STEPPINGLEY ROAD, FLITWICK, BEDFORDSHIRE Ecological

PERSIMMON HOMES MIDLANDS

STEPPINGLEY ROAD, FLITWICK, BEDFORDSHIRE

Ecological Assessment

July 2015 6702.EcoAss.vf

ecology solutions for planners and developers

The copyright of this document remains with Ecology Solutions The contents of this document therefore must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part for any purpose without the written consent of Ecology Solutions.

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 SURVEY METHODOLOGY 2

3 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES 5

4 WILDLIFE USE OF THE SITE 7

5 ECOLOGICAL EVALUATION 10

6 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 18

7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 21

PLANS

PLAN ECO1 Site Location & Ecological Designations

PLAN ECO2 Ecological Features

PLAN ECO3 Protected Species

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 Information downloaded from MAGIC

APPENDIX 2 Schwegler 1FF Bat Box Specification

APPENDIX 3 Suitable Examples of Bird Boxes

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background & Proposals

1.1.1. Ecology Solutions was commissioned in March 2015 to undertake an Ecological Assessment of land off Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire (see Plan ECO1) for Persimmon Homes Midlands.

1.1.2. The proposals for the site will likely be for residential development with associated areas of landscape planting, but there is no layout at this stage.

1.2. Site Characteristics

1.2.1. The application site (hereafter referred to as ‘the site’) is located to the west of the town of Flitwick, Bedfordshire. The site is bordered to the north / northeast by Steppingley Road with fields, a leisure centre and existing residential development beyond. To the east / southeast the site is bordered by a track with existing residential development and the main built form of Flitwick beyond. To the south / southwest the site is bordered by an agricultural field with further fields and Flitwick Wood Local Nature Reserve / County Wildlife Site beyond. While to the west / northwest the site is bordered by agricultural fields with further fields and a residential property beyond.

1.2.2. The site itself predominantly comprises an arable field bordered by long grassland field margins and a hedgerow along the northern boundary of the site. Tree belts border the western and southern boundaries of the site.

1.3. Ecological Assessment

1.3.1. This document assesses the ecological interest of the site at Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire. The importance of the habitats within the site is evaluated with due consideration given to the guidance published by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM)1, now the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM).

1.3.2. Where necessary mitigation measures are recommended so as to safeguard any significant existing ecological interest within the site. Specific enhancement opportunities that are available for habitats and wildlife within the site are detailed where appropriate, with reference to the 'UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework'2. Finally conclusions are drawn.

1Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (version 7 July 2006). http://www.ieem.org.uk/ecia/index.html

2 JNCC and Defra (on behalf of the Four Countries' Biodiversity Group) (2012) UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. July 2012. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6189

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 2. SURVEY METHODOLOGY

2.1. The methodology utilised for the survey work can be split into three areas, namely desk study, habitat survey and faunal survey. These are discussed in more detail below.

2.2. Desk Study

2.2.1. In order to compile background information on the site and the surrounding area, Ecology Solutions contacted the Bedfordshire and Luton Biodiversity Recording and Monitoring Centre (BLBRMC) and Bedfordshire Bat Group.

2.2.2. Further information on designated sites from a wider search area was obtained from the online Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC)3 database. This information is reproduced where appropriate on Plan ECO1 and at Appendix 1.

2.3. Habitat Survey Methodology

2.3.1. An initial habitat survey was carried out in April 2015 in order to ascertain the general ecological value of the site and to identify the main habitats and associated plant species.

2.3.2. The site was surveyed based around extended Phase 1 survey methodology4, as recommended by Natural England, whereby the habitat types present are identified and mapped, together with an assessment of the species composition of each habitat. This technique provides an inventory of the basic habitat types present and allows identification of areas of greater potential which require further survey. Any such areas identified can then be examined in more detail.

2.3.3. Using the above method, the site was classified into areas of similar botanical community types, with a representative species list compiled for each habitat identified.

2.3.4. All the species that occur in each habitat would not necessarily be detectable during survey work carried out at any given time of the year, since different species are apparent at different seasons. Given the dominance of the site by an arable field and the timing of the initial survey, which included an optimal time for Phase 1 and botanical survey, it is considered that an accurate and robust assessment has been made of the botanical interest of the site.

2.4. Faunal Survey

2.4.1. Obvious faunal activity, such as birds or mammals observed visually or by call during the course of the surveys, was recorded. Specific attention was paid to any potential use of the site by protected species, species of principal importance (Priority Species), or other notable species.

3 http://www.magic.gov.uk 4 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a Technique for Environmental Audit. England Field Unit, Nature Conservancy Council, reprinted JNCC, Peterborough.

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 2.4.2. In addition, specific surveys were undertaken for bats and Badgers Meles meles, with specific regard had for reptiles.

2.4.3. Experienced ecologists undertook the faunal surveys with regard to established best practice and guidance issued by Natural England. Details of the methodologies employed are given below.

Bats

2.4.4. Field surveys were undertaken within the site with regard to best practice guidelines issued by, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (20045) and the Bat Conservation Trust (20126).

2.4.5. All trees within the site were assessed for their potential to support roosting bats. Features typically favoured by bats were searched for, including:

 Obvious holes, e.g. rot holes and old Woodpecker holes;  Dark staining on the tree, below the hole;  Tiny scratch marks around a hole from bat claws;  Cavities, splits and or loose bark from broken or fallen branches, lightning strikes etc; and  Very dense covering of mature Ivy over trunk.

2.4.6. An assessment of the habitats present was undertaken with regard to bat foraging / navigational opportunities.

Badgers

2.4.7. Specific surveys for Badgers were carried out in April 2015.

2.4.8. The surveys comprised two main elements. Firstly, searching thoroughly for evidence of Badger setts. For any setts that were encountered standard survey practice would record the location of each sett entrance, even if the entrance appeared disused. The following specific information was recorded where appropriate:

i) The number and location of well used or very active entrances; these are clear of any debris or vegetation and are obviously in regular use and may, or may not, have been excavated recently.

ii) The number and location of inactive entrances; these are not in regular use and have debris such as leaves and twigs in the entrance, or have plants growing in or around the edge of the entrance.

iii) The number of disused entrances; these have not been in use for some time, are partly or completely blocked and cannot be used without considerable clearance. If the entrance has been disused for some time all that may be visible is a depression in the ground

5 Mitchell-Jones, A.J. & McLeish, A.P. (Eds.) (2004). Bat Workers’ Manual. 3rd edition. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. 6 Bat Conservation Trust (2012). Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines (2nd Edition). Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 where the hole used to be together with the remains of the spoil heap.

2.4.9. Secondly, any evidence of Badger activity such as well worn paths, run- throughs, snagged hair, footprints, latrines and foraging signs was recorded so as to build up a picture of the use of the site by this species.

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 3. ECOLOGICAL FEATURES

3.1. An initial habitat survey was undertaken within the site in April 2015.

3.2. The following main habitat/vegetation types were identified within the site:

 Arable and Field Margins;  Hedgerows, trees and tree belts; and  Ditch (off-site).

3.3. The location of these habitats is shown on Plan ECO2.

Arable and Field Margins

3.4. The site is dominated by an arable field that comprised an old Brassica crop with scattered Black Grass at the time of the initial surveys. Long grassland field margins (approximately 1-2m in width) border the arable field with a wider margin along the western / northwestern boundary (approximately 4m in width).

3.5. The field margins include Annual Meadow-grass Poa annua, Creeping Bent Agrostis stolonifera, Fescues Festuca sp., Cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata and Barren Brome Anisantha sterilis. Herbaceous species recorded include Greater Plantain Plantago major, Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea, Common Chickweed Stellaria media, Black Medick Medicago lupulina, Red Campion Silene dioica, Field Forget-me-not Myosotis arvensis, Dandelion Taraxacum officinale, Common Mallow Malva neglecta, Dove’s-foot Cranes-bill Geranium molle, Creeping Thistle Cirsium arvense, Ivy-leaved Speedwell Veronica hederifolia, Hogweed Heracleum sphondylium, White Dead-nettle Lamium album, Ragwort Jacobaea vulgaris, Cleavers Galium aparine, Common Nettle Urtica dioica, Hedge Bindweed Calystegia sepium, Prickly Sowthistle Sonchus asper, Periwinkle Littorina littorea, Nipplewort Lapsana communis, Cow Parsley Anthriscus sylvestris, Groundsel Senecio vulgaris, Common Field Speedwell Veronica persica, Ribwort Plantain Plantago lanceolata, Common Mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum, Red Clover Trifolium pratense and Yarrow Achillea millefolium. Hairy Bittercress Cardamine hirsuta, Red Dead-nettle Lamium purpureum, Hedge Mustard Sisymbrium officinale, Curled Dock Rumex crispus, Field Poppy Papaver rhoeas and Shepard’s Purse Capsella bursa-pastoris are rarely found.

3.6. The wider field margin in the west / northwest of the site is dominated by grasses with occasional Creeping Thistle, Broad-leaved Dock Rumex obtusifolius, Cleavers, Common Nettle, Red Campion and Green Alkanet Pentaglottis sempervirens and rarely found Field Poppy.

Hedgerow, Trees and Tree Belt

3.7. There is one hedgerow (H1) and two tree belts (TB1 and TB2) along the boundaries of the site.

3.8. H1 lies along the northern / northeastern boundary of the site and is approximately 1.5m in height and gappy in places. This hedgerow is managed at the eastern end, but remains unmanaged at the northern end and is forming into a tree belt. H1 is dominated by Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna with Elder Sambucus nigra, Ash Fraxinus excelsior, Blackthorn Prunus spinosa and Rose

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 Rosa sp. An Oak Quercus sp., semi-mature Ash and Hawthorn tree are also present with Ivy Hedera helix and Bramble Rubus fruticosus are trailing through. Green Alkanet and Bracken Pteridium aquilinum are present within the ground flora, while Gorse Ulex sp. is rarely found within the hedgerow gaps.

3.9. Tree belt TB1 borders the eastern / southeastern boundary of the site and is approximately 6-8m in height. This tree belt includes Ash, Rose, Oak, Blackthorn, Holly Ilex aquifolium, Hawthorn, Field Maple and Sycamore and rarely found Wayfaring Tree Viburnum lantana, Elder, and Hazel Corylus avellana, with Honeysuckle Lonicera sp. and Ivy trailing through. Garlic Mustard Alliaria petiolata, Lords and Ladies Arum maculatum, Herb Robert Geranium robertianum, Cleavers, Common Nettle and Spanish Bluebell Hyacinthoides hispanica are present within the ground flora, while abundant Dog’s Mercury Mercurialis perennis is present just off-site.

3.10. TB2 lies along the western / northweastern boundary of the site and is very gappy. This tree belt includes multi-stemmed Ash, scattered Hawthorn and occasional Oak and Willow salix sp. Bluebells Hyacinthoides non-scripta are present within the ground flora.

3.11. A number of trees are present within the field margin along the southern / southwestern boundary of the site. In the western most end lies a group of trees including White Poplar Populus alba (saplings and semi-mature trees), Oak and Ash trees and Hawthorn and Rose scrub with Bluebells rarely found within the ground flora. A number of newly planted trees are present further south within the field margin, including Oak.

Ditch (off-site)

3.12. There is an off-site ditch running adjacent to the western boundary of the site. This ditch was damp during the initial survey and the banks include those species found within the field margins, also including Great Willowherb Epilobium hirsutum.

Background Records

3.13. The BLBRMC returned no records of any notable plant species from within the site. The nearest record for Bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta (a Schedule 8 species) and Green-winged Orchid Anacamptis morio (Bedfordshire Rare and Near Threatened) were returned from approximately 0.4km northwest of the site in 2000. The nearest record for Scots Pine Pinus sylvestris (Nationally Scarce) was returned from approximately 1km southeast of the site in 1992, while the nearest record for Corn Spurrey Spergula arvensis (Bedfordshire Rare and Vulnerable) was returned from approximately 1.5km southwest of the site in 2002. The nearest record for Dwarf Spurge Euphorbia exigua (Bedfordshire Rare and Near Threatened) was returned from approximately 1.4km southwest of the site in 2002. Bluebells were recorded within the field margins of the site. None of the other species were recorded within the site.

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 4. WILDLIFE USE OF THE SITE

4.1. General observations were made during the surveys of any faunal use of the site, with specific attention paid to the potential presence of protected species including reptiles. Specific surveys have been undertaken with regard to bats and Badgers.

Bats

Tree Surveys

4.2. There are three trees within the site that were recorded as having developed features suitable to support roosting bats, such as rot holes, branch scars, dead wood and cracks. The location of trees can be seen on Plan ECO3.

4.3. A very mature Oak tree (T1) is present within H1 and is Ivy covered, and due to it maturity it is considered to offer moderate potential to support roosting bats.

4.4. Another very mature Oak tree (T2) within hedgerow H1 is considered to have moderate potential to support roosting bats due to the presence of dead wood, cracked limbs and its size, albeit these appear to be mainly superficial.

4.5. T3 is another very mature Oak tree present within TB2. This tree has holes, cracks in the branches / trunk and holds dead wood. As such it is also considered to offer moderate potential to support roosting bats.

4.6. The hedgerow, trees and tree belts within the site offer foraging and navigational opportunities for bats, while the grassland margins (in particular along the western / northwestern boundary) provide an invertebrate resource for foraging bats.

4.7. Background Information. No response was received about bat records from within the study area from the Bedfordshire Bat Group.

Badgers (and Other Mammals)

4.8. Specific surveys for Badgers were undertaken in April 2015.

4.9. No evidence of Badgers was recorded during the survey. Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus holes were recorded along H1.

4.10. The habitats within the site offer limited opportunities for foraging Badgers and limited sett building materials. The hedgerow / tree belts offer some limited cover and dispersal opportunities for this species. It is considered that the habitats within the site also offer some opportunities for a range of other common, small mammals.

4.11. Background Information. The BLBRMC returned no records of Badgers or other notable mammals from within the site. The nearest record of a Badger (individual) was returned from approximately 0.3km north of the site in 2004. The nearest record of Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus, a Priority Species, was returned from approximately 0.1km east of the site in 2006, while the nearest record of a Brown Hare Lepus europaeus (also Priority Species) was returned from approximately 0.1km south of the site in 2003. The nearest record of an

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 Otter Lutra lutra (a Priority Species) was returned from approximately 1.4km southeast of the site in 2011. 4.12. It is considered the site offers limited suitable habitat for Hedgehogs and Brown Hare, however it is not considered that these species would be reliant upon the habitats present within the site. Due to the lack of aquatic habitats, the site offers no suitable habitat for Otters. Given the above, no further consideration for Badgers or other mammals, with the exception of bats, will be given within this report.

Birds

4.13. No notable / protected birds were recorded within the site during the survey. A small number of common bird species were recorded including Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs, Woodpigeon Columba palumbus, Goldcrest Regulus regulus and Robin Erithacus rubecula. It is considered that the Hedgerow, trees and tree belts within the site offer suitable nesting and foraging habitats for a number of other common bird species.

4.14. Background Information. The BLBRMC returned a number of common and notable (Schedule 1 / Red List / Priority Species) bird records from the vicinity. Given those records it is considered that the habitats within the site offer some opportunities for Yellowhammer Emberiza citronella (Priority and Red List Species), Brambling Fringilla montifringilla (Schedule 1), Common Linnet Carduelis cannabina (Red List), Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus (priority Species), Lapwing Vanellus vanellus (Priority and Red List Species), Skylark Alauda arvensis (Priority and Red List Species) and Fieldfare Turdus pilaris (Schedule 1 and Red List) with some limited opportunities for Hedge Accentor Prunella modularis(Priority Species), Grey Partridge Perdix perdix (Priority and Red List Species), Quail Coturnix coturnix (Schedule 1), Song Thrush Turdus philomelos (Priority and Red List Species), House Sparrow Passer domesticus (Priority and Red List Species) and Tree Sparrow Passer montanus (Priority and Red List Species). However it is not considered any of these species would be reliant upon the habitats present within the site and none were recorded during the Phase I survey.

Reptiles

4.15. The site was assessed for areas of suitable reptile habitat in April 2015. The long grassland field margins within the site appear to offer potential opportunities for this faunal group.

4.16. Background Information. Information received from BLBRMC returned no records of reptiles from within the site itself. The nearest and most recent record of a Common Lizard Zootoca vivipara was returned from approximately 1.3km southeast of the site in 2003.

Invertebrates

4.17. Given the habitats present it is likely an assemblage of common invertebrate species would be present within the site. However, there is no evidence to suggest that any rare or notable species would be present given the intensive agricultural regime to which it is subjected.

4.18. Background Information. The BLBRMC returned no records of notable species of invertebrates from within the site, however a number of records

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 were returned from the wider study area. It is not considered that the habitats within the site would present highly suitable habitat for any of those species recorded due to the intensively managed arable field dominating the site, and thus opportunities are restricted to the margins and hedgerow / tree belts.

Other Notable Species

4.19. A search was carried out as part of the desk study for any ponds within 250m and 500m around the site. There are no ponds within 250m or 500m of the site that are not separated by dispersal barriers to Great Crested Newts, such as roads or existing residential development. Due to the lack of aquatic habitats, the site itself provides no suitable aquatic habitat for Great Crested Newts and very limited terrestrial opportunities within the field margins. Consequently Great Crested Newts are not considered to be a constraint to the proposed development and no further consideration for this species will be given within this report.

4.20. There is no evidence from the surveys undertaken or the records returned as part of the desk study to suggest that any other protected or notable fauna would be present within the site.

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 5. ECOLOGICAL EVALUATION

5.1. The Principles of Ecological Evaluation

5.1.1. The latest guidelines for ecological evaluation produced by CIEEM7 propose an approach that involves professional judgement, but makes use of available guidance and information, such as the distribution and status of the species or features within the locality of the project.

5.1.2. The methods and standards for site evaluation within the British Isles have remained those defined by Ratcliffe8. These are broadly used across the United Kingdom to rank sites so priorities for nature conservation can be attained. For example, current sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) designation maintains a system of data analysis that is roughly tested against Ratcliffe’s criteria.

5.1.3. In general terms, these criteria are size, diversity, naturalness, rarity and fragility, while additional secondary criteria of typicalness, potential value, intrinsic appeal, recorded history and the position within the ecological/geographical units are also incorporated into the ranking procedure.

5.1.4. Any assessment should not judge sites in isolation from others, since several habitats may combine to make it worthy of importance to nature conservation.

5.1.5. Further, relying on the national criteria would undoubtedly distort the local variation in assessment and therefore additional factors need to be taken into account, e.g. a woodland type with a comparatively poor species diversity, common in the south of England, may be of importance at its northern limits, say in the border country.

5.1.6. In addition, habitats of local importance are often highlighted within a local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). The Bedfordshire and Luton BAP currently lists a number of Priority habitats and species.

5.1.7. Levels of importance can be determined within a defined geographical context from the immediate site or locality through to the International level.

5.1.8. The legislative and planning policy context are also important considerations and have been given due regard throughout this assessment.

5.2. Habitat Evaluation

Designated Sites

5.2.1. Statutory Sites: There are no statutory designated sites of nature conservation value within or immediately adjacent to the site, however

7 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (version 7 July 2006). http://www.ieem.org.uk/ecia/index.html. 8 Ratcliffe, D A (1977). A Nature Conservation Review: the Selection of Study areas of Biological National Importance to Nature Conservation in Britain. Two Volumes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 Flitwick Wood Local Nature Reserve (LNR) lies approximately 35m to the southwest of the site. This LNR is designated due to its ancient and semi- natural woodland, comprising a diverse range of flora including Wood Anemone Anemone nemorosa, Wood Spurge Euphorbia amygdaloides, Primrose Primula vulgaris and Bluebell. This LNR also lies within the Flitwick Wood County Wildlife Site (CWS) (see section below).

5.2.2. The site lies beyond the minimum 15m buffer to ancient woodlands set down in Natural England standing advice. Nonetheless, standard engineering practice in respect of pollution control, as part of the development proposals will negate any potential effect to the Flitwick Wood LNR, and any potentially detrimental effects through dust contamination will be mitigated through standard industry best practice measures. As such, it is not considered there will be any adverse direct or indirect effects on this statutory designated site as result of the proposals.

5.2.3. The nearest Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is Flitwick Moor SSSI, which is located approximately 1.6km southeast of the site. Flitwick Moor is designated for its rich flora and invertebrates that are supported by remnant eutrophic, valley mire and Bedfordshire’s largest wetland. Peat Fen and localised acidic marshes are also present, while areas of dried peat are vegetated by woodland (Pedunulcate Oak Quercus robur / Birch Betula sp. and Alder Alnus glutinosa), grasslands (neutral and acid), swamps and fens, as well as areas of open water. The grasslands support plants associated with wet meadows such as Meadow Saxifrage Saxifraga granulate. This SSSI is also important habitat for other flora and fauna.

5.2.4. This SSSI is well separated from the site by the main built form of Flitwick (including major and minor roads and existing development) and as such it is not considered there would be any direct or indirect adverse impacts on this statutory designated site as a result of the development proposals.

5.2.5. Non-statutory Sites: There are no non-statutory designations of conservation value within or immediately adjacent to the site. The nearest non-statutory designated site is Flitwick Wood County Wildlife Site (CWS) that lies approximately 35m southwest of the site. This LWS comprises Flitwick Wood LNR (as mentioned above), which is an area of ancient and semi-natural woodland, as well as lowland mixed deciduous woodland.

5.2.6. As already mentioned above, standard engineering practice in respect of pollution control, as part of the development proposals will negate any potential effect to the Flitwick Wood CWS, and any potentially detrimental effects through dust contamination will be mitigated through standard industry best practice measures. As such, it is not considered there will be any adverse direct or indirect effects on this non-statutory designated site as result of the proposals.

5.2.7. A number of additional statutory and non-statutory sites and sites listed on the ancient woodland inventory are located in the wider area (see Plan ECO1), but no significant adverse effects are anticipated given their separation by roads, existing development and open countryside.

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 Habitats

Arable and Field Margins

5.2.8. The arable field is of negligible ecological value due to it being subject to intensive management and not supporting a diverse herb species complement. The field margins within the site are of limited ecological value in terms of their botanical content, comprising common and widespread species. The field margins do offer suitable opportunities for reptiles, small mammals and a range of common invertebrates, and thus providing an invertebrate food source for bats.

5.2.9. Mitigation and Enhancements. No mitigation is considered to be required for the loss of these habitats, however, it is recommended that the field margins are retained or similar habitats included within any proposed development where possible to provide continued habitat for a range of wildlife. To achieve an ecological enhancement within the site, new areas of open space could be created as part of the development proposals and oversown using a species-rich seed mixture (such as Emorsgate’s Standard General Purpose Meadow Mixture EM2) and subject to a suitable management regime to enhance the floristic diversity of the site accordingly. These measures would provide habitats of greater ecological value post development and the provision of species-rich grassland will provide suitable new habitat for a range of species.

Hedgerow, Trees and Tree Belts

5.2.10. The hedgerow, trees and tree belts within the site are of relatively greater ecological value within the site. These habitats offer nesting and foraging opportunities for common birds, foraging and navigating opportunities for bats and cover / dispersal opportunities for Badgers (if present in the local area) and other small mammals.

5.2.11. Mitigation and Enhancements. It is recommended that the hedgerow, trees and tree belts are retained and enhanced (bolstered) as part of the proposed development. Particular consideration should be given to retention and buffering of those trees that are considered to have developed features suitable to support roosting bats. It is recommended that new hedgerow / tree belt planting of a similar or greater length is carried out for any losses to the hedgerows / tree belts as part of the development, while new tree planting should be undertaken to offset any proposed losses to the trees. As an enhancement, new planting could be carried out along the retained features to provide a buffer from the built form. Ideally, the new planting should comprise native species or those of benefit to wildlife and if possible include fruit-bearing trees / shrubs which will provide seasonal foraging opportunities for a range of wildlife including birds and mammals.

Ditch (off-site)

5.2.12. The ditch is of limited ecological value and is off-site in any event.

5.2.13. Mitigation and Enhancements. No mitigation is required. However, standard engineering practice in respect of pollution control, as part of the development proposals would negate any potential effect to this ditch, and

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 any potentially detrimental effects through dust contamination will be mitigated through standard industry best practice measures.

5.3. Faunal Evaluation

Bats

5.3.1. Legislation. All bats are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and included on Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (“the Habitats Regulations”). These include provisions making it an offence to:

 Deliberately kill, injure or take (capture) bats;  Deliberately disturb bats in such a way as to be likely to significantly affect:- (i) the ability of any significant group of bats to survive, breed or rear or nurture their young; or to hibernate; or (ii) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species concerned;  Damage or destroy any breeding or resting place used by bats;  Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any place used by bats for shelter or protection (even if bats are not in residence).

5.3.2. The words ‘deliberately’ and ‘intentionally’ include actions where a court can infer that the defendant knew ‘the action taken would almost inevitably result in an offence, even if that was not the primary purpose of the act.

5.3.3. The offence of damaging (making it worse for the bat) or destroying a breeding site or resting place is an absolute offence. Such actions do not have to be deliberate for an offence to be committed.

5.3.4. Licences can be granted for development purposes by an ‘appropriate authority’ under Regulation 53 (e) of the Habitats Regulations. In England, the ‘appropriate authority’ is Natural England (the government’s statutory advisors on nature conservation). European Protected Species licences permit activities that would otherwise be considered an offence.

5.3.5. In accordance with the Habitats Regulations the licensing authority (Natural England) must apply the three derogation tests as part of the process of considering a licence application. These tests are that:

1. the activity to be licensed must be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest or for public health and safety; 2. there must be no satisfactory alternative; and 3. the favourable conservation status of the species concerned must be maintained.

5.3.6. Licences can usually only be granted if the development is in receipt of full planning permission (and relevant conditions, if any, discharged).

5.3.7. Seven species of bat are Priority Species, these are Barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus, Bechstein’s Myotis bechsteinii, Noctule Nyctalus noctula, Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, Brown Long-eared

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 Plecotus auritus, Greater Horseshoe Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, and Lesser Horseshoe Rhinolophus hipposideros.

5.3.8. Site Usage. There are three trees within the site that are considered to have potential in supporting roosting bats. The hedgerow, trees and tree belts within the site offer suitable foraging and navigational opportunities for bats.

5.3.9. Mitigation and Enhancements. Retention of the hedgerow, trees and tree belts would provide continued opportunities within the site for foraging and navigating bats. The field margins also provide an invertebrate food source for bats. New planting within the site, including new trees / hedgerows and the provision of species-rich grassland, as part of any development proposals would provide improved navigational and foraging opportunities for bats.

5.3.10. As mentioned, if possible, particular consideration should be given to retention and buffering of trees with potential to support roosting bats. Should the trees with potential to support bats be scheduled for removal, it is recommended that they be subject to further tree climbing and / or emergence / re-entry surveys (where necessary) to determine whether these trees are used by roosting bats. If bats are confirmed present prior to any further commencement of works, a Natural England licence would be required for felling such trees and mitigation including alternative roost provision would be required.

5.3.11. If considered appropriate, a sympathetic lighting regime associated with the new proposals could be used to minimise light spillage into key areas, such as around any retained hedgerow / tree belts, in order to retain the suitable foraging and navigation opportunities for bats. A sympathetic lighting regime could be achieved through the use of sodium or LED lights, which produce less light spillage than other types of lighting, and have no low / no UV content, or UV-filtered lights. In addition, the spillage of the light can be reduced further through use of low-level lights and the employment of lighting ‘hoods’ which will direct light below the horizontal plane, preferably at an angle less than 70 degrees.

5.3.12. As an enhancement, it is recommended that bat boxes, such as Schwegler 1FF boxes (see Appendix 3 for suitable examples), are erected on suitable retained/new trees or new buildings and positioned out of reach of opportunistic predators such as cats. This model of bat box is known to be attractive to a number of the smaller bat species, such as Pipistrelle. This measure will provide enhanced roosting opportunities within the site.

Birds

5.3.13. Legislation. Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) is concerned with the protection of wild birds, whilst Schedule 1 lists species that are protected by special penalties. All species of birds receive general protection whilst nesting.

5.3.14. Site Usage. The hedgerow, trees and tree belts within the site offer suitable foraging and nesting opportunities for a number of common birds.

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 5.3.15. Mitigation and Enhancements. It is recommended that the development proposals retain the hedgerow / trees / tree belts wherever possible to provide continued existing foraging and nesting opportunities for birds. The provision of new planting within the site would provide additional and enhanced opportunities for a range of bird species, and the provision of berry/fruit-bearing species that would provide seasonal foraging resources for birds. Ideally, the new planting should comprise native species or those of benefit to wildlife.

5.3.16. It is recommended that clearance of any suitable nesting vegetation, including tree felling, be undertaken outside the bird nesting season (March to July inclusive) to avoid any potential offence. Should the above timing constraints conflict with any timetabled works, it is recommended that works commence only after a suitably qualified ecologist has undertaken checks to ensure no nesting birds are present. If nesting birds are found to be present during checks then clearance would need to be delayed until young have fledged. Given the arable field and records of Skylark within the local area as a precaution this would also include checks of the main arable field for ground nesting species.

5.3.17. Simple enhancement measures could ensure the ornithological interest at the site is increased. For example, the erection of nest boxes on suitable retained trees. Using nest boxes of varying designs would maximise the species complement attracted to the site and, where possible, these could be tailored to provide opportunities for Red Listed / Priority Species known from the local area, such as Song Thrush (see Appendix 3 for suitable examples).

Reptiles

5.3.18. Legislation. All six British reptile species receive a degree of legislative protection that varies depending on their conservation importance.

5.3.19. Rare, endangered or declining species receive 'full protection' under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as well as protection under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 2010, which transposed into UK law the European Community Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora, more commonly known as the Habitats Directive. Species that are fully protected include Smooth Snake Coronella austriaca and Sand Lizard Lacerta agilis. Due to the habitat requirements of these species it is considered highly unlikely that these species would be present in this case.

5.3.20. Due to their abundance in Britain, Common Lizard Zootoca vivipara, Slow Worm Anguis fragilis, Grass Snake Natrix natrix and Adder Vipera berus are only 'partially protected' under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and as such only receive protection from:

· deliberate killing and injuring; · being sold or other forms of trading.

5.3.21. As such, although the animals themselves are protected, their habitat does not receive protection. Therefore, the presence of these species is a legal compliance matter rather than a constraint to the principle of development per se.

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 5.3.22. Site Usage. The habitats within the site offer suitable habitat for reptiles, albeit limited to the field margins.

5.3.23. Mitigation and Enhancements. Due to the suitability of the field margins within the site for this faunal group, albeit limited along the margins of the site, and the known presence of common reptiles (Common Lizard) within the wider study area reptile surveys may be required prior to submission of a planning application. If present, and depending upon numbers of reptiles and distribution, a precautionary watching brief could be employed during clearance with ground searches undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist in combination with a habitat manipulation exercise (controlled cutting in directional manner persuading reptiles present to move towards retained habitat). This would ensure no reptiles (if present) are injured or killed during the construction phase. The vegetation would be strimmed to a short length systematically, with the disturbance caused by this operation causing reptiles to endeavour to escape towards suitable retained habitat, allowing the supervising ecologist to capture and relocate any animals encountered (considered unlikely).

5.3.24. This activity should only be carried out during suitable weather conditions. Optimum weather conditions are temperatures of 10°C to 17°C, Intermittent or hazy sunshine with little / no wind. If necessary, and if high numbers of reptiles were found to be present an in situ relocation exercise could be undertaken (a suitable receptor area would need to be identified for this purpose).

5.3.25. The retention of the field margins (where possible) and creation of new areas of open space within any development proposals will provide continued opportunities for reptiles (if present). It is recommended that the sward of parts of grassland within open space areas (and in particular the area where reptiles have currently been recorded) be left uncut or only cut infrequently on a rotational basis (with one third cut in any one year) to prevent dominance of scrub, and that the grassland be cut early or late in the season when reptiles would be in hibernation.

5.3.26. It is also recommended that refuges, such as log piles or artificial hibernacula, that will provide additional shelter and hibernation opportunities for reptiles, be included in open spaces to enhance these areas for reptiles.

Invertebrates

5.3.27. Site Usage. Given the habitats present it is likely an assemblage of common invertebrate species would be present within the site.

5.3.28. Mitigation and Enhancements. The retention of the majority of the hedgerow, trees and tree belts together with the creation of areas of species-rich grassland and new planting as part of any development proposals would provide new and enhanced opportunities for a range of invertebrates.

5.3.29. The retention and creation of log piles e.g. from cleared hedgerow sections / trees (if applicable) as part of the proposals, would provide suitable opportunities for saproxylic invertebrates. The implementation of

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 other potential enhancement measures recommended above would also likely provide knock-on benefits for invertebrates.

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 6. PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

6.1. The planning policy framework that relates to nature conservation in Flitwick, Bedfordshire is issued at two main administrative levels: nationally through the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF); and locally through the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies. The proposed development will be judged in relation to the policies contained within these documents.

6.2. National Policy

National Planning Policy Framework

6.2.1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s requirements for the planning system and was adopted on 27th March 2012. It replaces previous national planning policy, including PPS9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) published in 2005.

6.2.2. The key element of the NPPF is that there should be ‘a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking’ (paragraph 14). It is important to note that this presumption ‘does not apply where development requiring Appropriate Assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined’ (paragraph 119), although this is not applicable to the proposals in this case.

6.2.3. A number of policies in the NPPF are comparable to those in Planning Policy Statement (PPS)9 (which it replaced), including reference to minimisation of impacts to biodiversity and provision of net gains to biodiversity where possible (paragraph 109) and ensuring that Local Authorities place appropriate weight to statutory and non-statutory nature conservation designations, protected species and biodiversity.

6.2.4. The NPPF also considers the strategic approach which local authorities should adopt with regard to the protection, enhancement and management of green infrastructure, priority habitats and ecological networks, and the recovery of priority species.

6.2.5. Paragraph 118 of the NPPF comprises a number of principles which Local Authorities should apply, including encouraging opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments, provision for refusal of planning applications if significant harm cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for, applying the protection given to European sites to potential SPAs, possible SACs, listed or proposed Ramsar sites and sites identified (or required) as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sites, and the provision for the refusal for developments resulting in the loss or deterioration of ‘irreplaceable’ habitats unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.

6.2.6. National policy therefore implicitly recognises the importance of biodiversity and that, with sensitive planning and design, development and conservation of the natural heritage can co-exist and benefits can, in certain circumstances, be obtained.

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 6.3. Local Policy

Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies

6.3.1. The Core Strategy and Development Management Policies document was adopted 19th November 2009. This document is the current document in use for planning control purposes.

6.3.2. The Core Strategy contains three policies which relate to nature conservation, policies CS16, CS17 and CS19. While the Development Management Policies contains two policies that relate to nature conservation, policies DM14 and DM15.

6.3.3. Policies CS16 and DM14 refer to the protection of the hedgerows, trees and woodlands (including ancient woodlands) and to promote an overall increase in tree cover within the county.

6.3.4. Policy CS17 refers to green infrastructure and providing linkages / corridors to create green networks.

6.3.5. Policy CS18 is concerned with the protection of biodiversity and refers to the protection of sites of nature conservation against development, including Local Nature Reserves and County Wildlife Sites, and any other habitats and species highlighted within the local BAP. This policy refers to the maintenance / enhancement of these habitats and the restoration of habitats that have become fragmented and isolated to create biodiversity networks. Policy DM15 also refers to the protection of nationally and locally designated sites and the protection of biodiversity. Furthermore, it refers to mitigation as part of development, such as ‘the use of native and locally appropriate species’ in planting schemes.

6.3.6. A Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire was prepared with the intention of superseding the current planning policy documents in place. However, in February 2015 this document was found to have failed the Duty to Co-operate by the Inspector and therefore recommended to be withdrawn. Central Bedfordshire Council sought to challenge this decision through the courts but were refused leave to challenge the decision in the High Court and thus are considering taking it to the Court of Appeal. As such, it is therefore anticipated that the Development Strategy will be withdrawn and a new plan will be produced which address the Duty to Cooperate and eventually supersede those policies currently in place.

6.4. Discussion

6.4.1. With the implementation of recommendations made in this report, the development proposals will have no adverse effects on any statutory or non-statutory designated sites, or Priority / Protected Species and habitats, and as such accords with CS18 and DM18 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies. It is recommended that any development proposals include the retention of the hedgerow, trees and tree belts within the site wherever possible and that the proposed development includes the creation of new areas of species-rich open space and new landscape planting, to offset any loss of habitats within the

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 development proposals. Recommendations have also been made to tailor any new habitats to provide opportunities for a range of wildlife. As such, it is considered the proposals are capable of according with all policies within the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies and the principles laid down in the NPPF.

6.4.2. In conclusion, implementation of the measures set out in this report would enable development of the site to accord with national and local planning policy for ecology and nature conservation.

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

7.1. Ecology Solutions was commissioned in March 2015 to undertake an Ecological Assessment of land off Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire for Persimmon Homes Midlands.

7.2. The proposals for the site will be for residential development likely with associated areas of landscape planting, but there is no layout at this stage.

7.3. An initial habitat survey was carried out in April 2015 in order to ascertain the general ecological value of the site and to identify the main habitats and associated plant species.

7.4. The Flitwick Wood LNR and CWS lie approximately 35m southwest of the site. This ancient woodland lies beyond the 15m minimum buffer set down in Natural England standing advice. Nonetheless, standard engineering practice in respect of pollution control, as part of the development proposals will negate any potential effect to the Flitwick Wood LNR/CWS, and any potentially detrimental effects through dust contamination will be mitigated through standard industry best practice measures. As such, it is not considered there will be any adverse direct or indirect effects on any statutory and non-statutory designated sites or nature conservation as result of any proposals.

7.5. There are three trees present within the site that are considered to have developed features suitable to support roosting bats. It is recommended that these trees be retained and buffered as part of any proposal, however recommendations for further surveys have been made in the event that they are to be lost.

7.6. A sensitive lighting regime, if necessary, post-development could ensure dark corridors are retained for bats, particularly along any retained hedgerows / tree belts along the boundaries. It is recommended that the hedgerow/trees/tree belts be retained where possible as part of any proposals to retain existing foraging and navigational opportunities and enhancements realised through new landscape planting and the creation of species-rich grassland within the development proposals. It is recommended that new planting consists of species of known value to wildlife. The inclusion of bat boxes within the site would provide new roosting opportunities for bats.

7.7. No evidence of Badgers was recorded within the site. Evidence of Rabbits using the site was recorded.

7.8. There are no ponds within 250m and 500m of the site that are not separated by dispersal barriers (e.g. roads) and as such Great Crested Newts are not considered to be a constraint within the site.

7.9. The field margins within the site provides suitable habitat for reptiles. Due to the suitability of the site for this faunal group and the presence of common reptiles in the wider study area, it is considered that reptiles may be present within the site. Further survey may be required to support any planning application. In any event, recommendations have been made for a mitigation strategy in the event that reptiles are present, which includes a habitat manipulation and watching brief approach or in situ relocation exercise.

Steppingley Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Ecology Solutions Ecological Assessment 6702.EcoAss.vf July 2015 7.10. The retention of the hedgerow / tree / tree belts (where possible) together with new landscape planting and the creation of areas of species-rich grassland as part of any proposal would provide opportunities for birds, while the erection of bird boxes within the site would also provide new nesting opportunities for birds.

7.11. Retention of the majority of hedgerow / tree / tree belts, creation of areas of species-rich grassland and new landscape planting will provide new habitat for birds, bats, small mammals and invertebrates and recommendations have been made to enhance the proposed new landscape planting in order to create habitats generally beneficial to wildlife.

7.12. In conclusion, through the implementation of the safeguards and recommendations set out within this report it is considered that any proposals would accord with planning policy with regard to nature conservation at all administrative levels and result in ecological enhancements overall.

PLANS AND APPENDICES

PLANS

PLAN ECO1

Site Location and Ecological Designations

PLAN ECO2

Ecological Features

PLAN ECO3

Protected Species

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

Information downloaded from MAGIC 6702 Magic Map

Legend

Local Nature Reserves (England) National Nature Reserves (England)

Ramsar Sites (England)

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (England) Special Areas of Conservation (England) Special Protection Areas (England) Ancient and Semi-Natural Woodland Ancient Replanted Woodland

Projection = OSGB36 xmin = 497100 ymin = 233000 xmax = 507100 ymax = 238200 Map produced by MAGIC on 29 April, 2015. Copyright resides with the data suppliers and the map must not be reproduced without their permission. Som e information in MAGIC is a snapshot of the information that is being maintained or continually updated by the (c) Crown Copyright and database rights 2015. Ordnance Survey 100022861. originating organisation. Please refer to the metadata for details as information may be illustrative or representative rather than definitive at this stage.

APPENDIX 2

Schwegler 1FF Bat Box Specification Bat Boxes

Schwegler bat boxes are made from ‘woodcrete’ and have the highest rates of occupation of all types of box. The 75% wood sawdust, clay and concrete mixture is ideal, being durable whilst allowing natural respiration and temperature stability. These boxes are rot and predator proof and extremely long lasting. Boxes can be hung from a branch near the tree trunk or fixed using ‘tree-friendly’ aluminum nails.

1FF Bat Box

The rectangular shape makes the 1FF suitable for attaching to the sides of buildings or in sites such as bridges, though it may also be used on trees. It has a narrow crevice-like internal space to attract Pipistrelle and Noctule bats.

Woodcrete (75% wood sawdust, concrete and clay mixture) Width: 27cm Height: 43cm Weight: 8.3kg

APPENDIX 3

Suitable Examples of Bird Boxes Bird Boxes

Schwegler bird boxes have the highest rates of occupation of all types of box. They are designed to mimic natural nest sites and provide a stable environment with the right thermal properties for chick rearing and winter roosting. Boxes are made from ‘Woodcrete’. This 75% wood sawdust, clay and concrete mixture is breathable and very durable making these bird boxes extremely long lasting.

1B Bird Box

This is the most popular box for garden birds and appeals to a wide range of species. The box can be hung from a branch or nailed to the trunk of a tree with a ‘tree-friendly’ aluminium nail.

Available in four colours and three entrance hole sizes. 26mm for small tits, 32mm standard size and oval, for redstarts.

2H Bird Box

This box is attractive to robins, pied wagtails, spotted flycatcher, wrens and black redstarts. Best sited on the walls of buildings with the entrance on one side. Schwegler boxes have the highest occupation rates of all box types. They are carefully designed to mimic natural nest sites and provide a stable environment for chick rearing and winter roosting. They can be expected to last 25 years or more without maintenance.

2M Bird Box

A free-hanging box offering greater protection from predators. Supplied complete with hanger which loops and fastens around a branch. With standard general-purpose 32mm diameter entrance hole. Schwegler boxes have the highest occupation rates of all box types. They are carefully designed to mimic natural nest sites and provide a stable environment for chick rearing and winter roosting. They can be expected to last 25 years or more without maintenance.