Meadows SSSI lies approximately 1.2km west of the site. Part of this SSSI has been formed into a National Nature Reserve (NNR). The site supports ancient species-rich coppiced woodland, secondary woodland on former common land, hay meadows, grazed meadowland and peaty flushed areas, drained by a clear unpolluted small river. The site supports diverse invertebrate fauna including 31 species of butterfly and over 400 species of moth.
3.7 Wasing Wood Ponds SSSI is situated approximately 1.2km north-west. The site comprises a group of ponds, wet ditches and marshy areas which supports over half the total British dragonfly fauna.
3.8 West’s Meadow, Aldermaston SSSI is situated approximately 1.2km north-east of the site and comprises two small fields of unimproved pasture bounded by hedgerows and a small stream. The small area supports over 80 species of grassland plants.
3.9 Ron Ward’s Meadow with Tadley Pastures SSSI, located 1.5km south-east of the site, comprises an unimproved, herb-rich grassland, managed traditionally as a hay meadow. There are 28 species indicative of ancient grassland, a few of which are regionally uncommon. The site supports diverse bird and mammal fauna, including breeding snipe Gallinago gallinago , lapwing Vanellus vanellus and skylark Alauda arvensis as well as water and bank voles Clethrionomys glareolus .
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 10 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
3.10 Pamber Forest and Silchester Common SSSI, 1.5km east of the site, comprises extensive ancient oakwood, two heathland commons and a series of unimproved wet meadows. The mosaic of habitats support a diverse range of flora and fauna including Annex I listed birds such as woodlark Lullula arborea , nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus and Dartford warbler Sylvia undata .
3.11 The site also appears to lie within the SSSI Impact Risk Zone for Ron Ward’s Meadow within Tadley Pastures SSSI, Pamber Forest and Silchester Common SSSI; the Local Planning Authority (LPA) has recommended to consult Natural England for any proposed developments where there will be a net gain in residential units.
3.12 Consultation with Natural England via their Discretionary Advice Service (DAS) resulted in a response whereby they decided against providing pre-application advice; ‘The lack of specific comment from Natural England should not be interpreted as a statement that there are no impacts on the natural environment, but only that the application is not likely to result in significant impacts on statutory designated sites or protected landscapes’ (Aileen Finlayson, 14 th August 2015).
Non-Statutory Sites of Local Conservation Interest (Figure 1)
3.13 There are 14 sites within 1km of the site which have been designated as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) - this is a non-statutory designation. Four of these fall within the site boundary (Fields 1, 2, 3 and the block of wet woodland south of Field 5).
Table 1: Local Sites of Nature Conservation Interest
Site Name and Size Description and SINC criteria Distance and Reference Aspect from Site
Whitehouse Meadow, 0.74ha Grassland that had become impoverished Field 1 on site. Land South of through inappropriate management but still Bishopswood Lane, retains sufficient elements of relic Tadley SINC unimproved grassland (SINC criteria 2D)
St. John's Paddock, Land 1.25ha Agriculturally unimproved grassland as Field 2 on site South of Bishopswood well as semi-improved grassland which still Lane SINC retains a significant element of unimproved grassland (SINC criteria 2A and 2B)
West Field, Land South 1.47ha Habitats such as fens, flushes, seepages, Field 3 on site of Bishopswood Lane, springs and inundation grassland that SINC support flora and fauna of characteristic unimproved and waterlogged conditions (SINC Criteria 5B)
Plantation Copse, 0.32ha Ancient semi-natural woodland - Wet Wet Woodland on Tadley, SINC Woodland and Lowland Mixed Deciduous site (located Woodland (SINC Criteria 1A) centrally south of Field 5)
Wooded Footpath West 0.44ha Ancient semi-natural woodland (SINC Adjacent to western Criteria 1B) boundary of Land at Bishopswood Lane, SINC
Great Copse, Baughurst - Ancient semi-natural woodland (SINC 195m south-west Criteria 1A) Common SINC
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 11 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
Site Name and Size Description and SINC criteria Distance and Reference Aspect from Site
Wigmore Heath SINC - Heathland vegetation, including matrices 230m north of dwarf shrub, acid grassland, valley mires and scrub (SINC Criteria 3A)
Pond at Shaw Lane, - Supports one or more notable flora or 480m south-east fauna (SINC Criteria 6A), the species of Baughurst SINC which has not been disclosed
Hoggerels Copse SINC - Ancient semi-natural woodland (SINC 800m west Criteria 1A)
Jack's Hill/Wigmores - Ancient semi-natural woodland (SINC 930m south-west Criteria 1A) and supporting an important Copses SINC community type of restricted distribution within the county
Great Baughurst Copse - Ancient semi-natural woodland (SINC 970m west Criteria 1A) SINC
Jack's Hill Copse East - Ancient semi-natural woodland (SINC 975m south-west of Criteria 1A) the site SINC
Aldermoor Copse, Tadley - Ancient semi-natural woodland (SINC 1km south Criteria 1A) SINC
Westfield Copse, - Ancient semi-natural woodland (SINC 1km south-west Criteria 1A) and supporting an important Baughurst SINC community type of restricted distribution within the county
Priority Habitats
3.14 HBIC have provided details of Priority Habitats within the local area. These largely follow the boundaries of the SINC sites, with exception of further areas of Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland directly to the north of the site and within the golf course to the west. The SINC sites within the site boundary, as described above, have been mapped as containing the Priority Habitats; Wet Woodland and Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland (SINC BD0799 – Plantation Copse), Lowland Meadows (SINC BD0794 – St. John’s Paddock, Land South of Bishopswood Lane), Purple Moor Grass and Rush Pastures (SINC BD0798 – Whitehouse Meadow and SINC BD0796 – West Field).
Protected and Priority Species (Figure 2a and 2b)
3.15 Post 1990 records of protected or otherwise notable taxa provided by HBIC within 1km are listed in Table 2. Locations of these records are presented in Figure 2a and 2a: Protected & Notable Species Records.
Table 2: Protected and Notable Species Records
Species Conservation Status Location from Site Boundary
Mammals – Terrestrial (Non-bats)
Badger Meles meles PBA Confidential – see Appendix K
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 12 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
Species Conservation Status Location from Site Boundary
Herpetofauna
Slow worm Anguis fragilis WCA, NERC Approx. 70m west
Common lizard Zootoca vivipara WCA, NERC Multiple records: approx. 70m west, 335m north and within 1km square to south (four- figure grid ref)
Bats
Noctule Nyctalus noctula CHSR, WCA, NERC 1km square to north-east (four-figure grid ref)
Pipistrelle Sp. Pipistrellus sp. CHSR, WCA Approx. 355m south-west
Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus CHSR, WCA, HBAP Multiple records: approx.270m north, pipistrellus 600m east, 690m north-east and 770meast.
Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus CHSR, WCA, NERC, Single record approx. 270m north HBAP
Long-eared species CHSR, WCA Single record approx.. 390m west
Brown-long eared CHSR, WCA, NERC Multiple records: approx. 135m east, 195m west, 335m north, 425m south, 710m north-east and 805m west
Birds
Red kite Milvus milvus WCA, HBAP Records in area: two-figure grid refs
House sparrow Passer domesticus BoCC RED, NERC Records in local area: four-figure grid refs directly to north and east
Common bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula BoCC AMBER, HBAP On site (Fields 1 and 2)
Song thrush Turdus philomelos BoCC RED, HBAP Multiple records: approx. 325m south,
Key to Conservation Status : HR – CHSR – The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012, WCA – Wildlife & Countryside Act, NERC – Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006, HBAP – Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species, PBA – Protection of Badgers Act 1992, BoCC RED/AMBER: Birds of Conservation Concern Red and Amber lists.
3.16 A large number of invertebrate records have been supplied but these are largely associated with areas of woodland to the south west of the site and beyond 1km from the site.
Habitats
Overview
3.17 The site is characterised by nine cattle and horse grazed fields bound and bisected by hedgerows, woodland and watercourses. Three of the fields have been designated as SINCs and these form the northern extent of the site (Fields 1, 2 and 3). In addition, a small area of
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 13 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
woodland present centrally within the site has also been designated a SINC. The remaining fields have been found to support species-poor semi-improved grassland. Detailed species lists, NVC and FEP data sets are presented in Appendix B and C, with photographs and target notes (not described below) in Appendix D.
Semi-Improved Neutral Grassland
3.18 Recent management of Field 1 has involved dredging the ditch with the resulting spoil then spread on the adjacent land in a band approximately 10m wide . At the northern end trees have been recently planted and the immediate surrounding vegetation has been left unmanaged. The remainder of the field was sprayed with herbicide during March 2014 and subsequently mown with a pasture topper approximately one month after spraying. A band of more regularly mown grassland has been maintained across the middle of the field. At the time of the survey the grassland had been allowed to grow freely since being topped. The main area of the field was sampled using NVC survey methodology and the other areas were surveyed by compiling species lists for individual areas.
3.19 The spoil arising from the ditch clearance had been spread in a band approximately 10m wide immediately adjacent to the ditch and subsequently sown with perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne which now forms the bulk of the vegetation on this area. Other grasses present included small amounts of Yorkshire-fog Holcus lanatus and Timothy Phleum pratense . Ruderal components such as broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius and curled dock Rumex crispus were also noted .
3.20 At the northern end of the field there is a small area of recent tree planting (TN2, Figure 2) (mainly broadleaves). The un-managed grassland surrounding the trees is formed by abundant Yorkshire-fog with frequent to abundant common knapweed Centaurea nigra and locally frequent agrimony Agrimonia eupatoria, greater bird's-foot-trefoil Lotus pedunculatus and lesser stitchwort Stellaria graminea and a good range of other plants, many of which are indicative of slightly damp conditions, such as square-stalked St John's-wort Hypericum tetrapterum and sharp- flowered rush Juncus acutiflorus .
3.21 The main area of Field 1 supported a grass-dominated sward with abundant sweet vernal-grass Anthoxanthum odoratum, Yorkshire-fog and common bent Agrostis capillaris and less frequently cock's-foot Dactylis glomerata and red fescue Festuca rubra. Common bird's-foot-trefoil Lotus corniculatus and yarrow Achillea millefolium were relatively constant throughout the stand but never in any abundance. A reasonable range of other forbs were present including occasional common knapweed and field wood-rush Luzula campestris. The effects of the application of herbicide were evident with stunted and dying plants of meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris frequently noted.
Marshy Grassland
3.22 Until the spring of 2014 Field 2 had been heavily grazed by horses for many years. Following removal of the horses the sward had been allowed to grow freely up to the time of the survey (June 2015). The exception being a small area at the northern extent of the field (TN3), this area supported a reasonably homogenous stand of species-rich vegetation which was surveyed using NVC survey methodology.
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 14 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
3.23 Although reasonably dry underfoot at the time of the survey, the main area clearly stood wet for a significant time and there was evidence that this area may have been subjected to poaching by grazing animals in the past. The grassland here exhibited a high degree of species diversity at the time of the survey with 52 plant species recorded from this particular stand of vegetation. The species composition reflects the dampness of the area with an assemblage of plants indicative of damp conditions. This included creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera and velvet bent Agrostis canina and of particular note was the abundance of lesser spearwort Ranunculus flammula along with jointed rush Juncus articulatus and creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens. An extensive range of other wetland plants occurred frequently throughout the stand; species such as cuckooflower Cardamine pratensis and greater bird's-foot-trefoil . In areas which appeared to have been subjected to poaching toad rush Juncus bufonius was abundant and bristle club-rush Isolepis setacea was locally frequent.
3.24 A small drain opens out from the west boundary into the central part of this area and here species indicative of more permanent water were present, such as brooklime Veronica beccabunga and fool's-water-cress . Locally, conditions appeared to be slightly acidic, and were marked by the presence of devil's-bit scabious Succisa pratensis and more rarely tormentil Potentilla erecta.
3.25 At the northern extent of Field 2 an area of formally disturbed ground (TN3) is present, possibly reflecting that this area had previously been fenced off from the remainder of the field and subjected to different management. The ground here was higher and therefore drier. The vegetation was variable with some areas clearly identifiable as neutral grassland and this was locally species-rich with plants such as oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare, common knapweed, cat's-ear Hypochaeris radicata and more rarely rough hawkbit Leontodon hispidus. In other areas plants such as water-pepper Persicaria hydropiper, greater bird's-foot-trefoil , marsh cudweed Gnaphalium uliginosum and creeping bent were indicative of damper areas. Locally, bare ground and an old manure pile provided suitable conditions for ruderal pioneer species such as pineappleweed Matricaria discoidea, scentless mayweed Tripleurospermum inodorum and thistles Cirsium spp .
3.26 Examination of old ordnance survey maps shows that Fields 2 and 3 were formerly the same field with a boundary introduced sometime in the 1960s, supporting the assumption that the wet area of Field 3 is essentially a continuation of Field 2.
3.27 The majority of Field 3 supports species-poor semi-improved damp neutral grassland (described below). Areas adjacent to the ditch (TN4) lay damper and the vegetation was similar in its species composition with that found in the majority of Field 2. Of note, a small stand of common cow-wheat Melampyrum pratense was noted within this eastern area.
3.28 Small areas of marshy grassland were present within Field 5, to the south-west and south-east of the field. The south-western area was more species-rich area with the northern extent of this comprising a transitional area grading to the adjacent drier species-poor semi-improved neutral grassland. This area was heavily poached by grazing cattle. Lesser spearwort was found to be abundant across both sections with other species indicative of damp areas such as floating sweet-grass Glyceria fluitans and greater bird’s-foot-trefoil occurring frequently. More occasionally, marsh thistle Cirsium palustre , common marsh-bedstraw Galium palustre and gypsywort Lycopus europaeus featured.
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 15 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
Species-Poor Semi-Improved Grassland
3.29 The remaining fields (Fields 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9) were formed by species-poor semi-improved neutral grassland which were close-grazed by cattle. The fields were distinctly characterised by the presence of abundant perennial rye-grass, a species which features heavily within improved conditions. Other abundant species indicative of improvement included white clover trifolim repens , rough meadow-grass Poa trivialis and creeping buttercup. A small number of grasses and herbs were found on an occasional and rare scale, their composition varied slightly from field to field and included selfheal Prunella vulgaris and meadow buttercup Ranunculus repens .
3.30 Field 9 displayed a slightly different composition with Yorkshire fog occurring abundantly along with perennial rye-grass and common bent. Small, localised, areas of damper ground were recorded in Field 9 marked by species such as marsh cudweed, marsh foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus and greater bird’s-foot trefoil.
Semi-Natural Woodland
3.31 A small area of wet woodland (TN6) stood centrally within the site with a canopy formed by alder Alnus glutinosa, ash and goat willow Salix caprea. Understorey shrub species included locally abundant holly Ilex aquifolium and frequent hazel Corylus avellana . The woodland floor had a lot of bare ground with the vegetated areas supporting abundant water-pepper , water-starwort Callitriche sp., angelica Angelica sylvestris and remote sedge Carex remota . A drain fed in from the southern boundary of Field 5 and ran as an open stream within the wood, widening out at the southern end. The wood was not fenced and had been heavily poached by cattle particularly around the stream.
3.32 The western boundary of Field 3 was formed by several mature ash and pedunculate oak which were a component of a band of broadleaved woodland (TN5) which formed and extended beyond the site boundary. The canopy was formed by oak Quercus peduculatus , ash and more rarely beech Fagus sylvatica with a dense shrub layer of holly and some hazel and hawthorn Crataegus monogyna .
3.33 Towards the eastern extent of the Field 6, a small linear copse (TN12) was present, which appeared to have formed after a hedgerow has been allowed to grow out into the field. This was approximately 7m wide and the main species comprised holly, pedunculate oak, hawthorn, blackthorn Prunus spinosa , hazel and dog-rose Rosa canina . The ground flora was species-poor and formed mainly by grasses, ivy and common nettle.
3.34 The southern extent of Bishop’s Wood Stream, adjacent to Fields 7, 8 and 9 supported a wooded canopy formed by abundant alder and frequent willow Salix sp., with a shrub layer of frequent elder Sambucus nigra , hazel and occasional hawthorn and holly. In some places bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. scrub extended beyond the banks towards the field.
Hedgerows
3.35 Mature hedgerows containing many mature trees form distinctive corridors across the site. Whilst generally unmanaged they were mostly species-rich and of moderate to high ecological value when assessed against the Hedgerow Evaluation and Grading System (HEGS).
3.36 Fourteen hedgerows are present on site, providing boundaries between fields, on the edge of residential properties and forming site boundaries. All contain over 80% native species and are
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 16 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
therefore identified as habitats of principal importance under Section 41 of the NERC Act. Two hedgerows qualified as being ‘important’ under the wildlife and landscape criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 due to their high species diversity. Hedgerows H8 and H10 contained an average of seven species per 30m and therefore automatically qualified as important. These hedgerows formed boundaries between fields and were found within the centre of the site. Both supported more than one standard per 50m and four connections with further hedgerows and woodland / running water / tree lines. In addition, hedgerow H10 was growing on a bank up to 0.5m in height.
3.37 Eleven hedgerows were found to provide moderately high to very high conservation value in accordance with HEGS, largely due to supporting tall structures with high diversity and mixed composition. In most cases, the hedgerows were well connected to further habitats on and off site, including ponds, further hedgerows and woodland.
3.38 The hedgerows largely comprised a mixed composition with hazel, hawthorn, holly, pedunculate oak, ash and the rose species representing the most common species. Hedgerows were largely outgrown and unmanaged with numerous gaps present throughout. The general structure was poor with ruderals and the associated ground-flora making up the bottom layers of the hedgerows. A fairly large tree resource, comprising predominantly mature pedunculate oak and ash, was present throughout the network of hedgerows. Where hedgerows were associated with flowing water (H5) through the centre of the site, mature alder was present.
Table 3: Summary of Hedgerow Survey Results
Ref. Canopy Sp. Length Notes HEGS Value Important Under (m) and Score REGS / Average Species per 30m
H1 Pl, Cm, Ia, Ma, 120 Tall residential boundary 3+ Ap, Qr, Lo, hedgerow; 4 mature standards, Not important Moderate Ca, Fe 1 young tree, 10-30% gaps, 2 3 sp/30m value connections, mixed compostion
H2 Ia, Qr, Sn, Ca, 108 Internal field boundary 2+ Cm hedgerow; 7 mature standards, Not important Moderately 1 young tree, 10-30% gaps, 3 4 sp/30m high to high connections, mixed composition, value hedgebank present
H3 Ia, Qr, Fs, Ue, 78 Internal field boundary -2 Cm, Ca hedgerow; 3 mature standards, Moderately Not important >30% gaps, 4 connections, high to high 5 sp/30m mixed composition value
H4 Cm, Ia, Ca, 98 Internal field boundary 2+ Rc, Qr, Um, hedgerow; 6 mature standards, Moderately Not important Fe 5 young trees, 10-30% gaps, 2 high to high 4 sp/30m connections, mixed composition value
H5 Sn, Ia, Pop, 275 Internal field boundary Cm, Ps, Ca, hedgerow; 8 mature standards, 1 Not important Qr, Rc, Ra, 1 young tree, 10-30% gaps, 2 High to very 6 sp/30m Sxc, Fe, Sxci, connections, mixed high value Ag, Sx, Um composition, flowing ditch
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 17 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
Ref. Canopy Sp. Length Notes HEGS Value Important Under (m) and Score REGS / Average Species per 30m
H6 Cm, Fe, Sx, 180 Field boundary hedgerow 3 No important Rc, Cs, Sn adjacent to driving range; no Moderate 2 sp/30m trees, 0-10% gaps, 1 connection value
H7 Um, Qr, Ia, 78 Field boundary hedgerow Sn, Ra, Cm, adjacent to Bishopswood Lane; 3+ Not important Fe, Ca, Rc 4 mature standards, >30% Moderate 5 sp/30m gaps, 2 connections, mixed value composition, dry ditch
H8 Ca, Fe, Ia, Rc, 142 Internal field boundary 2 Cm, Ag, Sxc, hedgerow; 9 mature standards, Moderately Important Bp, Qr, Ra 10-30% gaps, 4 connections, high to high 7 sp/30m mixed composition value
H9 Ia, Ca, Ue, 42 Field boundary hedgerow Cm adjacent to residential dwelling; 2+ Not important 3 young trees, 10-30% gaps, 4 Moderately 4 sp/30m connections, hedgebank to high value present
H10 Ia, Ca, Ag, 58 Internal field boundary Rc, Qr, Fe, hedgerow; 3 mature standards, Important Prunus, Cm 6 young trees, 10-30% gaps, 4 -1 7 sp/30m connections, mixed High value composition, hedgebank present
H11 Ia, Cm, Ca, 100 Field boundary hedgerow; 1 2 Qr, Sn, Um, mature standard, 10-30% gaps, Not important Moderately Ra 4 connections, mixed 4 sp/30m high to high composition, hedgebank value present
H12 Cm, Ia, Fe, 69 Internal field boundary Qr, Rc hedgerow, 3 mature standards, -2 Not important 3 young trees, >30% gaps, 3 Moderately 5 sp/30m connections, mixed high to high composition, species-rich grass value verge on one side
H13 Cm, Ia, Fe, 180 Field boundary hedgerow Qr, Rc, Lv, Fs adjacent to residential dwelling; -2 Not important 6 mature trees, 10-30% gaps, 2 Moderately 4 sp/30m connections, mixed high to high composition, species-rich grass value verge on one side
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 18 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
Ref. Canopy Sp. Length Notes HEGS Value Important Under (m) and Score REGS / Average Species per 30m
H14 Ca, Ia, Qr, Rc, 118 Internal field boundary Sx, Bp, Cm hedgerow; 3 mature standards, Not important 2 1 young tree, 10-30% gaps, 2 5 sp/30m Moderately connections, mixed high to high composition, wet flowing ditch, value species-rich grass verge on 2 sides
Key to hedgerow species : Um Ulmus sp Elm, Cm Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn, Sn Sambucus nigra Elder, Ps Prunus spinosa Blackthorn, Sxc Salix caprea Goat willow, Fe Fraxinus excelsior Ash, Rc Rosa canina agg Dog-rose, Qr Quercus robur English oak, Fs Fagus sylvatica Beech, Bp Betula pendula Silver birch, Ca Corylus avellana Hazel, Ia Ilex aquifolium Holly, Ap Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore , Ag Alnus glutinosa Alder, Lo Ligustrum ovalifolium Graden privet, Lv Ligustrum vulgare Wild privet, Ue Ulex europaeus European gorse, Ra Rosa arvensis Field rose, Sxci Salix cinera ssp oleifolia Grey willow, Pop Populus sp Poplar species, Prunus Cherry, Sx Salix sp Willow species, Ma Mahonia aquifolium Oregon grape, Pl Prunus laurocerasus Cherry laurel, Cs Castanea sativa Sweet chestnut
Trees
3.39 As described above the site contained a large resource of trees, with mature pedunculate oak heavily represented within hedgerows. In the wetter areas, particularly the wet woodland and wooded stream, mature alder featured, however other species included ash, willow and birch. A number of the trees throughout the hedgerows supported features suitable for roosting bats and these have been assessed within the Bat Report (Appendix F).
Running Water
3.40 Bishop’s Wood Stream enters the site via a culvert under Bishopswood Lane at the northern extent of the site. The stream follows a straight course south between Fields 1 and 2, then culverted again under and between Fields 3 and 9 before meandering around the north-western corner of Field 8, from which it flows south-east alongside Fields 7 and 8. The stream leaves the site at the southern tip of Field 7. Two small tributaries of the stream issue within the site; one issues from the area of wet woodland and another issues from a point close to the boundary between Fields 6 and 7.
3.41 The northern extent of the stream within Field 1 (TN1) had re-vegetated following dredging to produce a species-rich wetland flora with abundant fool's-water-cress Apium nodiflorum often growing mixed with frequent to locally abundant water-cress Nasturtium officinale.
3.42 Midway along the stream, at the western extent of Fields 8 and 9 where the stream meanders, a depression or old pond area was present (TN23). Abundant mature willow,pedunculate oak and alder lie within this area, potentially resulting in drier ground. Some very shallow standing water was present, dominated by sweet-grass with a small amount of brooklime and soft-rush Juncus effusus.
3.43 Alongside Field 8 (TN22), the stream was more open with vegetation consisting of locally frequent remote sedge, brooklime Veronica beccabunga and fool's-water-cress. There was less
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 19 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
of a slope, compared to the lower reaches, from the stream up to the grazed field but with bands of common nettle Urtica dioica where there is shading from the trees.
3.44 At its lower reaches (alongside Field 7) the stream is shallow with low sloping banks and a steady flow. Remote sedge is frequent to locally abundant along the shallow bank sides indicating that it dries out and/or shrinks temporarily. Some hemlock water-dropwort Oenanthe crocata and sweet-grass is also present.
3.45 A watercourse originating in Field 6, which appears to be a spring (or drain) (TN13), runs through hedgerow H5 with a slow to moderate flow over a silty substrate. The bank profiles are shallow and where light can penetrate the water’s surface, frequent fool’s-water-cress and sweet grass Glyceria sp is present, suggesting it is permanently wet. The tributary runs south before leaving the site at its southern extent (TN14).
Standing Water
3.46 Two ponds (TN20) are present where the stream leaves the wet woodland. No macrophytes or emergent vegetation were present in this area and the pond was found to swell and shrink dramatically in accordance with water levels within the stream. The pond is further detailed in the Great Crested Newt Report (Appendix E).
Scrub / Ruderal
3.47 Where hedgerows were absent, particularly along the road side, boundaries are marked by barbed wire fencing with areas of scattered and dense bramble and some dog-rose, gorse, holly and young trees (TN8, 9, 10 and 11). A dry ditch was also present in association with the road side.
3.48 The southern extent of the eastern boundary of Field 3 was too gappy to constitute a hedge and was formed by bramble and grey willow Salix cinerea agg. with small amounts of field maple Acer campestre, holly and blackthorn. An extensive band (approx. 5m wide) of common nettle extends out from the boundary into the field.
Building
3.49 A single storey, open fronted barn (TN24) stands at the southern extent of Field 8, constructed by timber beams and covered with single skinned corrugated metal sheets. No roof void is present and no features are present which provide crevices for roosting bats. This is discussed further within the Bat Report (Appendix F).
Fauna
Great Crested Newt (Appendix E)
3.50 Two standing waterbodies are present on site located at the boundary between Fields 7 and 8. In addition, the Bishop’s Wood Stream contains pooled areas within its northern extent where water is slow flowing. Within a 500m radius of the site twelve waterbodies were identified through inspection of OS maps and aerial imagery.
3.51 GCN presence/absence surveys were completed on all waterbodies where access was gained, which comprised all on-site waterbodies as well as four ponds directly to the south of the site. No
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 20 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
evidence of GCN was identified within any of the waterbodies surveyed in 2015. Smooth newts Lissotriton vulgaris were recorded in the off-site ponds with a peak count of five individual adults and a single palmate newt Lissotriton helveticus was recorded in Bishop’s Wood Stream on site. Since no evidence of GCN was recorded during surveys, this species has not been considered further within this report.
Bats (Appendix F)
Trees
3.52 A total of 66 trees were assessed as providing opportunities to support roosting bats during the ground assessments in 2014 & 2015. A total of 46 were classified as having negligible potential (category 3) for supporting bat roosts, 6 classified as having low potential (category 2b) to support a bat roost (T1, T7, T12, T13, T63 & T65) as they had features that provided limited roosting opportunities including small areas of loose bark and cavities. The remaining 14 (T23, T24, T26, T43, T55, T56, T57, T58, T59, T60, T61, T62, T64, & T66) were classified as having features that are consistent with moderate to high roosting potential (category 2a); these included a number of woodpecker holes and deep cavities.
3.53 An aerial assessment was undertaken on trees with low – high roosting potential which were not to be incorporated in the proposed green infrastructure, this included trees with moderate to high roosting potential (category 2a): T23, T24, T26, T55, T61, T62, T64 &T66; and trees with low roosting potential (category 2b): T1, T7, T12, T13, T63 and T65.
3.54 The aerial assessment found no evidence of bat roosts in any of the trees surveyed. A number of the trees were declassified to negligible or low; with the exception of T24 & T26 which supported large dry cavities that could provide future roosting opportunities.
Activity Surveys - Transects
3.55 During the monthly transects in 2015 activity levels ranged from a minimum of nine contacts (including point counts) during September dawn surveys to a maximum of 57 during the September dusk survey. The activity levels were regularly above 35 contacts on 5 survey occasions. A total of four bat species were recorded and one bat identified to genus level, this included (in order of abundance); common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus , soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus , unknown Myotis species, with serotine Eptesicus serotinus and barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus being recorded only once each.
3.56 Areas of repeated peak activity included; H5 adjacent Field 6, entire length of Bishop’s Wood Stream, the hedgerows connecting to the central woodland block (H2, H3, H4 and H8) and the edge habitat of the SINC woodland block.
Activity Surveys - Static Detectors
3.57 Overall, during the surveys, a total of seven bat species were identified, with an additional four only identified to genus level due to the quality of the recording or similarities between calls. The most abundant registrations were from common pipistrelle by a large margin with over c.93% of the total contacts. Soprano pipistrelle bats were next most frequent with c.3%, followed by pipistrelle species with c.1%. The remaining bat species comprised less than 1% individually, but as a collective, Nathusius pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii , serotine, noctule Nyctalus noctula ,
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 21 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
unknown Myotis species, barbastelle, Plecotus species, brown long-eared Plecotus auritus and Nyctalus /serotine species made up the remaining c.3%. The species assemblage and abundance is very similar to that recorded on transects.
3.58 The average hourly rates for common pipistrelles was c.40.02 registrations per hour (rph). Soprano pipistrelle bats were next most frequent with 1.69 rph. The majority of the remainder of the bat species averaged between 0.03 rph and 0.01 rph.
3.59 The levels of registrations per static, ranged from 1000-2000 contacts, with exception of units in May and September which represented peaks of 4852 and 5485 registrations respectively. The highest peak in September was from a static located along H10, within the south-west corner of Field 1, close to the Bishop’s Wood Stream. The May static was located at the junction between three hedgerows H1, H2 & H9 which ran to/from the woodland and Bishop’s Wood Stream. The majority of the higher registrations occurred in the northern half of the site, with a June recording of 2953 registrations which was located on the junction with hedgerow H12 and the Bishop’s Wood Stream.
3.60 Common pipistrelles were recorded around the entire site, which is to be expected as this species can utilise a range of habitats. The barbastelles registrations were uncommon and were associated with woodland habitats within the site. The Myotis registrations were higher in the northern part of the site along Bishop’s Wood Stream.
Reptiles
3.61 Suitable habitats for reptiles was limited to field boundaries, where mosaics of tussock grassland, hedgerow bases and scrub provided foraging, commuting and refuge opportunities for common reptile species. Seven reptile surveys were carried out between April and September 2015; these were conducted within the recommended survey period and during conditions optimal for reptile sightings. The table below summarises the total number of reptiles recorded during the above period.
Table 4: Reptiles Recorded During Each Survey
Survey Date Grass Snake Slow Worm
24/04/15 0 3 adult male
1 juvenile (sex unknown)
27/05/15 1 adult (sex 0 unknown)
09/06/15 1 adult (sex 0 unknown)
29/06/15 1 juvenile (sex 1 adult female unknown)
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 22 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
Survey Date Grass Snake Slow Worm
09/07/15 0 0
27/08/15 0 3 adult female
11/09/15 0 0
3.62 The identification of a peak adult count of three slow worms and a single grass snake would give the site a ‘low population’ classification for each species.
Hazel Dormouse
3.63 Dormice tubes were spread along suitable hedgerows, woodland and tree lines throughout the site. The network of vegetative corridors provided dense canopy coverage, providing a continuous corridor of movement across the site and into the wider area, largely without gaps to prevent individuals needing to access the ground. Hedgerow composition was generally mixed and species rich with ash, hawthorn, hazel and holly present throughout most hedgerows.
3.64 Dormice tubes were installed within hedgerows H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, H8, H9, H10, H11, H12, H13 and H14. Surveys were completed on a monthly basis between April and September inclusive and no evidence of this species was identified. This species is therefore not considered further within this report.
Breeding Birds
3.65 Breeding bird surveys were completed during April, May and June 2015. A total of 43 bird species were recorded during the surveys, of which, 16 either appear on the RSPB BoCC as declining (red or amber lists) and/or identified as priority species for nature conservation under S41 of the NERC Act. One species listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), red kite Milvus milvus , was recorded on a single occasion.
3.66 Of the species recorded, nine were confirmed as breeding; blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus , great tit Parus major , long-tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus , blackcap Sylvia atricapilla , nuthatch Sitta europaea , magpie Pica pica , carrion crow Corvus corone , great spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos major and robin Erithacus rubecula . A further thirteen species were considered probable breeders whilst the twenty remaining species were considered possible breeders or non-breeders.
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 23 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
Table 5: Schedule 1, NERC S.41, BoCC Red- and Amber-Listed Bird Species Recorded at Land off Bishopswood lane, Tadley during Breeding Bird Surveys 2015 and their Recent Status within Hampshire.
Species Legal/ Maximum Breeding Recent Conservation Count / Status on Status in Hampshire Status Survey Site Occasions Recorded
Mallard Amber list 3 / 3 Probable A common resident Anas platyrhynchos
An increasing visitor and scarce Red kite Amber List 1 / 1 Non-breeder breeder that is becoming more Milvus milvus Sch.1 frequent A common winter visitor and Common gull Amber List 5 / 2 Non-breeder passage migrant; small numbers Larus canus summer
Stock dove Amber List 2 / 2 Probable A numerous resident Columba oenas
Green woodpecker Amber List 3 / 2 Possible A common resident Picus viridus
Red List Skylark NERC S.41 1 / 1 Possible A numerous resident. Alauda arvensis LBAP
Swallow Amber List 2 / 1 Non-breeder A numerous summer visitor Hirundo rustica
Meadow pipit Amber List 2 / 1 Probable A locally common resident Anthus pratensis
Grey wagtail Amber List 1 / 1 Non-breeder A moderately common resident Motacilla cinerea
Dunnock Amber List 10 / 3 Probable An abundant resident Prunella modularis NERC S.41
Red List Song thrush NERC S.41 4 / 3 Probable A numerous resident Turdus philomelos LBAP
Mistle thrush Amber List 1 / 1 Possible A numerous resident Turdus viscivorus
Whitethroat Amber List 1 / 1 Possible A numerous summer visitor Sylvia communis
Marsh tit Red List 1 / 1 Possible A common but declining resident Poecile palustris NERC S.41
Starling Red List 10 / 3 Possible An abundant but declining resident Sturnus vulgaris NERC S.41
Bullfinch Amber List 1 / 1 Possible A numerous resident Pyrrhula pyrrhula NERC
Water Vole and Crayfish (TN19, Figure 3 – photographs within Appendix D)
3.67 No records of water vole have been identified through consultation with HBIC. Bishop’s Wood Stream runs through the centre of the northern extent of the site (between Fields 1, 2 and 3) and along the western boundaries of Fields 7 and 8. The stream contained small amounts of water
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 24 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
which was found to be slow to moderate flowing during the majority of surveys. Bank profiles were largely shallow and void of vegetation where there was heavy over-shading of bankside trees and hedgerows (the majority of the southern extent of the watercourse – TN19 and TN22).
3.68 The northern extent (TN1 and TN23) was more open and supported 45º banks approximately 0.5m in height and these were heavily vegetated by adjacent grassland with a rich aquatic and marginal assemblage including fool's-water-cress, water plantain, water-cress and gipsywort Lycopus europaeus . These areas were considered to provide more suitable opportunities for burrowing and foraging. The entire watercourse, along with the ponds, spring and wet ditches were surveyed for signs of water vole, however no evidence of this species was identified. In addition to these specific surveys, no evidence of water vole was incidentally noted throughout the entire suite of protected species surveys.
3.69 Bishop’s Wood Stream and the other watercourse issuing in Field 6 was not considered to provide suitable habitat for crayfish, largely containing a silty substrate, shallow banks and limited water content. Signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus were recorded during GCN surveys within the ponds to the south of the site, approximately 20m south of the site.
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 25 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
4.0 DISCUSSION
Statutory Designated International Sites
4.1 Kennet and Lambourn Floodplain SAC and River Lambourn SAC lie 8.1km and 10.7 km north- west from the site boundary. These sites have been designated for their wetland habitats and aquatic fauna (fish and molluscs). Natural England have produced a Site Improvement Plan for the River Lambourn and Kennet-Lambourn Floodplain SAC which contains ten issues which are considered to be a pressure or threat on the sites. These largely comprise hydrological affects and since the application site does not lie within the catchment of either the Lambourn or the Kennet, development of the site would not have any bearing on any of these pressure/threats.
4.2 Proposals for the application site include a village green as well as a network of footpaths around the site and into the wider area, these are likely to be used on a daily basis by dog walkers and the general public. Due to the distances involved in travelling to the SACs, it is not considered that these sites would be visited on a regular basis, therefore public pressures upon the designated habitats would remain negligible.
Statutory Designated National Sites
4.3 Six SSSIs lie within 2km of the site, the nearest being 1.2km west, north and north-east; Ashford Hill Woods and Meadows SSSI (part NNR), Wasing Wood Ponds SSSI and West’s Meadow, Aldermaston SSSI. The site falls within the Impact Risk Zone for SSSIs to the east (West’s Meadow, Aldermaston SSSI, Ron Ward’s Meadow with Tadley Pastures SSSI and Pamber Forest & Silchester Common SSSI) which are within the local area, detailed above. The data search has revealed that Natural England would expect the Local Planning Authority to consult them on this planning application due to a net increase in residential units.
4.4 The site incorporates substantial green infrastructure (approximately 7.4 ha) which provides a resource for daily walks and recreation. It is considered that this will consolidate public pressure within the site and immediate area and prevent car journeys to nearby sites on a regular basis. The site is linked to Ashford Hill Woods and Meadows SSSI and Ron Ward’s Meadow within??? Tadley Pastures SSSI via a public right of way and this would involve an approximate 2.4km walk (one way), which, if used as a circular route (which would cover approximately 4.8km), this is considered to be in excess of the average daily walking distance undertaken by the majority of people. Research published by Natural England for the Thames Basin Heaths SPA 18 found that average walking route length of a local visitor with a dog was 2.63km, with 75% of dog walkers covering up to 3.23km. ‘Local visitors’ who were walking without a dog on average covered a slightly longer distance of 2.51km, with 75% covering up to 3.80km.
Non-Statutory Designated Sites
4.5 Non-statutory designated sites do not receive statutory protection, however they do receive policy protection (as “Local Sites”), as reflected in the NPPF. The new NPPF retains a commitment to the protection of Local Wildlife Sites which are recognised in the framework as locally designated sites. The policy relating to locally designated sites is found in several paragraphs which provide
18 Natural England (2014) Results of the 2012/13 vistor survey on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). [Online].
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 26 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
direction for local authorities to identify, map and protect these sites, which are components of local ecological networks, through planning policies.
4.6 Hampshire SINCs represent Local Sites as referred to within the NPPF 19 and Government Circular 06/2005 20 . This non-statutory designation places no legal obligation on owners to manage their sites in any particular way; such designated sites are however a material consideration within the planning process and most local authorities have specific policies involving Local Sites. This is the case for Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.
4.7 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council’s Adopted Local Plan 21 remains the key planning document used when making planning decisions. Following an application to the Secretary of State in 2008 consent was gained to save a number of policies within the plan; these include Policy E7 – Nature/Biodiversity Conservation.
“Policy E7
Development or a change of land use will be permitted where it will not have an adverse effect on protected species or the conservation status of priority species, harm the nature conservation interest of a statutory or non-statutory wildlife nature conservation site or lead to the loss or deterioration of a key habitat type or harm the integrity of linkages between such sites and habitats.
Proposals will be expected to conserve and, where possible, enhance the biodiversity of the receiving environment, taking into account the aims and targets of the UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plans. Where appropriate, planning conditions and obligations will be used to secure these requirements. In particular, the opportunity will be taken to secure the creation and management of features of the landscape that, by virtue of their linear and continuous structure or their function as ‘stepping stones’, are of major importance for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species.
The weight given to the protection of nature conservation interests will depend on the national or local significance and any statutory designation or protection applying to the site, habitat or species concerned. Where the public interest in favour of a proposal is deemed to outweigh harm to biodiversity, the local planning authority will require the use of the best practicable mitigation/compensation measures, which will be secured through planning conditions and planning obligations, as appropriate.
Applications for development must include adequate information to enable a proper assessment of the implications for biodiversity. It should be noted that adverse effects on nature conservation interests are not necessarily limited to the proposal site. Adjacent land, including that outside the local plan boundary, must also be considered.”
19 Department for Communities and Local Government. (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. [Online]. London: Department for Communities and Local Government. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf [Accessed 28/07/2014] 20 ODPM. (2005). Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. London: ODPM & DEFRA 21 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. (2006). Basingstoke and Deane Borough Adopted Local Plan; 1996- 2011; Adopted July 2006. [online]. Available at: http://www.basingstoke.gov.uk/Resources/F/2/%7BF276F52C-0055- 452E-BCFD-6D3CD8C4CCB2%7D/Documents/1%20Adopted%20Local%20Plan%201996-2011.pdf [Accessed 26/07/2014].
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 27 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
4.8 The council has produced Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) to provide additional guidance to the ‘saved policies’, one of which covers landscape and biodiversity 22 . The SPD makes specific reference to the protection afforded to SINCs within the council’s planning process:
“Locally designated sites include Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs). They have no statutory protection, but there is a presumption, in Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Local Plan 1996-2011, against the granting of planning permission that would result in harm to them. Policy E7 provides that, where there is a public interest in favour of a proposal, the local or national importance of the designation and any statutory requirements will be taken into account in determining the application”.
4.9 Four SINCs are located within the site boundary, Whitehouse Meadow (Field 1), St. John’s Paddock (Field 2), West Field (Field 3) and Plantation Copse (Wet Woodland located centrally within the site). The SINC designation does not mean that there is any obligation on an owner to manage their land for nature conservation objectives and currently there is no such management of the SINCs. Consequently, the SINCs are potentially under threat of degradation through lack of management or inappropriate management. The proposals involve implementing long-term sympathetic management of the SINCs (both the grassland and woodland) and these specific proposals aim to provide biodiversity gains. The enhancement of Field 3 (largely been found to support species-poor grassland) will ensure there is no net loss of SINC quality habitat from creation of a proposed village green on Field 1.
4.10 These three fields and the wet woodland are to be retained through proposals and managed to ensure long term continuity through a strategic management plan. The sites were originally surveyed by HBIC during 2012, and subsequently designated as SINCs. Following this, during 2014 and 2015, these habitats were reassessed as part of this planning application. Field 1 was found to have substantially altered due to the management practices which took place before HBIC’s designation was relayed to the landowner. Although the diversity of Field 1 had reduced substantially, the field is still likely to qualify under the Hampshire SINC criteria as these are particularly brief and with this brevity it can be very easily argued that areas of low value habitat meet the selection guidelines. This field has been proposed for a village green, and should management practices remain sympathetic, it would be possible to retain diversity and actively manage the margins to enhance areas of poorer quality.
4.11 Field 2 contains more interest and has been found to support species-rich rush pasture / fen meadow. This habitat continued into the eastern extent of Field 3 with the main area of the field found to support species-poor semi-improved grassland. Both fields will remain in situ as part of the GI, with public access proposed at the northern extent of Field 2 and southern extent of field 3.
4.12 It is proposed that Field 2 would be put into a long term management regime and at its most basic element, this management would involve removal of the year’s growth in late summer/early autumn. As the village green is likely to require more regular cuts, the enhancement of the species-poor areas of Field 3 would compensate for any loss of diversity from Field 1.
22 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. (2008). Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Landscape and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document – June 2008. [online]. Available at: http://www.basingstoke.gov.uk/Resources/2/0/%7B20BA7C47-3955-4190-9A5A- 846CEE5F8A69%7D/Documents/Landscape%20and%20Biodiversity%20SPD.pdf [Accessed 26/07/2014].
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 28 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
Enhancement of this field would be created through translocation of turfs from Field 1 (should field 1 require ground works) or reseeding of Field 3 using a species-rich seed mix of local origin, complimented by the resource of seeds removed from Field 2 following its yearly cut.
4.13 A specific management plan and detailed method statement will be produced for the detailed planning application stage, once a detailed planning masterplan has been agreed and finalised. Translocation involves turf stripping prior to construction works, storing appropriately during works and replaced within a 6-8 week period. Following establishment of Field 3 grassland, the field would be managed through traditional hay cutting; whereas for Field 2 and eastern extent of Field 3 the damper conditions would tend to favour a grazing regime rather than a hay cut, but mowing would still be a possible option for these wetter areas.
4.14 The fields are to form part of the GI and paths will be created to connect with the wider area. The main path will be created through the village green, with connections to the wider area via Fields 2 and 3. To ensure affects from public pressure remain negligible, a suitable means of exclusion from the main bodies should be implemented to prevent trampling and dog fouling, which may result in enrichment and degradation of the diversity. This could be implemented through education such as siting information boards at entrances, in addition to fencing if grazing is used as a method of management, or creation of thorny hedgerows with appropriate fencing to deter people and dogs entering the fields.
4.15 The area of wet woodland is designated as a SINC and is to be retained through proposals. Due to the wet nature of the site, it is likely that this will deter forms of play within the woodland. In addition, through siting public paths around the perimeter of the woodland, this is likely to promote preservation of the area, especially if the paths and POS are made aesthetically pleasing (such as incorporation of bulb planting, regularly maintained paths, information boards). Post and rail fencing around the woodland edge may also deter access.
4.16 The woodland is currently open and heavily cattle poached in areas. The removal of these will aid establishment of ground flora. The woodland will also benefit from active management through rotational coppicing of the alder and hazel to open up the canopy. Specific alder trees would be singled out and cut to around 25cm to ensure enough living wood for the tree to regrow. Wood piles would be created from the felled trees to provide additional conditions for invertebrates. No drainage works should be carried out within the woodland or immediate area to ensure the woodland remains wet.
Flora
4.1 The degree to which habitats receive consideration within the planning system relies on a number of mechanisms, including:
• Inclusion within specific policy (e.g. veteran trees, ancient woodland and linear habitats in NPPF, or non-statutory site designation),
• Identification as a habitat of principal importance for biodiversity under Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006 and consequently identification as a Priority Habitat within England and the local area.
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 29 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
Detailed Botanical Surveys – Analysis (Appendix C)
Field 1
4.2 Through a combination of a number of analysis techniques (use of a vegetative key, computer analysis, comparison of floristic table and community descriptions, surveyor’s experience), it has been concluded that the main stand of vegetation sampled via quadrats 1 to 5 represents an NVC community that sits somewhere on a transition between MG5 (generally species-rich grassland communities) and MG6 (generally species-poor grassland of lower conservation value). The constancy of bird’s-foot-trefoil within the samples and the low frequency of perennial rye-grass are more typical of the MG5 community but there is a general lack of many of the species which define MG5. Collectively, this leads to the conclusion that the sampled vegetation sits closer to MG5 grassland than MG6 grassland.
4.3 Reference to the HBIC survey report for this field shows that in 2012 the grassland was very different with an abundance of herbs, which would be directly attributable to the fact of the change in management practices during the spring of 2014, this has led to the decline in both species diversity and abundance within the stand. Whilst it may have represented a better fit to MG5 grassland in 2012 this is not now the case. Whilst having an affinity with MG5 in its current state the vegetation is not considered to represent MG5 grassland in the context of the Lowland Meadow HPI description, and would not be considered to represent Lowland Meadow Habitat of Principal Importance.
4.4 In its current state, it is considered unlikely to qualify under criterion 2A or 2B (Appendix A) of the SINC selection criteria, however it may qualify under criterion 2D should the seed bank present enable recovery. If the grassland is considered as meeting the SINC selection guidelines it would invariably be considered to fall within the definition of the Hampshire BAP Neutral Grassland priority habitat.
Field 2
4.5 As with Field 1, it is not always possible to place specific stands of vegetation within one specific NVC community and this is also the case with Field 2. It has been concluded through the analysis techniques described above, this stand represents a species-rich rush pasture / fen meadow community, with some affinity to M23 (Juncus effusus/Juncus acutiflorus - Galium palustre rush pasture).
4.6 Whilst the sampled vegetation is species-rich, and clearly some form of rush pasture or fen- meadow, it does not correlate with the descriptions for purple moor grass and rush pastures HPI.
4.7 The sampled vegetation is likely to meet the SINC 5B criterion “Fens, flushes, seepages, springs, inundation grasslands etc. that support a flora and fauna characteristic of unimproved and waterlogged (seasonal or permanent) conditions.”
4.8 The listed NVC communities under the Neutral Grassland Habitat Action Plan include M23, and since this community has been highlighted by data collected in 2014, this would potentially be considered to represent a Hampshire BAP Priority Habitat.
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 30 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
Field 3
4.9 Due to the difficulty in defining grassland communities and the unclear nature of Field 3 (compared to the other obviously species-poor fields), this field was subject to surveys and analysis from Natural England’s survey methodology as detailed in the Farm and Environment Plan (FEP) Manual.
4.10 The FEP Manual contains keys for the identification of species-rich grasslands. The data derived from the 1m x 1m quadrats for species composition, richness and abundance; and the percentage cover of key species; the vegetation for the main area of Field 3 was processed through these keys as shown in Appendix C.
4.11 The main area of Field 3 keys out as species-poor semi-improved neutral grassland. This area therefore is not considered to meet criteria as a HPI, SINC or Neutral Grassland Hampshire BAP Priority Habitat.
4.12 The lower lying area along the eastern margin of the field (TN4, Figure 3) is of higher diversity and considered to be a continuation of the habitat described in Field 2, a species-rich rush pasture / fen meadow community, with some affinity to M23. As with Field 2, this area of the field is likely to meet selection criterion 5B as a SINC site, and therefore appears to meet the descriptions for the Hampshire BAP ‘Neutral Grassland’ Priority Habitat.
Wet Woodland
4.13 This habitat is considered to represent a stand of NVC W7 Alnus glutinosa – Fraxinus excelsior – Lysimachia nemorum woodland and therefore meets the criteria as a Wet Woodland and Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland Habitat of Principal Importance under the NERC Act 2006; as well as SINC Criterion 1A ‘Ancient semi-natural woodland’.
Habitats
4.14 A large proportion of the site contains features of ecological value, including the SINCs, woodland belt, hedgerows and water features. These habitats are to be retained through proposals, with small sections of hedgerow to be lost to facilitate access through the compartments. Mitigation and compensation details for the SINCs have been discussed above and, in summary; these are to be retained and enhanced, ensuring the long term viability of these habitats.
4.15 All of the hedgerows within the site qualified as habitats of principal importance under the NERC Act, due to the dominance of native species, and therefore require consideration under the NPPF. The majority of hedges are of moderately high to high ecological value in accordance with HEGS. They are important in their functions as corridors as well as providing foraging and nesting habitats for wildlife and as such are identified as priority habitats for England in Biodiversity 2020. In addition, hedgerows H8 and H10 qualified as important hedgerows under the wildlife and landscape criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.
4.16 As is typical of a development of this scale and nature some inevitable hedgerow loss, totalling approximately 80m, will occur through the severance of hedgerows H3, H4, H5, H8 and H14 by the proposed road and footpath infrastructure. Additional new native hedgerows, totalling approximately 90m, are proposed to be planted adjacent to hedgerow H4 and along the north-
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 31 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
south divide between Fields 7 and 8. This new planting in addition to the enhancement of the existing hedgerows, through their ‘gapping-up’ and long-term sympathetic management, will ensure that the small amount of hedgerow loss resulting from proposals is compensated for.
4.17 During the construction phase, all retained hedgerows and trees would be protected from damaged by maintaining appropriate fenced root protection areas.
4.18 The woodland belt and Bishop’s Wood Stream will be incorporated into proposals and buffered through maintenance of tussock-forming and species-rich grassland. The stream is currently heavily poached by cattle where it is open within Field 8, and heavily over-shaded where dense scrub occurs along Field 7. In the northern extremes, through Fields 1, 2 and 3, the stream supports species-rich wetland flora.
4.19 In order to enhance this resource, opening up of watercourse should be brought about through rotational management of the scrub and additional planting of a range of native understorey shrub species (listed below) incorporated along the stream’s western edge where the majority of trees stand. Through increasing the amount of light falling upon the water, species diversity should increase through colonisation of the species from the surroundings. . The public paths have been sited away from the stream to encourage recreation within the centre and southern extent of the site, where public open space and play areas are to be created.
4.20 A proposed footpath is to be constructed along the western edge of Field 1 (proposed village green), adjacent to the northern extremities of the stream. It would be beneficial to restrict local footfall upon the stream’s banks and prevent dogs from entering the water as this has the potential to degrade the stream through trampling and subsequent loss of aquatic and marginal flora. Sympathetic, aesthetic fencing, such as post and rail, set back from the stream by a couple of metres) would reduce the temptation to use the stream for recreation. An opening at the northern extent near to the crossing may help to consolidate the pressure into one area. The creation of a fence will also help to allow the grassland adjacent to the stream to establish, enhancing the habitat corridor provided by the stream.
4.21 Preference should be given within the planting scheme to the use of locally native woody species, with an emphasis on species bearing nectar, berries, fruit and nuts, as these enhance the foraging opportunities for local wild fauna including birds and invertebrates. Suitable small tree species for inclusion in hedgerow and garden planting schemes include field maple, silver birch, wild cherry Prunus avium , bird cherry P. padus , holly, crab apple Malus sylvestris and rowan Sorbus aucuparia . Other shrub species suitable for inclusion within the soft landscaping design include hawthorn, hazel , blackthorn, dog-rose, honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum and wild privet Ligustrum vulgare .
4.22 Where possible planting within the site should seek to provide additional habitat for urban and suburban wildlife. While native species are often of value to biodiversity generally it is now clear that many cultivated varieties and exotic plants are also good for wildlife provided that their flowers are not too complex or that hybrid varieties, which may produce little or no pollen or nectar and so are not of interest to bees, butterflies or other pollinating insects, are not used. The planting strategy, both within private and public areas, should therefore combine a range of native species and where appropriate, such as gardens and more formal areas, with a range of ornamental species with an accepted value for biodiversity. A range of small shrubs, low
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 32 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
growing woody species, grasses and perennials, would provide a range of forms, sizes and finer scale variation to enhance the future structural and three dimensional complexity of the site.
4.23 In order to mimic the existing runoff rates and ensure polluted waters to do enter the existing stream, a sustainable drainage facility has been proposed in the southern extent of the site. This would be designed specifically to maximise their biodiversity value with wide shallow draw down zones, scalloped edges and deep central areas. This would be planted with locally native marginal and aquatic vegetation. Species should include soft-rush Juncus effusus planted around the edges, tall emergent plants and floating-leaved plants such as yellow water-lily Nuphar lutea within the deeper areas of water. The pond can be made more visually attractive through the planting of selected species including marsh marigold Caltha palustris , water dock Rumex hydrolapathum and common water plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica. A denser and taller area of vegetation will be planted around the peripheries of the ponds to provide additional habitats for invertebrates and terrestrial habitats for amphibians.
4.24 In order to mitigate for the potential indirect effects of pollution caused by construction activities (including dust, chemicals, silt etc.) appropriate measures will be implemented in line with best practice / Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG).
Fauna
4.25 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. Some species, for example badgers, also have specific protective legislation (Protection of Badgers 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.
4.26 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 for example.
4.27 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 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. These are recognised in the NPPF which advises that when determining planning 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.
4.28 The implications that various identified species or those that are thought reasonably likely to occur may have for developmental design and programming considerations are outlined below.
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 33 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
In this document, these include riparian and aquatic species which have potential to be present due to the habitats present. However, through further survey, no evidence of these species have been found. Details for bats, great crested newt, birds, dormouse, badger and reptiles are detailed within the separate reports (Appendices C to I).
Bats
4.29 All bat species and their habitats are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. In summary these make it an offence to damage, destroy or obstruct any place used by bats for breeding and shelter, disturb a bat, or kill, injure or take a bat.
Roost Habitat
4.30 Eight trees have been identified as providing moderate to high roosting potential, however none contained any evidence of roosting bats during the aerial inspections undertaken in 2015 by a licensed bat worker. Seven trees have been classified as providing low potential for roosting bats. The current framework plan will ensure that all these trees are retained within the GI and SINCs. Suitable buffers will be maintained to ensure these trees remain undisturbed during construction and operation of the proposed development.
Transect and Static Activity Surveys
4.31 Surveys in 2015 confirmed seven species of bat using the site, consisting of common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, noctule, serotine, barbastelle, Nathusius’ pipistrelle and brown long-eared; and four identified to genus level ( Pipistrellus species, Nyctalus species, Myotis species and Plecotus species).
4.32 The most frequently recorded species during all transect and static surveys were common pipistrelles. During transects the majority of the activity occurred in the vicinity of the central SINC woodland, the associated connecting hedgerows and alongside Bishop’s Wood Stream. Additional areas of activity included the north-western area of site where marshy and semi- improved grassland habitats exist.
4.33 Proposals will result in the loss of sub-optimal foraging habitat (species-poor pasture), however the retention of the core habitats and green corridors including all SINCs, Bishop’s Wood Stream and hedgerows. These habitats will be buffered from the development with additional hedgerows, trees and grassland created to provide dark corridors, ensuring connectivity is maintained across the site and into the wider area.
4.34 To minimise impacts on bats, proposals will adopt a sensitive external lighting scheme which will be designed to minimise light spill on retained and proposed habitats of value to commuting and foraging bats. The lighting scheme would be designed with regard to current guidance provided by the Bat Conservation Trust 23 and the Institution of Lighting Professionals 24 and adopt the following principles:
• The avoidance of direct lighting of existing trees, hedgerows, scrub, woodland, or proposed areas of habitat creation/landscape planting;
23 Bat Conservation Trust (2011) Statement of the impact and design of artificial light on bats 24 Institution of Lighting Professionals (2011) Guidance Notes for Reduction of Obtrusive Light
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 34 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
• The implementation of ‘hop-overs’ adjacent to any hedgerow gaps greater than 7m wide will allow continued echolocation across the break thereby allowing continued usage of the hedgerow as a foraging/commuting area. It will also reduce the potential for road traffic accidents to bats (and also for birds);
• Use of low pressure sodium or high pressure sodium instead of mercury or metal halide lamps;
• Directional lighting and avoidance of light spillage;
• Lighting columns to be as short as possible, although in some locations taller columns would allow reduced horizontal spill and
• Lighting levels to be as low as guidelines permit and only used where required for public safety.
Reptiles
4.35 All common reptile species, including grass snake, are partially protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. In summary this legislation protects the species from intentional killing, injury or sale, offering for sale, or possessing, transporting or publishing advertisements for the purposes of sale. All common reptile species are also listed as a species of principal importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006.
4.36 The majority of the site was dominated by heavily cow-grazed species-poor grassland which provided unsuitable and sub-optimal habitats for reptiles. Suitable habitats were generally limited to field boundaries where habitat mosaics provided foraging, commuting and basking opportunities for reptiles.
4.37 Reptile surveys undertaken during 2015 have confirmed the site supports a low population of both slow worm and grass snake. The surveys indicated that the populations are focused within the northern extent of the site, with all sightings focussed in Fields 1, 2 and 3. The presence of juveniles would demonstrates that these species are using the site for breeding.
4.38 The retention of optimal habitats including Bishop’s Wood Stream and its margins, Fields 1, 2 and 3 and all hedgerows, will ensure that more than sufficient habitat is maintained to support the current low populations. Enhancements will comprise maintenance and creation of further species-rich and tussock grassland, structural mosaic planting of buffers and incorporation of a balancing pond and hibernacula within Field 2 and 3.
4.39 In order to avoid injury to reptiles during site clearance and construction of the development areas a period of supervised passive displacement will be undertaken where suitable habitat is to be lost.
Birds
4.40 The principal legislation afforded to the protection of UK wild birds is the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Under this legislation all birds, their nests and eggs are protected by law and it is an offence, with certain exceptions to recklessly or intentionally kill take or injure a wild bird, to take, damage or destroy a nest of any wild bird while in use or being built and to take or destroy the egg of a wild bird. Those listed on Schedule 1 of this Act are afforded protection from
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 35 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
disturbance when on nest. In addition a number of birds are listed as species of principal importance under the NERC Act (2006).
4.41 Some bird species are also classified according to their conservation status, such as their inclusion on the Red (high conservation concern), Amber (medium conservation concern) and Green (no concern) lists of Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) in the UK (Eaton et al ., 2009) 25 .
4.1 Breeding bird surveys conducted during 2015 recorded a total of 43 bird species within the site. The site supports a species assemblage consisting in the most part of widespread, common and abundant species associated with woodland edge (trees, established hedgerows) habitats. The site supported a small number of notable NERC species, including bullfinch, dunnock (both probable breeders), starling, marsh tit and song thrush (possible breeders). No significant populations of any notable species were recorded.
4.2 A number of habitat types present within the site offer good opportunities for breeding birds, in particular the mosaic of wet woodland, Bishop’s Wood Stream and hedgerows. Current proposals will, for the large part, retain and enhance these habitats and compensation for loss of small sections of hedgerow (for access reasons) will be incorporated through structural planting within the GI and creation/bolstering of hedgerows.
4.3 Creation of a balancing pond in addition to those retained (P1 and P2) will further increase the site’s potential for wetland specialists’ species recorded particularly marsh tit.
4.4 In addition to the individual recommendations for species outlined in Table 4 of the breeding bird report (Appendix I), further enhancements that could be integrated into the development proposals include the erection of a mixture of nest box types. These boxes can be sited on retained habitats or designed into the built environment:
• A mixture of small hole (26mm and 32mm) boxes placed throughout the site on suitable trees and buildings will provide nesting opportunities for blue tit and great tit. These boxes generally have a high uptake rate.
• Small open fronted nest boxes again should be placed throughout the site especially on trees which support a climber such as ivy which provides a degree of concealment. These boxes typically attract robin, blackbird and spotted flycatcher Muscicapa striata .
• A mixture of more specialised nest boxes should be placed on retained trees particularly along the southern extent of the site and should include boxes for stock dove Columba oenas, tawny owl Strix aluco and kestrel Falco tinnunculus .
Water vole
4.5 Water voles are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This makes it an offence to kill, injure or take any water vole, damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place of shelter or protection that the animals are using, or disturb voles while they are using such a place. In addition, water voles are listed as Species of Principal Importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006.
25 Eaton, M.A., Brown, A.F., Noble, D.G., Musgrove, A.J., Hearn, R.D., Aebischer, N.J., Gibbons, D.W., Evans, A. & Gregory, R.D. (2009) Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 102: 296–341. (BoCC3)
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 36 Ecological Appraisal fpcr
4.6 Bishop’s Wood Stream did not provide an optimal habitat to support a water vole population and this was reflected through absence of this species during specific surveys. In addition, the desktop study did not identify any records within the local area, therefore this species does not form a constraint to development.
5.0 SUMMARY
5.1 The site is formed by nine contiguous field compartments, all managed as cattle and horse- grazed pasture. Fields were bound and bisected by hedgerows, trees, woodland and Bishop’s Wood Stream running centrally and along the western boundary of the site. Three of the fields have been designated as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) due to the diverse grassland they support. In addition, the small area of wet woodland present centrally within the site has been designated a SINC. The remaining fields have been found to support species-poor semi-improved grassland. Mature hedgerows containing many mature trees form distinctive corridors across the site, whilst generally unmanaged these are largely species-rich and of native composition and are all habitats of principal importance under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006.
5.2 A full suite of protected species surveys were completed across the survey area to inform the status of great crested newts, bats, hazel dormice, reptiles, birds and badger. Through surveys, a diverse range of bat species was identified largely utilising the linear corridors and wooded areas. The large resource of trees contained features which provided potential roosting habitat for bats; aerial assessment of these found no evidence of roosts. A small population of slow worm and grass snake was identified within the unmanaged grassland margins of fields in the northern extent of the site. The bird species assemblage was found, for the most part, to comprise widespread, common and abundant species with a small number of notable NERC species, including bullfinch, dunnock, starling, marsh tit and song thrush found to be potentially breeding on site.
5.3 The development will retain the habitats of high ecological value, including the SINC sites, all hedgerows and wooded areas. The designated grassland fields are dependent upon future management to maintain and enhance botanical diversity, and this will be guided through implementation of a Biodiversity Management Plan. Small sections of hedgerow will be required for access purposes and this will be compensated for through creation of new native hedgerow and tree planting as well as enhancement of existing features. The existing green corridors will be enhanced through inclusion of buffers designed to maintain discreet dark corridors for bat species, reptiles and invertebrates. In addition to focussing on the existing features of ecological importance, the overall landscaping scheme will include new tree, shrub and hedge planting, with creation of a balancing facility to provide further benefits for local wildlife.
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\6343 Eco App 211015 DAH.doc 37 This drawing 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 written consent of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd. Ordnance Survey marerial is used with the permission of the Controller of HMSO,
'Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014’. Crown copyright 100018896
KEY Site Boundary 1km buffer from site boundary 2km buffer from site boundary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) National Nature Reserve (NNR) Local Nature Reserve (LNR) Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) Road Verges of Ecological Importance (RVEI)
SINC & RVEI DATA SUPPLIED BY HAMPSHIRE BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION CENTRE (HBIC)
Gladman Developments Ltd. Bishopswood Lane, Tadley
SITE LOCATION AND CONSULTATION RESULTS PLAN - DESIGNATED SITES
N Scale (at A3): 1:17,500 NJL / NJL 12/10/2015 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 Figure 1 6343-E-01
J:\6300\6343\QGIS\Plans\6343-E-01 Site Location and Designated Sites Plan.qgs BLANK INTENTIONALLY
BLANK INTENTIONALLY
BLANK INTENTIONALLY This drawing 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 written consent of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd. Ordnance Survey material is used with the permission of The Controller of HMSO, T53 Crown copyright 100018896. SI T52 Site Boundary Tn2 Tn3 T54 x H14 x x x x Species-poor Semi-improved grassland x Tn8 x x SI H13 x x H3 Semi-improved Neutral Grassland SI x Tn1 T51 H1 Tn9 SI Field 2 x T13 SI Field 4 x T12 Marsh-Marshy Grassland Tn10 x T11 SI x T45 H12 T50 T44 T8 T9 x T46 Field 1 T7 T10 T1 T6 Field 5 x Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland H2 T5 T55 H4 Tn11 T43 T49 Tn7 T4 x T47 T3 T56 T57 T16 T2 Tn25 T17 T42 Tn4 Tn6 T15 T18 H9 Standing Water (Eutrophic) SI T19 T48 T58 T64 H10 Field 9 SI T59 T60 T38 T61 Running Water (Eutrophic) T36 H7 T35 T62 T41 T33 T34 H8 Field 3 T31 T32 Tn21 T63 Tn5 Hedgerow Tn23 SI E T20 Field 6 T21 T40 T37 T39 Tn20 Tn17 T22 Scattered scrub Field 8 Tn24 x H11 Tn22 SI Fence H5
Field 7 T65 T23 Building T66 T24 Tn19 SI Tn12 Tn13 Tn15 Mature Trees Tn16 T25 Target note Reference
Field 10 T26
Tn14 H6 T30 Tn18 T27 T28
Gladman Developments Ltd
Bishopswood Lane, Tadley
fpcr PHASE 1 HABITAT PLAN
N NTS @ A3 KAW / HES 08.10.2015 Figure 3 6343- E -0 3 FPCR Environment and Design Ltd, Lockington Hall, Lockington, Derby, DE74 2RH t: 01509 672772 f: 01509 674565 e: [email protected] w: www.fpcr.co.uk masterplanning environmental assessment landscape design urban design ecology architecture arboriculture
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\Phase 1 Habitat Plan BLANK INTENTIONALLY APPENDIX A – DETAILED SURVEY METHODOLOGIES
Flora
During the Phase 1 surveys of the site, species lists were compiled with assessments of abundance made using the DAFOR scale.
The DAFOR Scale
ABBREVIATION ABUNDANCE
D Dominant
A Abundant
F Frequent
O Occasional
R Rare
L Locally
These values relate to the abundance of species within a specific stand of vegetation, so if a species is rare it simply occurs rarely within the stand and is not necessarily rare in a wider geographic context.
Detailed Flora Assessments (Phase 2)
Grassland
In terms of the objectives of the survey and the need to undertake an ecological evaluation of the grassland it was necessary for the assessment to consider whether the grassland met the criteria for the following:
• Lowland Meadow – Habitat of Principal Importance (HPI)
• Purple Moor-grass & Rush Pasture (HPI)
• Hampshire Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC)
• Lowland Meadow – Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat
• Lowland Wet Grassland – Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat
The following paragraphs provide more detail on each of these features.
In addition to these grassland habitats consideration has also been given to other habitats within the site, namely woodland and hedgerows.
Habitats of Principal Importance
Lowland Meadow HPI
Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006) lists the ‘Habitats and Species of Principal Importance’. In England these are all the habitats that were identified as requiring action in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) and are referred to as Priority Species and Habitats in the subsequent ‘Biodiversity 2020: A Strategy for
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX A - PHASE 2 BOTANICAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY.docx
England’s wildlife and ecosystem services’ 1 and the ‘UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework’ 2. The descriptions used for these priority habitats within the former UK BAP 3 remain valid for the corresponding Habitats of Principal Importance. As such, any reference to UK BAP habitats within this report should be considered to mean Habitats of Principal Importance.
The description for Lowland Meadow states:
“A wide-ranging approach is adopted in this plan to lowland grasslands treated as lowland meadows. They are taken to include most forms of unimproved neutral grassland across the enclosed lowland landscapes of the UK. In terms of National Vegetation Classification plant communities, they primarily embrace each type of Cynosurus cristatus - Centaurea nigra grassland, Alopecurus pratensis - Sanguisorba officinalis floodplain meadow and Cynosurus cristatus - Caltha palustris flood-pasture”
These National Vegetation Classification (NVC) plant communities are: MG5 Crested Dog's- tail – Common Knapweed; MG4 Meadow Foxtail – Great Burnet; and, MG8 Crested Dog's-tail – Marsh marigold. The NVC is a vegetation classification system based entirely on plant species composition and abundance. It has been produced following detailed studies of the vascular plant, bryophyte (mosses and liverworts) and lichen species which occur within distinct vegetation types. The system covers nearly all natural, semi-natural and some major artificial vegetation communities. For grassland to be considered as Lowland Meadow Habitat of Principal Importance it should support one of these NVC communities.
To make an assessment to determine whether the grassland would be considered to be Lowland Meadow HPI therefore required a survey to be undertaken using the NVC survey methodology for grasslands. It is considered that many experienced field surveyors can often assign stands of vegetation to a particular NVC community on the basis of their extensive field experience without undertaking a survey using the NVC survey methodology. It is the surveyor’s view that whilst it is indeed possible to do this, this should still always be supported by data derived from quadrat surveys.
Purple Moor Grass and Rush Pastures HPI
Parts of the site are damp in nature and support a different vegetation type. In terms of Habitats of Principal Importance these areas would potentially be considered as Purple Moor Grass and Rush Pastures. These are described as:
“Their vegetation, which has a distinct character, consists of various species-rich types of fen meadow and rush pasture. Purple moor grass Molinia caerulea, and rushes, especially sharp- flowered rush Juncus acutiflorus, are usually abundant...
1 DEFRA. (2012). Biodiversity 2020: A Strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services . [Online]. Available from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69446/pb13583-biodiversity-strategy- 2020-111111.pdf [Accessed 28/07/2014].
2 JNCC and Defra (on behalf of the Four Countries’ Biodiversity Group). (2012). UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. July 2012 . [Online]. Available from: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6189 . [Accessed 28/07/2014]
3 BRIG. Maddock, A. [Ed.]. UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat Descriptions (Updated Dec 2011) . [online]. Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/UKBAP_PriorityHabitatDesc-Rev2011.pdf [Accessed 28/07/2014]. J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX A - PHASE 2 BOTANICAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY.docx
…Key species associated with purple moor grass and rush pastures include: wavy St. Johns- wort Hypericum undulatum, whorled caraway Carum verticillatum, meadow thistle Cirsium dissectum, marsh hawk’s beard Crepis paludosa, greater butterfly orchid Platanthera chlorantha, lesser butterfly orchid Platanthera bifolia...”
Wet Woodland HPI
One area of the site is occupied by a small area of wet woodland and therefore consideration was needed as to whether this would constitute wet woodland habitat of principal importance as defined by the former UK BAP description for this habitat type. The description for this type of woodland is as follows:
“Wet woodland occurs on poorly drained or seasonally wet soils, usually with alder, birch and willows as the predominant tree species, but sometimes including ash, oak, pine and beech on the drier riparian areas. It is found on floodplains, as successional habitat on fens, mires and bogs, along streams and hill-side flushes, and in peaty hollows. These woodlands occur on a range of soil types including nutrient-rich mineral and acidic, nutrient-poor organic ones…
…In terms of National Vegetation Classification (NVC) plant communities this habitat is characterised W1 Salix cinerea – Galium palustre woodland, W2 Salix cinerea – Betula pubescens – Phragmites australis woodland, W3 Salix pentandra – Carex rostrata woodland, W4c Betula pubescens – Molinia caerulea woodland: Sphagnum sub-community, W5 Alnus glutinosa – Carex paniculata woodland, W6 Alnus glutinosa – Urtica dioica woodland, and W7 Alnus glutinosa – Fraxinus excelsior – Lysimachia nemorum woodland…”
Hedgerows HPI
The various fields forming the site are largely bound by mature hedgerows. Hedgerows dominated by native species are classified as a Habitat of Principal Importance under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006.
Hampshire Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation 4
The selection guidelines for Sites of Nature Conservation Importance in Hampshire adopt a very minimalistic approach with the entire guidelines contained on two pages.
Grassland
There are 3 selection criteria for grassland habitats, each covering the three main grassland types; neutral, acid, calcareous: “2A Agriculturally unimproved grasslands 3 2B Semi-improved grasslands which retain a significant element of unimproved grassland 2D Grasslands which have become impoverished through inappropriate management but which retain sufficient elements of relic unimproved grassland to enable recovery.
4 English Nature., Hampshire County Council., Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust. (1996). Criteria for selecting Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation in Hampshire. [online]. Available at: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/hbic-sinccriteria.pdf [Accessed 28/07/2014].
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX A - PHASE 2 BOTANICAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY.docx
3Agriculturally unimproved grassland – grassland that is composed of a mixed assemblage of indigenous species in essentially semi-natural communities which has been allowed to develop without the major use of herbicides or inorganic fertilisers”
Wetlands
There are two selection criteria for wetland habitat. The first (5A) concerns standing open water habitat, the second (5B) covers wetlands other than open water habitat:
“5B Fens, flushes, seepages, springs, inundation grasslands etc. that support a flora and fauna characteristic of unimproved and waterlogged (seasonal or permanent) conditions.”
Woodland
There are 4 selection criteria for woodland habitats: “1A Ancient 1 semi-natural woodlands 2.
1B Other woodland where there is a significant element of ancient semi-natural woodland surviving. 1C Other semi-natural woodland if;
(ii) they comprise important community types of restricted distribution in the County, such as yew woods and alder swamp woods
1D Pasture woodland and wooded commons, not included in any of the above, which are of considerable biological and historical interest.
1 Ancient - refers to woodlands which have developed particular ecological characteristics as a result of their long continuity. Those identified to date which are over 2ha are included on the Hampshire Inventory of Ancient Woodlands (Provisional)
2 Semi-natural – modified types of vegetation in which the dominant and constant species are accepted natives to Britain and that locality, and the structure of the community conforms to the range of natural vegetation types.
Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan 5
Neutral Grassland
The Neutral Grassland Hampshire BAP Priority Habitat encompasses Lowland Meadows HPI and Purple Moor Grass and Rush Pastures as defined by the former UK BAP descriptions for these habitat types and Appendix 2 of the Hampshire BAP Neutral Grassland HAP provides a list of NVC communities that are considered to represent these broad habitat types.
5 Hampshire Biodiversity Partnership. Biodiversity Action Plan for Hampshire. Webpage.[online]. Available at: http://www.hampshirebiodiversity.org.uk/hampshire%20BAP.html [Accessed 26/07/2014]
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX A - PHASE 2 BOTANICAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY.docx
Woodland
The Hampshire BAP lists ancient semi-natural woodland as a priority habitat. This woodland type is defined as being “…woodland that has existed at least since 1700 and is usually of much older origin…”
NVC Grassland Survey
A total of five 2x2m quadrats were recorded in each sampled stand, which then enabled each species to be assigned a constancy score of I–V depending on the number of quadrats it occurred in. Within each quadrat, all vascular and lower plant species were recorded and given a quantitative measure of abundance using the DOMIN scale as shown in the table below. This information was then used to construct a ‘floristic table’ which includes the frequency and abundance range for each species recorded within the sample quadrats.
DOMIN Scale of Cover/Abundance
DOMIN SCALE % COVER
10 91-100%
9 76-90%
8 51-75%
7 34-50%
6 26-33%
5 11-25%
4 4-10%
3 Several (10+) individuals
2 Many (4-10) individuals
1 Few (1-4) individuals
Additional information collected included;
• The position of each quadrat; determined using a hand held Global Positioning System (GPS) with an accuracy of within 3m.
• The average and maximum sward height, and the species forming the maximum height
• Photographic evidence of each survey quadrat
FEP Methodology - Semi-improved Grassland
Defining semi-improved grassland can be problematic. Descriptions are provided for surveyors within the ‘Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey’ Error! Bookmark not defined. but these are open to wide interpretation. A more quantitative approach has been adopted by Natural England for identifying BAP habitats for the purpose of Environmental Stewardship agri- environment scheme agreements. This, or a very similar, approach is now utilised in some areas within their Local Wildlife Site selection guidelines.
Based on surveyor experience, it was considered that the majority of Field 3 supported semi- improved neutral grassland. Making a distinction as to whether it was species-poor based on
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX A - PHASE 2 BOTANICAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY.docx
a general walkover proved problematic (unlike Fields 4 to 9, which were clearly species- poor). Therefore, to resolve this issue additional survey work was undertaken in Field 3 using Natural England’s survey methodology as detailed in the Farm and Environment Plan (FEP) Manual 6.
Each 1mx1m quadrat Each 1m x 1m quadrat was measured on the ground with a measuring tape and 4 corner pegs. The location of each quadrat is shown on Figure 1. The location of each quadrat was recorded using a handheld Global Positioning System, and a photograph was taken of each quadrat as evidence of the survey.
Analysis Methodology – NVC Data
Analysis of NVC survey data involves four elements:
• Use of a vegetation key
• Computer analysis
• Comparison of floristic tables and community descriptions
• Surveyor experience
British Plant Communities Vol. 3 provides a key (largely a dichotomous key) which enables the user to arrive at a conclusion by answering a series of questions based on the floristic composition of the sampled stand.
The quantitative species data for the NVC communities and their sub-communities are summarised in a standardised format in the form of floristic tables. Each floristic table includes the frequency and abundance range for each species within the main community and any sub-communities. Floristic tables produced from the NVC survey were compared with the published NVC tables to look for any similarity between the two datasets which would then indicate the presence of a particular NVC community within the sampled areas.
The data gathered during this survey was analysed using the Modular Analysis of Vegetation Information System (MAVIS) 7 software package. For groups of plots entered into MAVIS as constancy tables or for groups created within the program, matching coefficients are computed between the published NVC synoptic floristic tables and the survey field data. The top 10 matching coefficients are displayed. Matching follows the same application of the Czekanowski coefficient as MATCH 8 with the same down-weighting to 0.1 of species not present in the input data but present at constancy I (1-20%) in the NVC tables. Though the “matching coefficient”, measured on a scale from 0 to 100 bears no absolute meaning, it is
6 Natural England. (2010). Higher Level Stewardship – Farm Environment Plan (FEP) Manual. Third Edition – March 2010. [online]. Available at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20150607000001/http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/ 32037 [Accessed 12/10/2015]. 7 CEH. (2014). Modular Analysis of Vegetation Information System (MAVIS). [online]. Webpage. Available from: http://www.ceh.ac.uk/products/software/cehsoftware-mavis.htm [Accessed 28/07/2014] 8 Malloch, A.J.C (1996). Match Version 2.0: A computer program to aid assignment of vegetation data to the communities and sub-communities of the National Vegetation Classification . Lancaster: Unit of Vegetation Science University
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX A - PHASE 2 BOTANICAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY.docx
generally considered that coefficients below about 50 indicate poor matches, and those below 40 indicate very poor matches.
Each NVC community is given a full written description. These descriptions give context to the key and floristic tables and are of great value and importance as part of the analysis processes. Once a decision has been made on the basis of the result of the keying exercise, comparison of floristic tables and computer analysis, it is imperative that the description for the NVC community which it is assumed to be present is then read to ensure that this reflects the sampled stand.
Surveyors with good experience of NVC surveys are able call upon their experience of a wide range of different stands of vegetation to assist with the above analysis ensuring the best diagnosis is reached.
Fauna
Water Vole
This involved identification of water vole activity within the survey areas, using field evidence such as:
• Faeces - these are 8 - 12mm long and 4 - 5 mm wide, cylindrical with blunt ends. The colour is variable, though often green, and they are generally odourless or have a faint musky smell.
• Latrines - the majority of droppings are deposited at latrine sites, used to mark range boundaries, favoured spots close to nests and where they leave and enter water. Latrines often consist of a flattened mass of old droppings topped with fresh ones.
• Feeding stations - water voles often bring pieces of cut vegetation to favoured feeding stations close to the water’s edge and leave remains in neat piles. The cut vegetation is typically 100mm long and is cut at a perfect 45 ° angle.
• Burrows - many burrows can be found in riverbanks, but those constructed by water voles are typically wider than they are high, with a diameter of 4 - 8cm. The holes are generally closer to the water’s edge than those made by other species. Around these holes, well- grazed ‘lawns’ can often be found, where the water voles have chewed the vegetation short.
• Footprints – identifiable prints in soft margins of the watercourse
• Runways – low tunnels that are pushed through the vegetation often leading to burrows or feeding stations.
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX A - PHASE 2 BOTANICAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY.docx
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX A - PHASE 2 BOTANICAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY.docx
APPENDIX B – VEGETATIVE SPECIES LISTS
The DAFOR values used in the report correspond to the following ranges of percentage cover:
Dominant (D) 75-100% cover Abundant (A) 25-75% cover Frequent (F) 10-24% cover Occasional (O) 5-9% cover Rare (R) <5% cover or <5 indivduals / clumps within the survey unit
These values relate to the abundance of species within a specific stand of vegetation, so if a species is rare it simply occurs rarely within the stand and is not necessarily rare in a wider geographic context.
Neutral Semi-improved Grassland
Field 1 – Tree Planted Area (TN2) SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Holcus lanatus Yorkshire-fog Abundant
Centaurea nigra Common Knapweed Frequent to abundant
Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain Frequent to locally abundant
Achillea millefolium Yarrow Locally frequent
Agrimonia eupatoria Agrimony Locally frequent
Agrostis capillaris Common Bent Locally frequent
Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bent Locally frequent
Dactylis glomerata Cock's-foot Locally frequent
Lotus pedunculatus Greater Bird's-foot-trefoil Locally frequent
Rubus fruticosa agg. Bramble Locally frequent
Stellaria graminea Lesser Stitchwort Locally frequent
Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal-grass Occasional
Festuca rubra Red Fescue Occasional
Juncus acutiflorus Sharp-flowered Rush Occasional
Lolium perenne Perennial Rye-grass Occasional
Ranunculus acris Meadow Buttercup Occasional
Taraxacum sp. Dandelion Occasional
Trifolium pratense Red Clover Occasional
Trifolium repens White Clover Occasional
Veronica chamaedrys Germander Speedwell Occasional
Ribes uva-crispa Gooseberry Planted
Betula sp. (sapling) Birch Rare
Carex hirta Hairy Sedge Rare
Hypericum perforatum Perforate St John's-wort Rare
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX B - SPECIES LISTS.docx
Field 1 – Tree Planted Area (TN2) SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Hypericum tetrapterum Square-stalked St John's-wort Rare
Hypochaeris radicata Cat's-ear Rare
Juncus conglomeratus Compact Rush Rare
Phleum pratense Timothy Rare
Prunella vulgaris Selfheal Rare
Ranunculus flammula Lesser Spearwort Rare
Rumex crispus Curled Dock Rare
Rumex obtusifolius Broad-leaved Dock Rare
Senecio jacobaea Common Ragwort Rare
Trisetum flavescens Yellow Oat-grass Rare
Urtica dioica Common Nettle Rare
Field 2 - Disturbed Area at Northern Extent (TN3) SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Matricaria discoidea Pineappleweed Locally abundant
Agrostis capillaris Common Bent Frequent
Daucus carota Wild Carrot Frequent
Gnaphalium uliginosum Marsh Cudweed Frequent
Juncus bufonius Toad Rush Frequent
Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain Frequent
Poa trivialis Rough Meadow-grass Frequent
Prunella vulgaris Selfheal Frequent
Trifolium repens White Clover Frequent
Achillea millefolium Yarrow Locally frequent
Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bent Locally frequent
Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye Daisy Locally frequent
Plantago major Greater Plantain Locally frequent
Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup Occasional to locally frequent
Poa annua Annual Meadow-grass Occasional to locally frequent
Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd's-purse Occasional
Centaurea nigra Common Knapweed Occasional
Cerastium conglomeratum Sticky Mouse-ear Occasional
Galeopsis bifida Bifid Hemp-nettle Occasional
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX B - SPECIES LISTS.docx
Field 2 - Disturbed Area at Northern Extent (TN3) SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Holcus lanatus Yorkshire-fog Occasional
Hypericum perforatum Perforate St John's-wort Occasional
Hypochaeris radicata Cat's-ear Occasional
Lolium perenne Perennial Rye-grass Occasional
Lotus pedunculatus Greater Bird's-foot-trefoil Occasional
Ranunculus acris Meadow Buttercup Occasional
Rumex crispus Curled Dock Occasional
Rumex obtusifolius Broad-leaved Dock Occasional
Sagina procumbens Procumbent Pearlwort Occasional
Sisymbrium officinale Hedge Mustard Occasional
Sonchus asper Prickly Sow-thistle Occasional
Stellaria graminea Lesser Stitchwort Occasional
Succisa pratensis Devil's-bit Scabious Occasional
Trifolium dubium Lesser Trefoil Occasional
Alopecurus geniculatus Marsh Foxtail Rare
Alopecurus pratensis Meadow Foxtail Rare
Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal-grass Rare
Bromus hordeaceus Soft-brome Rare
Centaurium erythraea Common Centaury Rare
Cirsium arvense Creeping Thistle Rare
Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle Rare
Crepis capillaris Smooth Hawk's-beard Rare
Leontodon hispidus Rough Hawkbit Rare
Persicaria hydropiper Water-pepper Rare
Persicaria maculosa Redshank Rare
Phleum pratense Timothy Rare
Senecio vulgaris Groundsel Rare
Spergula arvensis Corn Spurrey Rare
Tripleurospermum inodorum Scentless Mayweed Rare
Urtica dioica Common Nettle Rare
Veronica serpyllifolia Thyme-leaved Speedwell Rare
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX B - SPECIES LISTS.docx
Marshy Grassland
Field 3 - Low Laying Damper Area Adjacent to the Ditch (TN4)
SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Lotus pedunculatus Greater Bird's-foot-trefoil Abundant
Lycopus europaeus Gypsywort Abundant
Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup Abundant
Persicaria hydropiper Water-pepper Locally abundant
Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bent Frequent
Carex hirta Hairy Sedge Frequent
Mentha arvensis Corn Mint Frequent
Rumex conglomeratus Clustered Dock Frequent
Juncus acutiflorus Sharp-flowered Rush Locally frequent
Ranunculus flammula Lesser Spearwort Locally frequent
Alopecurus geniculatus Marsh Foxtail Occasional
Glyceria fluitans Floating Sweet-grass Occasional
Juncus bufonius Toad Rush Occasional
Juncus articulatus Jointed Rush Occasional
Juncus effusus Soft-rush Occasional
Carex remota Remote Sedge Rare
Galium palustre Common Marsh-bedstraw Rare
Potentilla erecta Tormentil Rare
Stellaria alsine Bog Stitchwort Rare
Succisa pratensis Devil's-bit Scabious Rare
Field 5 – Marshy Grassland SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Ranunculus flammula Lesser Spearwort Abundant
Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bent Frequent
Glyceria fluitans Floating Sweet-grass Frequent
Juncus effusus Soft-rush Frequent
Lotus pedunculatus Greater Bird's-foot-trefoil Frequent
Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup Frequent
Alopecurus geniculatus Marsh Foxtail Occasional
Cardamine pratensis Cuckooflower Occasional
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX B - SPECIES LISTS.docx
Field 5 – Marshy Grassland SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Carex leporina Oval Sedge Occasional
Cirsium palustre Marsh Thistle Occasional
Galium palustre Common Marsh-bedstraw Occasional
Isolepis setacea Bristle Club-rush Occasional
Lycopus europaeus Gypsywort Occasional
Persicaria hydropiper Water-pepper Occasional
Persicaria maculosa Redshank Rare
Species-poor Semi-improved Grassland
Field 4 SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Achillea millefolium Yarrow Abundant
Agrostis capillaris Common Bent Abundant
Lolium perenne Perennial Rye-grass Abundant
Trifolium repens White Clover Frequent to abundant
Cirsium arvense Creeping Thistle Locally frequent
Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bent Locally occasional
Alopecurus geniculatus Marsh Foxtail Locally occasional
Cerastium fontanum Common Mouse-ear Occasional
Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle Occasional
Juncus bufonius Toad Rush Occasional
Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain Occasional
Ranunculus acris Meadow Buttercup Occasional
Rumex acetosa Common Sorrel Occasional
Bromus hordeaceus Soft-brome Rare
Cerastium glomeratum Sticky Mouse-ear Rare
Field 6 SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Lolium perenne Perennial Rye-grass Abundant
Agrostis capillaris Common Bent Abundant
Trifolium repens White Clover Abundant
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX B - SPECIES LISTS.docx
Field 6 SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Lotus pedunculatus Greater Bird's-foot-trefoil Rare
Alopecurus geniculatus Marsh Foxtail Rare
Cerastium glomeratum Sticky Mouse-ear Rare
Veronica serpyllifolia Thyme-leaved Speedwell Occasional
Ranunculus acris Meadow Buttercup Occasional
Trifolium pratense Red Clover Rare
Holcus lanatus Yorkshire-fog Frequent to abundant
Trifolium dubium Lesser Trefoil Rare
Geranium dissectum Cut-leaved Crane's-bill Locally frequent to locally abundant
Alopecurus geniculatus Marsh Foxtail Locally occasional
Bromus hordeaceus Soft-brome Frequent
Geranium molle Dove's-foot Crane's-bill Rare
Plantago major Greater Plantain Rare
Field 7 SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Lolium perenne Perennial Rye-grass Abundant
Poa trivialis Rough Meadow-grass Abundant
Trifolium repens White Clover Abundant
Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup Frequent to locally abundant
Potentilla reptans Creeping Cinquefoil Locally frequent
Cirsium arvense Creeping Thistle Locally frequent
Prunella vulgaris Selfheal Locally occasional
Achillea millefolium Yarrow Locally occasional
Poa annua Annual Meadow-grass Occasional
Urtica dioica Common Nettle Occasional
Senecio jacobaea Common Ragwort Occasional
Plantago major Greater Plantain Occasional
Geranium molle Dove's-foot Crane's-bill Rare
Carex hirta Hairy Sedge Rare
Trifolium dubium Lesser Trefoil Rare
Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle Rare
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX B - SPECIES LISTS.docx
Field 7 SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Lotus corniculatus Common Bird's-foot-trefoil Rare (locally frequent)
Cynosurus cristatus Crested Dog's-tail Present
Phleum pratense Timothy Present
Field 8 SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup Abundant
Lolium perenne Perennial Rye-grass Abundant
Poa trivialis Rough Meadow-grass Abundant
Trifolium repens White Clover Frequent to abundant
Urtica dioica Common Nettle Locally frequent
Potentilla reptans Creeping Cinquefoil Occasional to locally frequent
Poa annua Annual Meadow-grass Occasional
Plantago major Greater Plantain Occasional
Trifolium dubium Lesser Trefoil Occasional
Prunella vulgaris Selfheal Occasional
Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle Occasional
Achillea millefolium Yarrow Occasional
Field 9 SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Agrostis capillaris Common Bent Abundant
Holcus lanatus Yorkshire-fog Abundant
Lolium perenne Perennial Rye-grass Abundant
Trifolium repens White Clover Frequent to abundant
Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain Locally frequent
Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bent Locally occasional
Alopecurus geniculatus Marsh Foxtail Locally occasional
Gnaphalium uliginosum Marsh Cudweed Locally occasional
Plantago major Greater Plantain Locally occasional
Cirsium arvense Creeping Thistle Occasional
Senecio jacobaea Common Ragwort Occasional
Urtica dioica Common Nettle Occasional
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX B - SPECIES LISTS.docx
Field 9 SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Lotus pedunculatus Greater Bird's-foot-trefoil Rare
Persicaria hydropiper Water-pepper Rare
Prunella vulgaris Selfheal Rare
Veronica chamaedrys Germander Speedwell Rare
Veronica serpyllifolia Thyme-leaved Speedwell Rare
Broad-leaved Semi-natural Woodland
Wet Woodland – TN6 TAXON COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
CANOPY
Alnus glutinosa Alder Frequent
Populus sp. a cherry Occasional
Populus tremulus Aspen Occasional
Betula pendula Silver Birch Occasional
Salix sp. willow Occasional
Quercus robur Pedunculate Oak Rare
SHRUB LAYER
Ilex aquifolium Holly Locally abundant
Corylus avellana Hazel Frequent
Ulmus agg. Elm sp. Rare
Sorbus aucuparia Rowan Rare
FIELD LAYER
Callitriche sp. a water starwort Abundant
Persicaria hydropiper Water-pepper Locally frequent to abundant
Poa trivialis Rough Meadow-grass Frequent
Cardamine flexuosa Wavy Bitter-cress Frequent
Carex remota Remote Sedge Locally frequent
Urtica dioica Common Nettle Occasional to locally frequent
Stellaria alsine Bog Stitchwort Occasional
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX B - SPECIES LISTS.docx
Wet Woodland – TN6 TAXON COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Galium palustre Common Marsh-bedstraw Occasional
Prunella vulgaris Selfheal Occasional
Carex sylvatica Wood Sedge Occasional
Lysimachia nemorum Yellow Pimpernel Occasional
Isolepis setacea Bristle Club-rush Rare
Epilobium montanum Broad-leaved Willowherb Rare
Ranunculus flammula Lesser Spearwort Rare
Cirsium palustre Marsh Thistle Rare
Veronica serpyllifolia Thyme-leaved Speedwell Rare
Myosotis sylvatica Wood Forget-me-not Rare
Pellia sp. a Pellia (liverwort) Present
Lophocolea heterophylla Variable-leaved Crestwort Present
Metzgeria furcata Forked Veilwort Present (epiphyte)
Frullania dilatata Dilated Scalewort Present (epiphyte)
Atrichum undulatum Common Smoothcap Present
Mnium hornum Swan's-neck Thyme-moss Present
Rhizomnium punctatum Dotted Thyme-moss Present
Kindbergia praelonga Common Feather-moss Present
Orthotrichum affine Wood Bristle-moss Present (epiphyte)
Dicranella heteromalla Silky Forklet-moss Present (on bank)
Hedgerows
Field 1 Hedgerow Species List SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Trees & Shrubs
Corylus avellana Hazel Frequent
Betula sp. Birch Occasional
Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn Occasional
Fraxinus excelsior Ash Occasional
Ilex aquifolium Holly Occasional
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX B - SPECIES LISTS.docx
Field 1 Hedgerow Species List SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Ligustrum ovalifolium Garden Privet Occasional
Populus x canescens Grey Poplar Occasional
Prunus spinosa Blackthorn Occasional
Rosa canina agg. Dog-rose Occasional
Salix cinerea agg. Grey Willow Occasional
Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore Rare
Quercus robur Pedunculate Oak Rare
Salix fragilis Crack Willow Rare
Hedge bottom vegetation and climbers
Arum maculatum Lords-and-Ladies Locally frequent
Digitalis purpurea Foxglove Locally frequent
Holcus mollis Creeping Soft-grass Locally frequent
Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bent Occasional
Arrhenatherum elatius False Oat-grass Occasional
Calystegia sepium subsp.. sepium Hedge Bindweed Occasional
Cirsium arvense Creeping Thistle Occasional
Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle Occasional
Glechoma hederacea Ground Ivy Occasional
Hedera helix Ivy Occasional
Phleum pratense Timothy Occasional
Plantago major Greater Plantain Occasional
Rumex conglomeratus Clustered Dock Occasional
Rumex crispus Curled Dock Occasional
Senecio jacobaea Common Ragwort Occasional
Stachys sylvatica Hedge Woundwort Occasional
Urtica dioica Common Nettle Occasional
Anagallis arvensis Scarlet pimpernel Rare
Galium aparine Cleavers Rare
Geranium robertianum Herb Robert Rare
Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed Rare
Hypericum perforatum Perforate St John's-wort Rare
Lapsana communis Nipplewort Rare
Lonicera periclymenum Honeysuckle Rare
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX B - SPECIES LISTS.docx
Field 1 Hedgerow Species List SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Pentaglottis sempervirens Green Alkanet Rare
Pteridium aquilinum Bracken Rare
Sonchus asper Prickly Sow-thistle Rare
Teucrium scorodonia Wood Sage Rare
Viola sp. A violet Rare
Running Water
Field 1 - Stream (TN1) SPECIES COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Apium nodiflorum Fool's-water-cress abundant
Nasturtium officinale Water-cress frequent to locally abundant
Oenanthe crocata Hemlock Water-dropwort frequent
Carex remota Remote Sedge locally frequent
Epilobium hirsutum Great Willowherb locally frequent
Lycopus europaeus Gypsywort locally frequent
Juncus effusus Soft-rush occasional
Lotus pedunculatus Greater Bird's-foot-trefoil occasional
Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup occasional
Solanum dulcamara Bittersweet occasional
Alisma plantago aquatica Water-plantain rare
Alopecurus geniculatus Marsh Foxtail rare
Angelica sylvestris Wild Angelica rare
Carex pendula Pendulous Sedge rare
Cirsium palustre Marsh Thistle rare
Galium palustre Common Marsh-bedstraw rare
Glyceria fluitans Floating Sweet-grass rare
Juncus bufonius Toad Rush rare
Lysimachia nemorum Yellow Pimpernel rare
Persicaria hydropiper Water-pepper rare
Ranunculus flammula Lesser Spearwort rare
Veronica beccabunga Brooklime rare
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX B - SPECIES LISTS.docx
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX B - SPECIES LISTS.docx
APPENDIX C – NVC AND FEP QUADRAT DATA AND ANALYSIS – FIELDS 1, 2 AND 3
NVC SURVEYS – FIELDS 1 and 2
The Domin values used correspond to the following ranges of percentage cover:
Cover Domin 91 – 100% 10 76 – 90% 9 51 – 75% 8 34 – 50% 7 26 – 33% 6 11 – 25% 5 4 – 10% 4 <4% (many individuals) 3 <4% (several individuals) 2 <4% (few individuals) 1
Quadrat Location Details – Fields 1 and 2 Quadrat Av. Sward Ht. Easting Northing Grid Ref. Max. Sward Ht. (cm) No. (cm)
Q1 458312 161883 SU5831261883 25 65 - Holcus lanatus
Q2 458279 161907 SU5827961907 25 60 - Arrhenatherum elatius
Q3 458281 161932 SU5828161932 35 85 - Holcus lanatus
Q4 458257 161961 SU5825761961 35 75 - Holcus lanatus
Q5 458260 161982 SU5826061982 35 67 - Holcus lanatus
QA 458211 161938 SU5821161938 45 78 - Holcus lanatus
QB 458211 161938 SU5821161938 40 100 - Holcus lanatus
QC 458206 161956 SU5820661956 35 75 - Holcus lanatus Quadrat Location Details – Fields 1 and 2 Quadrat Av. Sward Ht. Easting Northing Grid Ref. Max. Sward Ht. (cm) No. (cm)
QD 458199 161968 SU5819961968 35 56 - Holcus lanatus
QE 458193 161982 SU5819361982 30 74 - Holcus lanatus
The frequency class values used correspond to the following ranges: I = 1-20% (i.e. 1 stand in 5) Scarce II = 21-40% Occasional III = 41-61% Frequent IV = 61-80% Constant V = 81-100% Constant
Field 1 - Main Body - 2m x 2m NVC Survey Quadrats DOMIN FIELD SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 FREQUENCY RANGE DAFOR A Agrostis capillaris Common Bent 8 8 9 8 8 V (8-9) A Holcus lanatus Yorkshire-fog 5 4 5 6 5 V (4-6) A Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal-grass 5 5 5 1 4 V (1-5) A Achillea millefolium Yarrow 1 3 3 3 3 V (1-3) F/A Lotus corniculatus Common Bird's-foot-trefoil * 1 1 3 2 IV (1-3) F Ranunculus acris Meadow Buttercup * 2 * 3 2 III (2-3) F Trifolium repens White Clover * * 1 2 1 III (1-2) F Veronica chamaedrys Germander Speedwell 1 2 1 * * III (1-2) F Dactylis glomerata Cock's-foot 2 * * * 5 II (2-5) O/LF Rumex acetosa Common Sorrel * * 3 2 * II (2-3) O/LF Trifolium dubium Lesser Trefoil * 4 1 * * II (1-4) LF Luzula campestris Field Wood-rush 3 * 1 * * II (1-3) O Festuca rubra Red Fescue 2 1 * * * II (1-2) O Taraxacum sp. Dandelion * 2 * * 1 II (1-2) O Field 1 - Main Body - 2m x 2m NVC Survey Quadrats DOMIN FIELD SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 FREQUENCY RANGE DAFOR A Centaurea nigra Common Knapweed * 1 1 * * II (1) O Crepis capillaris Smooth Hawk's-beard * 1 * * * I (1) R (L/F) Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain * 1 * * * I (1) O Quercus robur Pedunculate Oak (sapling) 1 * * * * I (1) R Senecio jacobaea Common Ragwort * * * 1 * I (1) R Trisetum flavescens Yellow Oat-grass * * 1 * * I (1) R Cerastium fontanum Common Mouse-ear * 2 * * * I (2) R Lolium perenne Perennial Rye-grass * 2 * * * I (2) O Potentilla reptans Creeping Cinquefoil * * * * 2 I (2) R Cynosurus cristatus Crested Dog's-tail * 3 * * * I (3) R Stellaria graminea Lesser Stitchwort * 3 * * * I (3) LF ADDITIONAL SPECIES RECORDED WITHIN THE SAMPLED STAND BUT NOT WITHIN THE QUADRATS Alopecurus geniculatus Marsh Foxtail * * * * * * * R Bromus hordeaceus Soft-brome * * * * * * * R Danthonia decumbens Heath-grass * * * * * * * R Hypericum perforatum Perforate St John's-wort * * * * * * * R Hypochaeris radicata Cat's-ear * * * * * * * R Prunella vulgaris Selfheal * * * * * * * R Ranunculus bulbosus Bulbous Buttercup * * * * * * * R Veronica serpyllifolia Thyme-leaved Speedwell * * * * * * * R
A Abundance of individual species within the overall area
Field 2 - 2m x 2m NVC Survey Quadrats DOMIN FIELD SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME QA QB QC QD QE FREQUENCY RANGE DAFOR A Ranunculus flammula Lesser Spearwort 9 8 7 5 7 V (5-9) A Field 2 - 2m x 2m NVC Survey Quadrats DOMIN FIELD SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME QA QB QC QD QE FREQUENCY RANGE DAFOR A Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup 5 8 8 8 6 V (5-8) A Trifolium repens White Clover 5 4 5 7 6 V (4-7) A Juncus articulatus Jointed Rush 3 3 3 4 7 V (3-7) A Holcus lanatus Yorkshire-fog 4 4 4 4 3 V (3-4) A Prunella vulgaris Selfheal 2 1 1 3 4 V (1-4) F Ranunculus acris Meadow Buttercup 1 1 1 1 3 V (1-3) F Agrostis capillaris Common Bent * 3 5 5 2 IV (2-5) F Cardamine pratensis Cuckooflower 3 3 * 2 1 IV (1-3) F Lotus pedunculatus Greater Bird's-foot-trefoil 1 3 * 3 3 IV (1-3) F Juncus bufonius Toad Rush * 3 3 3 3 IV (3) A Poa trivialis Rough Meadow-grass 3 2 4 * * III (2-4) O/LF Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bent 5 3 1 * * III (1-5) LA Agrostis canina Velvet Bent 4 3 1 * * III (1-4) LF Plantago major Greater Plantain 1 * 1 * 1 III (1) O Rumex acetosa Common Sorrel 2 2 2 * * III (2) O Centaurea nigra Common Knapweed * * 3 3 3 III (3) LF Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain * * 3 3 3 III (3) LF Succisa pratensis Devil's-bit Scabious * * * 1 3 II (1-3) LO Leontodon hispidus Rough Hawkbit * * * 1 2 II (1-2) LO Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal-grass * * * 1 1 II (1) R Cerastium fontanum Common Mouse-ear 1 1 * * * II (1) O Mentha arvensis Corn Mint 1 * * 1 * II (1) R Glyceria fluitans Floating Sweet-grass 3 3 * * * II (3) LF Isolepis setacea Bristle Club-rush * 3 * * 3 II (3) LF Galium palustre Common Marsh-bedstraw 1 * * * * I (I) R Crepis capillaris Smooth Hawk's-beard * * * 1 1 I (1) R Lysimachia nummularia Creeping-Jenny * * * * 2 I (1) R Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion * * 1 * * I (1) R Trifolium dubium Lesser Trefoil * * * * 1 I (1) R Achillea millefolium Yarrow * * 2 * * I (2) R Apium nodiflorum Fool's-water-cress * 2 * * * I (2) R Field 2 - 2m x 2m NVC Survey Quadrats DOMIN FIELD SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME QA QB QC QD QE FREQUENCY RANGE DAFOR A Carex leporina Oval Sedge * * * 2 * I (2) R Centaurium erythraea Common Centaury * * * * 2 I (2) LF Cynosurus cristatus Crested Dog's-tail * * * 2 * I (2) O Sagina procumbens Procumbent Pearlwort * 2 * * * I (2) R Stellaria graminea Lesser Stitchwort * 2 * * * I (2) R Trifolium pratense Red Clover * 2 * * * I (2) R Carex hirta Hairy Sedge 3 * * * * I (3) R Rumex conglomeratus Clustered Dock * 3 * * * I (3) R Persicaria hydropiper Water-pepper * 4 * * * I (4) O Poa annua Annual Meadow-grass * * 4 * * I (4) R Veronica beccabunga Brooklime * 4 * * * I (4) LO Alopecurus geniculatus Marsh Foxtail * 5 * * * I (5) LF Alopecurus pratensis Meadow Foxtail * * * * * * * R Gnaphalium uliginosum Marsh Cudweed * * * * * * * LO Juncus acutiflorus Sharp-flowered Rush * * * * * * * R Lolium perenne Perennial Rye-grass * * * * * * * R Lycopus europaeus Gypsywort * * * * * * * R Potentilla erecta Tormentil * * * * * * * R Rumex obtusifolius Broad-leaved Dock * * * * * * * R Stellaria alsine Bog Stitchwort * * * * * * * R
A Abundance of individual species within the overall area
FEP SURVEYS – FIELD 3
Within each quadrat all higher and lower plants present were recorded and an assessment of % cover was made for the following:
• Wildflowers and sedges (excluding white clover, creeping buttercup and injurious weeds) • Perennial rye-grass White clover
Field 3 – Main Area – 1m x 1m Quadrat Locations, % Cover & Species/m 2 % COVER % COVER OF % COVER % COVER PERENNIAL QUADRAT NO. GRID REF. WILDFLOWERS PERENNIAL WHITE RYE-GRASS REF. SPECIES/M 2 & SEDGES RYE-GRASS CLOVER WHITE CLOVER Q1 SU5082861767 1 5 20 25 11 Q2 SU5823061787 1 1 5 6 6 Q3 SU5826061802 15 0 10 10 9 Q4 SU5824161814 25 0 5 5 10 Q5 SU5821061809 20 0 5 5 9 Q6 SU5822861824 10 1 1 2 9 Q7 SU5820061843 15 0 0 0 10 Q8 SU5822061862 5 0 0 0 9 Q9 SU5819961877 15 1 0 1 8 Q10 SU5820961895 10 1 0 1 11 AVERAGE 11.7% 0.9% 4.6% 5.5% 9.2
FEP methodology assigns each species an abundance value on the basis of how many of the quadrats it occurs in, as follows:
• Occurs in 1-2 quadrats out of 10 = rare • Occurs in 3-4 quadrats out of 10 = occasional • Occurs in 5 or more quadrats out of 10 = frequent
The FEP methodology only provides 3 levels of frequency (rare, occasional, and frequent). In many instances certain species are clearly abundant or have local frequency (e.g. locally abundant). The column labelled ‘FIELD’ provides a subjective assessment of the species abundance to account for this.
Field 3 - Main Area –1m x 1m FEP Survey Quadrats Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q1 FREQUENC SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME DAFOR FIELD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Y Holcus lanatus Yorkshire-fog P P P P P P P P P P 10 F A Poa trivialis Rough Meadow-grass P P P P P P P P P P 10 F A Lotus pedunculatus Greater Bird's-foot-trefoil P x P P P P P P P P 9 F A Stellaria graminea Lesser Stitchwort P P x P P P P P P P 9 F A Cerastium fontanum Common Mouse-ear P x x P P P P P P P 8 F Cirsium arvense Creeping Thistle P x P P P x P P P P 8 F A Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup P P P P P P P x P P 8 F A Lolium perenne Perennial Rye-grass P P x x x P P x P P 6 F A Trifolium repens White Clover P P P P P P x x x x 6 F A Brachythecium rutabulum Rough-stalked Feather-moss (P) (P) (P) (P) x x x (P) x x 5 F Prunella vulgaris Selfheal x x P P P x x P x x 4 O Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal-grass P x x x x P x x x P 3 R Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted Hair-grass x x x P x x x P x x 2 R Ranunculus acris Meadow Buttercup x x x x x x P x x P 2 R Veronica chamaedrys Germander Speedwell x x P x x x x x x P 2 R Carex leporina Oval Sedge x x x x x x x P x x 1 R Juncus inflexus Hard Rush x 1 x x x x x x x x 1 R Rumex obtusifolius Broad-leaved Dock x x x x x x P x x x 1 R Veronica serpyllifolia Thyme-leaved Speedwell P x x x x x x x x x 1 R ADDITIONAL SPECIES RECORDED WITHIN THE FIELD BUT NOT WITHIN THE SURVEY QUADRATS (including 2014 walkover survey data) Agrostis capillaris Common Bent x x x x x x x x x x x x F Holcus mollis Creeping Soft-grass x x x x x x x x x x x x LF Urtica dioica Common Nettle x x x x x x x x x x x x LF Galeopsis tetrahit Common Hemp-nettle x x x x x x x x x x x x O Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bent x x x x x x x x x x x x R Centaurea nigra Common Knapweed x x x x x x x x x x x x R Cirsium palustre Marsh Thistle x x x x x x x x x x x x R Field 3 - Main Area –1m x 1m FEP Survey Quadrats Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q1 FREQUENC SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME DAFOR FIELD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Y Juncus effusus Soft-rush x x x x x x x x x x x x R Lamium album White Dead-nettle x x x x x x x x x x x x R Lapsana communis Nipplewort x x x x x x x x x x x x R Phleum pratense Timothy x x x x x x x x x x x x R Plantago major Greater Plantain x x x x x x x x x x x x R Rumex crispus Curled Dock x x x x x x x x x x x x R
Species in bold (e.g. Ranunculus acris ) are wildflower indicator species within; Key 2, Table 1, GO2-Semi-improved grassland, within the FEP Manual
Species in bold and blue (e.g. Lotus pedunculatus ) are wildflower indicator species within; Key 2, Table 4, GO6-Lowland Meadows-BAP Habitat, within the FEP Manual.
Analysis – Field 1
Within the NVC key for mesotrophic grasslands a key point occurs at couplet 19. Here a decision is needed between the following two options; the first option leading to the species rich MG5 grassland communities which are of high nature conservation value, and the second to the MG6 grassland communities which are generally species-poor and of lower nature conservation value:
“Generally species-rich swards with an abundance of herbaceous Dicotyledons including Lotus corniculatus and some of Leontodon hispidus, Ranunculus bulbosus, Leucanthemum vulgare, Primula veris, Rumex acetosa, Trifolium pratense and with frequent and sometimes abundant Anthoxanthum odoratum and Agrostis capillaris,
or;
Generally species-poor grass dominated swards with constant and usually abundant Lolium perenne and a few of the above species”.
Lotus corniculatus is the key species here which defines the MG5 Cynosurus cristatus - Centaurea nigra grassland. Although only occurring at a low coverage Lotus corniculatus was a constant species, occurring in 4 of the sample quadrats. Of the remaining listed 6 dicotyledons Rumex acetosa common sorrel was the only one present, but Anthoxanthum odoratum and Agrostis capillaris were abundant and Lolium perenne was rare. The stand therefore appears to have elements of MG5 composition lacking and is relatively species-poor for MG5. However, although grass dominated, Lolium perenne is not constant or present in any abundance. This suggests that whilst the sampled grassland is not a good fit with either the MG5 or MG6 communities, it lays closer to MG5 than MG6. Problems with separation between these two communities are not uncommon, and the problem is highlighted by the authors of the key:
“There is a complete gradation between rich, unimproved stands of the Centaureo-Cynosuretum and the very species poor swards of the Lolium leys which have been ploughed and re-seeded, fertilised and drained. The above list of Dicotyledons is a generally satisfactory means of separating the Centareo-Cynosuretum from richer stands of the Lolio-Cynosuretum but, in many cases, the best that can be hoped for is to place a stand at particular points along a line of continuous variation”.
Comparison with the floristic table with that published for MG5 shows some correlation, with the constancy of Lotus corniculatus and indicative of MG5. There are 11 species listed as constant species for MG5 and 5 of these are constant within the sampled grassland.
The table below shows the results of the MAVIS analysis of the combined 5 quadrats (Quadrat 1- 5, Field 1):
NVC COMMUNITY MATCHING COEFFICIENT
MG6b 59.49
U4b 57.53
MG1e 54.88
MG6 54.01
MG5 53.35
MG6a 52.63
MG5a 52.27
MG5b 51.55
MC9e 50.91
MC9c 49.64
From the table above it can be seen that the computer analysis has produced a list of several NVC communities and sub-communities with a matching coefficient above 50% with one of the more species-rich Lolio-Cyonsuretum sub-communities with the highest coefficient. However, care is needed when interpreting these results. MG6b Lolium perenne – Cynosurus cristatus grassland Anthoxanthum odoratum sub-community does not usually contain Lotus corniculatus and Lolium perenne is usually constant and the sampled stand has constant Lotus corniculatus and Lolium perenne is infrequent and not in any abundance. Reference to the written description for MG5, or the Centaureo-Cynosuretum grassland, helps greatly when trying to place grassland which clearly has at least some past association with the MG5 community but whose composition has been subsequently altered through past management practice.
“Although the great variety of agricultural treatments may blur the floristic distinctions between the community [MG5] and the closely-related Lolio-Cynosuretum, the higher frequency (and often abundance) of the following species are especially characteristic of the Centaureo-Cynosuretum: Lotus corniculatus, Centaurea nigra, Rhinanthus minor [yellow rattle] , Briza media [quaking- grass] , Carex flacca [glaucous sedge] , Lathyrus pratensis [meadow vetchling] , Leontodon hispidus, Chrysanthemum Leucanthemum [oxeye daisy] and Primula veris [cowslip] ”.
Of these species only Lotus corniculatus is present in high frequency within the stand and with the exception of Centaurea nigra none of the other species were recorded within the sampled stand.
Combining the above analysis and the surveyor’s own extensive experience of surveying grassland habitats, it is concluded that, as is often the case, the main stand of vegetation sampled via quadrats 1 to 5 represents a community that sits somewhere on a transition between MG5 and MG6. The constancy of Lotus corniculatus within the samples and the low frequency of Lolium perenne are more typical of the MG5 community but there is a general lack of many of the species which define MG5. Collectively, this leads to the conclusion that on the arbitrary line of transition between these two NVC communities the sampled vegetation sits closer to MG5 grassland than MG6 grassland.
Reference to the HBIC survey report for this field shows that in 2012 the grassland was very different with an abundance of herbs with common knapweed abundant (only occasional in 2014), ribwort plantain abundant (only occasional in 2014), cat’s-ear occasional to locally frequent (rare in 2014). The changes between 2012 and 2014 are directly attributable to the fact that the field was sprayed with herbicide in the spring of 2014. The HBIC report describes the main area of grassland within the field as being MG5 grassland and on the basis of the HBIC report and the data collected during the 2014 survey, assessment as MG5 in 2012 by HBIC would, in the surveyor’s opinion, have been accurate.
The HBIC report also identifies an area (Target Note 4 in their report) which was considered to represent the NVC community M23 Juncus acutiflorus/acutiflorus – Galium palustre rush pasture. During the 2014 survey this area could not be found, due to some of the area being lost underneath the spread ditch dredgings and the area not covered by them having been sprayed with herbicide.
The recent application of herbicide has resulted in a decline in both species diversity and abundance within the stand. Whilst it may have represented a better fit to MG5 grassland in 2012 this is not the case now. Whilst having an affinity with MG5 in its current state the vegetation is not considered to represent MG5 grassland in the context of the Lowland Meadow HPI description.
Habitat of Principal Importance
As the grassland within the main stand is not considered to be MG5 grassland it would not be considered to represent Lowland Meadow Habitat of Principal Importance (see paragraphs 2.3 to 2.6).
Hampshire SINC
The HBIC 2012 survey considered that the field met the SINC selection criteria and on the basis of their survey report this would appear to have been a fair conclusion, with the vegetation as descried within the HBIC report possibly qualifying under criterion 2A, and if not, then under criterion 2B.
In its current state the grassland would be unlikely to qualify under criterion 2A and most likely not under 2B either. Although the area which has been covered with ditch dredgings and reseeded is essentially lost the remainder of the field is likely to be considered as recoverable.
When the planted trees mature they will cast a dense canopy which will eventually result in the loss of the species-rich grassland currently present around the trees. This situation is however recoverable as the trees could be removed.
Whilst the herbicide has killed off a significant part of the vegetation as recorded by HBIC in 2012 it is possible that there is a good seed bank present. If this is the case then with appropriate sympathetic management it is possible that there could be a recovery of both species diversity and abundance.
Hampshire BAP Priority Habitat
If the grassland were to be considered as meeting the SINC selection guidelines it would invariably be considered to fall within the definition of the Hampshire BAP Neutral Grassland priority habitat.
Analysis – Field 2
Attempts to run the data from the sampled vegetation through the NVC keys have resulted in an inconclusive result for mesotrophic grasslands but use of the key for mire habitats leads to the M23 Juncus effusus/Juncus acutiflorus - Galium palustre rush pasture.
MAVIS analysis of the sampled stand has returned one result with a matching coefficient of 50% with the remainder all less than 50%. Consequently the analysis has returned poor matches for all of the listed communities. The table belwo presents this information (Quadrats A-E, Field 2).
NVC COMMUNITY MATCHING COEFFICIENT
MG10a 50.19
MG10 49.54
MG8 46.71
M23b 46.66
M23 45.94 NVC COMMUNITY MATCHING COEFFICIENT
MG9 44.37
MG6b 44.15
MG10b 43.68
MG6a 43.31
MG9a 43.22
M23 features within the returned results as it did when using the NVC keys. This is described as being “… a rather ill-defined assemblage of vegetation characterised by the abundance of either Juncus effusus or J. acutiflorus, sometimes both, in a ground of mesophytic herbs of wide occurrence in moister agricultural grasslands…”
It is not always possible to place specific stands of vegetation neatly within an NVC community and this is the case here where it can only be concluded that the stand represents some kind of species-rich rush pasture/ fen-meadow type of community, possibly with some affinity to M23. Given the recent change in management of the field it is quite probable that the vegetation sampled in 2014 might represent something transitional following this change in management.
Habitat of Principal Importance
Whilst the sampled vegetation is species-rich, and clearly some form of rush pasture or fen- meadow, it does not correlate with the descriptions for purple moor grass and rush pastures HPI.
Hampshire SINC
Once again, the brevity of the selection guidelines are such that the sampled vegetation would meet the 5B criterion “Fens, flushes, seepages, springs, inundation grasslands etc. that support a flora and fauna characteristic of unimproved and waterlogged (seasonal or permanent) conditions.”
Hampshire BAP Priority Habitat
The listed NVC communities under the Neutral Grassland Habitat Action Plan include M23. HBIC’s conclusion following their survey of the field in 2012 was that it contained some element of M23, and this is partially borne out by the results of the 2014 survey. Consequently, this would potentially be considered to represent a Hampshire BAP Priority Habitat.
Analysis - Field 3
The FEP Manual contains keys for the identification of species-rich grasslands. The data derived from the 1m x 1m quadrats for species composition, richness and abundance; and the percentage cover of key species; the vegetation for the main area of Field 3 was processed through these keys as shown in the table below.
From Table 23 it can be seen that the main area of Field 3 keys out to be considered as species- poor semi-improved neutral grassland.
Analysis of Field 3 survey data using the FEP Manual Grassland Keys
SUMMARISED FEP KEY TO IDENTIFY BAP GRASSLAND FEATURES
KEY TN6 Key 2a Stage 1 : Do at least two of the following apply? If YES = species -rich grassland and go to Key 2b; If NO got to next stage of key 2a i) Cover of rye -grasses and white clover <10% Yes (5.5%) ii) Sward is species -rich ; >15 species/m 2 – including grasses No (9.2/m 2) iii) Cover of broadleaved herbs (wildflowers) and sedges is >30%, excluding white clover, creeping buttercup and injurious we eds. No (11.7%) RESULT No, go to Key 2a Stage 2
Key 2a Stage 2 : Do at least two of the following apply? If YES = semi -improved grassland & go to Key 2b; If NO go to Key 2a Stage 3 i) Cover of rye -grasses and white clover <30% Yes (5.5%) ii) Sward is moderately species -rich, 9 -15 species/m 2 – including grasses Yes (9.2/m 2) iii) Cover of broadleaved herbs (wildflowers) and sedges is >10% or more; excluding white clover, creeping buttercup and inju rious weeds. Yes (11.7%)
RESULT SI so go to K2b Stage 3
Key 2a Stage 3 : Do at least two of the following apply? If YES = Species poor neutral grassland; If NO = non -grassland habitat i) Cover of rye -grasses and white clover >30% ii) Sward is species -poor, ≤8 species/m 2 – including grasses iii) Cover of broadleaved herbs (wildflowers) and sedges is <10%; excluding white clover, creeping buttercup and injurious weeds.
RESULT
Key 2b Stage 1: (from 2a as species -rich grassland – potential Lowland Meadow BAP Habitat): Are at least two Lowland Meadow BAP indicator species frequent and two occasional in the sward? (Or one bold indicator and three occasional for flood plain meadows) If YES = Good-quality species-rich grassland. If NO = continue to Key 2b Stage 2.
RESULT
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX C - NVC AND FEP QUADRAT DATA.docx Analysis of Field 3 survey data using the FEP Manual Grassland Keys
SUMMARISED FEP KEY TO IDENTIFY BAP GRASSLAND FEATURES
KEY TN6 Key 2b Stage 2: (from 2b Stage 1): Are 4 indicator species from a BAP habitat feature list present, but below the required threshold frequency for the grassland type, or are 3 indicator species at least occasional? If YES = Species-rich grassland of moderate quality. If NO = continue to Key 2b Stage 3 as semi-improved grassland.
RESULT
Key 2b Stage 3: (from 2a as semi -improved grassland or from 2b Stage 2 as insufficient indicators): Are four semi -improved grassland wildflower indicators and/or BAP grassland indica tor species at least occasional in the sward? If YES – Good quality species-rich grassland. If NO = species-poor semi-improved grassland
No RESULT Lotus pedunculatus (F)
Prunella vulgaris (O) GRASSLAND TYPE Species-poor semi-improved neutral grassland.
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX C - NVC AND FEP QUADRAT DATA.docx APPENDIX D – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS AND ADDITONAL TARGET NOTE (TN) DETAILS
Photograph 1: Field 1 TN1 – reseeded area adjacent to ditch
Photograph 2: Field 1 TN 2 – area planted with trees
Photograph 3: Field 1– main area of field
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX D - PHOTOGRAPHS AND TARGET NOTES.docx
Photograph 4: Field 2– main area of field
Photograph 5: Field 2 – part of field now incorporated into the adjacent garden
Photograph 6: Field 3– main area of the field
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX D - PHOTOGRAPHS AND TARGET NOTES.docx
Photograph 7: Field 5 – looking south to small area of wet alder woodland
TN8 - Boundary formed by a line of young trees ( pedunculate oak , beech with some young saplings of birch, beech and a line of gorse . Post and barbed wire fence. Dry ditch on road side. Ground flora formed by a mix of bracken Pteridium aquilinum and bramble – generally species-poor. None of the trees are mature enough to have features to support bats.
Photograph 8: TN8
TN9 - Boundary formed by dense bracken and bramble along a post and barbed wire fence line. A few scattered young birch and the odd elm, dog-rose and gorse . At the eastern end there are a couple of young oak and a single young rowan Sorbus aucuparia and willow .
Photograph 9: TN9 J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX D - PHOTOGRAPHS AND TARGET NOTES.docx
TN10 - A continuation of TN9, but young trees are more frequent; birch, elm, pedunculate oak and multi-stemmed ash .
Photograph 10: TN10
TN11 - Boundary formed by line of scattered young pedunculate oak and silver birch along a post and barbed wire fence line which is covered in bramble and occasional to locally frequent gorse – but does not constitute a hedge.
Photograph 11: TN11
TN12 - Small copse which appears to have formed after a hedgerow has been allowed to grow out into the field, approximately 7m wide. Main species are; holly Ilex aquifolium, pedunculate oak, hawthorn, blackthorn, hazel and dog-rose. The ground flora is species-poor and formed mainly by grasses, ivy and common nettle. On the road side there is a post and barbed wire fence alongside a deep, dry ditch. The ditch and road verge are dominated by bramble and ivy .
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX D - PHOTOGRAPHS AND TARGET NOTES.docx
Photograph 12: TN12
TN13 - Spring or drain arises here and runs alongside H5 before forming a more clearly defined stream. Fool's-water-cress Apium nodiflorum and sweet-grass Glyceria sp. frequent as it runs down the field.
Photograph 13: TN13
TN14 - Stream with shallow moderate flow over a silty/small pebble base. Mostly shaded and with little vegetation. Common nettle and bramble frequent on banks.
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX D - PHOTOGRAPHS AND TARGET NOTES.docx
Photograph 14: TN14
TN15 – Temporary standing water in ditch by gateway.
Photograph 15: TN15
TN16 - Raised mound with abundant common nettle and bramble with some elder, dog-rose and butterfly-bush Buddleja davidii.
Photograph 16: TN16
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX D - PHOTOGRAPHS AND TARGET NOTES.docx
TN17 - Heavily disturbed area around cattle feeders.
Photograph 17: TN17
TN19 - Wooded stream.
Photograph 18: TN19
Photograph 19: TN19
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX D - PHOTOGRAPHS AND TARGET NOTES.docx
Photograph 20: TN19
TN20 - Pond where the stream leaves the wood. Water backing up into the wood at the time of the survey. No macrophytes, marginal/emergent vegetation or wildfowl. Fish unlikely as temporary standing water.
Photograph 21: TN20
TN21- Timber piles and machinery. Timber piles form potential reptile hibernacula.
Photograph 22: TN21
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX D - PHOTOGRAPHS AND TARGET NOTES.docx
TN23 - A depression or old pond area with abundant willow and a few oak and alder. Some very shallow standing water but dominated by sweet-grass with a small amount of brooklime and soft-rush Juncus effusus. Will be dry during spring/summer but good grass snake habitat.
Photograph 23: TN23
TN24 - Open fronted barn, pole and tin sheet construction. No features suitable for bats.
Photograph 24: TN24
TN25 - Compost heap of mixed woodchip and manure.
Photograph 25: TN25
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX D - PHOTOGRAPHS AND TARGET NOTES.docx
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
J:\6300\6343\ECO\Eco App\1st Application Reports\Appendix (Excluding Species Reports)\APPENDIX D - PHOTOGRAPHS AND TARGET NOTES.docx