HOBBLEDOWN FARM

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

ECO01598 Hobbledown Farm Final April 2021

rpsgroup.com

REPORT Document status

Version Purpose of document Authored by Reviewed by Approved by Review date

Draft Planning application SB KS KS 22/12/20

Final Planning application SB KS KS 19/03/21

Final Planning application SB KS KS 14/03/21

Approval for issue

Isaac Phillips [Signature] 14 April 2021

The report has been prepared for the exclusive use and benefit of our client and solely for the purpose for which it is provided. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by RPS Group Plc, any of its subsidiaries, or a related entity (collectively 'RPS') no part of this report should be reproduced, distributed or communicated to any third party. RPS does not accept any liability if this report is used for an alternative purpose from which it is intended, nor to any third party in respect of this report. The report does not account for any changes relating to the subject matter of the report, or any legislative or regulatory changes that have occurred since the report was produced and that may affect the report. The report has been prepared using the information provided to RPS by its client, or others on behalf of its client. To the fullest extent permitted by law, RPS shall not be liable for any loss or damage suffered by the client arising from fraud, misrepresentation, withholding of information material relevant to the report or required by RPS, or other default relating to such information, whether on the client’s part or that of the other information sources, unless such fraud, misrepresentation, withholding or such other default is evident to RPS without further enquiry. It is expressly stated that no independent verification of any documents or information supplied by the client or others on behalf of the client has been made. The report shall be used for general information only.

Prepared for:

Hobbledown Farm

Prepared by: RPS

Sam Barker Ecologist 20 Western Avenue Milton Park Abingdon, Oxfordshire OX14 4SH T +44 1235 821 888 E [email protected]

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page i REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive summary should include:

• RPS were commissioned by Hobbledown Farm to undertake a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal of an area of land within Hobbledown Farm, Epsom, . This comprised a desk study, Phase 1 Habitat Survey and an ecological scoping survey which assessed the potential of the site to support species of conservation concern or other species which could present a constraint to the development of the site. • The development proposals involve the creation of a new water play area comprising formation of shallow water features and erection of play equipment and associated structures within an existing farm park. • The site is approximately 0.3 ha in size and comprises grassland, a hedgerow, an existing zipwire and some juvenile trees. The surrounding land contains a small woodland copse, hedgerows, childrens play park, livestock pens and enclosures, areas of recreation grassland and footpaths. • The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal desk study identified 20 statutory designated sites within 5 km of the site and four non-statutory designated sites within 2 km of the site. The closest designated site was Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) approximately 0.09 km from site. • The Phase 1 Habitat Survey identified that the site was predominantly an amenity grassland field. A native species-rich hedgerow was present along the northern boundary, wuth juvenile trees along the south of the site. A bark based zipwire and bare ground footpath were present in the east of the site. • The habitats on site provide some potential to support protected and notable species including birds, foraging and commuting bats, badgers and suitable terrestrial amphibian habitat. • A total of eight ponds were identified within 250 m of the site boundary. A Great Crested Newt (GCN) Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) survey of the four ponds on site identified that one pond provided Average suitability for GCN. The other three ponds were all assessed as providing Poor suitability for GCN. • A badger survey was also conducted at the same time as the Phase 1 Habitat Survey. No evidence of badgers or their setts were recorded within the site or 30 m from application boundary. • It is recommended that a GCN eDNA survey is undertaken on the pond that was identified as being of Average potential to support GCN (Pond 1). • No other protected species surveys are recommended but mitigation and enhancement measures have been provided. • Mitigation measures include, timing of vegetation removal to avoid the nesting bird season, retaining as many of the trees as possible. • Enhancement measures could include providing bird boxes within the site.

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page i REPORT Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I Executive summary should include: ...... i 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Purpose and scope of this report ...... 1 1.2 Study area ...... 1 1.3 Development proposals ...... 1 1.4 Legislation and policy ...... 2 2 METHODS ...... 4 2.1 Desk Study ...... 4 2.2 Ecological Appraisal ...... 4 2.3 GCN Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Assessment ...... 4 2.4 Badger Survey...... 5 2.5 Impact Appraisal ...... 6 2.6 Limitations ...... 7 3 RESULTS ...... 8 3.1 Designated Sites ...... 8 3.2 Species ...... 11 3.3 Phase 1 Habitat Survey ...... 13 3.4 GCN Habitat Suitability ...... 15 3.5 Badger Survey...... 15 3.6 Ecological Scoping Survey ...... 17 4 EVALUATION AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ...... 18 4.1 Designated sites ...... 18 4.2 Habitats ...... 18 4.3 Species ...... 18 5 MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT ...... 20 5.1 Habitats ...... 20 5.2 Species ...... 20 5.3 Enhancement opportunities ...... 20 6 CONCLUSIONS ...... 21 REFERENCES ...... 22

Tables

Table 3.1: Statutory designated sites within 5 km and non-statutory designated sites within 2 km of the study area ...... 8 Table 3.2: Species records from the last 10 years within 2 km of the site ...... 11 Table 4.1: Summary of potential habitat impacts ...... 18

Figures Figure 1.1: Site location plan ...... 3 Figure 3.1: Statutory designated sites within 5 km and non-statutory designated sites within 2 km...... 10 Figure 3.2: Phase 1 Habitat Survey ...... 14 Figure 3.3 Pond locations ...... 16

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page ii

REPORT Appendices Relevant Legislation Target Notes GCN HSI Assessment

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page iii 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and scope of this report

1.1.1 RPS was commissioned by Hobbledown Farm to undertake a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) of an area of land at Hobbledown Farm, Epsom, Surrey. 1.1.2 To undertake an initial assessment of the potential ecological impact of the proposals, a desk study, Phase 1 Habitat Survey, and a preliminary protected species assessment were carried out. This is termed as a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (PEAR) in accordance with CIEEM (2017). This assessment is considered ‘preliminary’ until any required protected species, habitat or invasive species surveys are completed, and the results incorporated into a final Ecological Appraisal or Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) which supports the planning application. 1.1.3 During the Phase 1 Habitat Survey, a great crested newt (GCN) Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment was undertaken on accessible ponds and a badger survey was undertaken. 1.1.4 The PEA aims to: • undertake a desk-based review of designated sites and records of protected species and other species that could present a constraint; • assess the site for potential to support protected species or other species that could present a constraint, and make appropriate recommendations for further survey work if necessary; • map and assess the habitats present on site; • Determine the potential value of waterbodies for GCN within 250 m of the site; • Identify any badger setts or signs of badger activity within the site boundary or up to 30 m from it; • provide outline options for mitigation measures as appropriate; and • make recommendations for appropriate biodiversity enhancements in line with national and local planning policy. 1.1.5 This report pertains to these results only; recommendations included within this report are the professional opinion of an experienced ecologist and therefore the view of RPS. The surveys and desk based assessments undertaken as part of this review and subsequent report including the Ecological Appraisal Notes are prepared in accordance with the British Standard for Biodiversity Code of Practice for Planning and Development (BS42020:2013). 1.2 Study area

1.2.1 The site is located within Hobbledown Farm, Epsom. The site is approximately 0.3 ha in size. The National Grid coordinates for the centre of the site are TQ 191622. 1.2.2 The site comprises short managed grassland, with an existing zipline in the east of the site, a hedgerow runs along the northern boundary and a woodland to the west. The site is surrounded by grazed pasture, livestock buildings and a childrens adventure playground. 1.2.3 The site location is shown on Figure 1.1. Aerial imaging available via Google Earth Pro was also reviewed to assess the site in relation to its context in the wider landscape. 1.3 Development proposals

1.3.1 The development proposals for the site are for the creation of a new water play area comprising formation of shallow water features and erection of play equipment and associated structures.

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 1 1.4 Legislation and policy

1.4.1 Relevant legislation, policy guidance and both Local and National Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) are referred to throughout this report where appropriate. Their context and application is explained in the relevant sections of this report. 1.4.2 The relevant articles of legislation are: • The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2019); • ODPM Circular 06/2005 (retained as Technical Guidance on NPPF 2019); • The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017; • The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); • The Protection of Badgers Act 1992; • The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; • The Hedgerow Regulations 1997; • The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; and • Biodiversity Action Plan 2020-2030. 1.4.3 A summary of legislation relevant to protected or other species identified as potential constraints in this report is provided in Appendix A.

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 2

Figure 1.1: Site location plan

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 3 © 2021 RPS Group Notes 1. This drawing has been prepared in accordance with the scope of RPS’s appointment with its client and is subject to the terms and ± conditions of that appointment. RPS accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. 2. If received electronically it is the recipients responsibility to print to correct scale. Only written dimensions should be used.

Legend Site Boundary

Rev Description By CB Date

20 Western Avenue, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 4SH T: +44(0)1235 821 888 E: [email protected]

Client Hobbledown Farm

Project Hobbledown

Title Site location plan

Status Drawn By PM/Checked By DRAFT BG SB Project Number Scale @ A3 Date Created ECO01598 1:2,500 MAR 2021

Figure Number Rev 1.1 -

0 50 100 m © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2021 License number 0100031673,10001998,100048492. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2021. rpsgroup.com O:\_ECOLOGY\B O:\_ECOLOGY\B HobbledownECO01598 Farm\Tech\Drawings\1598-0006-02.mxd

2 METHODS 2.1 Desk Study

2.1.1 Ecological records within a 2 km radius of the site were requested from Surrey Biodiversity Information Centre (SBIC) and Greenspace Information for Greater London (GIGL). A wider search area of 5 km from site was used to identify highly mobile species such as bats and otter. 2.1.2 Data requests were limited to records for protected species recorded within the last ten years and sites of nature conservation interest within 2 km of the site. This included a review of existing statutory sites of nature conservation interest, such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Area of Conservation (SACs) and National Nature Reserves (NNRs), and non-statutory sites, such as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) and Local Wildlife Sites (LWSs). 2.1.3 Locations of statutory designated sites were accessed via the government ‘MAGIC’ website (MagicMap, 2020). 2.1.4 A 1:25,000 OS map was used to identify nearby features such as ponds or green corridors that could provide habitat or connectivity to other areas. 2.2 Ecological Appraisal

2.2.1 The ecological appraisal consisted of two components: a Phase 1 Habitat Survey and a scoping survey for protected species and other species of conservation concern which could present a constraint to development. 2.2.2 The Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on 10th December 2020 by Sam Barker Grad CIEEM, an RPS Ecologist with four years’ experience of undertaking Phase 1 Habitat Surveys. 2.2.3 The Phase 1 Habitat Survey followed the standard methodology (JNCC, 2010), and as described in the Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Assessment (IEEM, 2012). In summary, this comprised walking over the survey area and recording the habitat types and boundary features present. 2.2.4 A protected species scoping survey was carried out in conjunction with the Phase 1 Habitat survey. The site was assessed for its suitability to support protected species, in particular great crested newts Triturus cristatus, reptiles, birds, badgers Meles meles, bats, and other species of conservation importance that could pose a planning constraint. 2.2.5 The surveyor looked for evidence of use including signs such as burrows, droppings, footprints, paths, hairs, refugia and particular habitat types known to be used by certain groups such as ponds. Any mammal paths were also noted down and where possible followed. Fence boundaries were walked to establish any entry points or animals signs such as latrines. Areas of bare earth were inspected for mammal prints. Areas of habitat considered suitable for protected species or those of conservation interest were recorded. 2.3 GCN Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Assessment

2.3.1 An HSI is a numerical index, between 0 and 1 where 0 indicates unsuitable habitat and 1 represents optimal habitat. The HSI methodology for GCN has been developed to assess the suitability of ponds for use as breeding sites. The assessments were made in accordance with the methodology set out in Advice Note 5 published by the Amphibian and Reptile Group UK (ARGUK, 2010). 2.3.2 The HSI incorporates ten suitability indices, all of which are factors thought to affect the likelihood of GCN presence. The ten indices are location, pond area, pond drying, water quality, shade, waterfowl, fish, other ponds within 1 km, terrestrial habitat and macrophyte cover. 2.3.3 Once the ponds within 250 m of the site were visited and assessed. A score was provided for each of the ten suitability indices.

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 4

2.4 Badger Survey

2.4.1 The badger survey was completed at the same time as the Phase 1 Habtiat Survey and included all areas within the project boundary and up to 30 m from the application boundary, specifically focusing on the field boundaries, woodland and hedgerows. 2.4.2 Badger surveys can be carried out at any time of year, as badgers do not hibernate. Winter surveys are often preferred as the vegetation levels are likely to be reduced, facilitating visibility of setts. However, levels of badger activity using other signs such as runs and foraging may be more easily understood when vegetation growth is present. This also tends to make it easier to understand how recent and how frequent such activity might be. 2.4.3 The survey sought to identify and record all signs of badger activity based primarily on field signs. Evidence of badger activity can be identified in the following ways. Setts

2.4.4 A sett is identified as “any structure or place, which displays signs indicating current use by a badger”. Natural England guidance (Natural England, 2009) regarding “current use” takes into account the fact that badgers may use setts on an occasional basis and therefore, suggests that signs of activity recorded within weeks of proposed works schedules, rather than months or days, should be taken as an indication of current use. Signs that could indicate the absence of badgers should also be surveyed for, such as absence of signs of activity or debris in sett entrance ways. 2.4.5 Setts are identified on the basis of their size, location and form. To establish relatively recent badger activity, and to confirm that the structure really is a sett, spoil heaps are inspected for badger hair or footprints. Activity is gauged by general demeanour, with fresh spoil and unobstructed holes. They are categorised as: • Well used: being clear of debris or vegetation or obviously in regular use and may or may not have been excavated recently. • Partially/occasionally used: not in regular use, with debris such as leaves and twigs in the entrance, or moss and/or other plants growing in or around the entrance. Partially used holes could be in regular use after a minimal amount of clearance. • Disused: not been in use for some time, with partially or completely blocked entrances which could not be re-used without a considerable amount of clearance effort. If the hole had been disused for some time, all that may be visible is a depression in the ground where the hole used to be and the remains of a spoil heap, which may be covered in moss or plants. 2.4.6 Setts are generally classified as one of four types: • Main: normally the focal point sett of a group of badgers. Generally, always occupied, main setts usually have several active holes with radiating tracks, latrines and other signs of activity. The actual number of holes can vary greatly, depending on social group size and soil conditions. • Annexe: a secondary sett, close to the main sett. Will normally be connected to the sett with very obvious tracks. Annexes may not be occupied constantly, even when the main sett is very active. • Subsidiary: occurring at a greater distance from the main sett and not as clearly linked to it as an annexe. These setts will fall clearly within the territory of a social group and may be seasonally used by badgers. • Outlier: less frequently used, these setts may be colonised by other species when not in use by badgers. Outliers may represent a temporary sett, or a habitation for migrating individuals, or those excluded from a social group.

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 5 Exploratory holes

2.4.7 A single entrance way excavation created by a badger, which was abandoned as it was for some reason considered unsuitable for occupation. The excavation is visibly short, and the end of the excavation is visible. Dung pits

2.4.8 The normal method of excretion for badgers is to defecate into a small scrape or pit, which is left uncovered. Latrines

2.4.9 Collective names for a series of dung pits within an area. These are used by badger social groups to demarcate their territory and may be used for other behavioural purposes. Latrines are therefore an important part of badger social life. Track

2.4.10 A main arterial route frequently used by badgers, which may be clearly visible over a considerable distance. Run

2.4.11 A less frequently used route, which may only be visible where it crosses some obstacle, such as a bank, a hedge or a fence. Badger hair can sometimes be collected along tracks where they have pushed under barbed wire fences. Foraging area

2.4.12 An area which shows signs of foraging activity. Most often occurs as some form of “snuffle holes” and rooting up of turf or ground cover and overturning of dried maure, when in search of earthworms. Other foraging evidence may appear as holes left from digging out wasp or bees’ nests, or in arable areas, “rolling” of cereal crops. Prints

2.4.13 Can be detected where badgers have crossed areas of bare ground and are easily distinguishable from other mammal prints. 2.5 Impact Appraisal

2.5.1 The overall ecological appraisal is based on the standard best practice methodology provided by the Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (CIEEM, 2017). The assessment identifies sites, habitats, species and other ecological features that are of value based on factors such as legal protection, statutory or local site designations such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) or inclusion on Red Data Book Lists or Biodiversity Action Plans. 2.5.2 The assessment also refers to planning policy guidance (e.g. NPPF) where relevant to relate the value of the site and potential impacts of development to the planning process, identifying constraints and opportunities for ecological enhancement in line with both national and local policy. 2.5.3 The methodology for evaluation of the nature conservation value of ecological features affected by development (ecological receptors) is adapted from the current Charted Institute of Ecology & Environmental Management guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (CIEEM, 2016). These guidelines recommend assignment of value (or potential value) to ecological receptors in accordance with the following scale:

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 6

1. International; 2. UK; 3. National (i.e. England/Northern 4. Ireland/Scotland/Wales); 5. Regional; 6. County (or Metropolitan - e.g. in London); 7. District (or Unitary Authority, City, or Borough); 8. Local or Parish; and/or 9. within immediate zone of influence only. 2.5.4 Following on from the above, potential constraints to development are identified on that basis, with recommendations for further, more detailed surveys made as appropriate, for example to fully investigate botanical value or to confirm presence / likely absence of a protected species 2.6 Limitations

Desk Based Assessment

2.6.1 The desk study data is third party controlled data, purchased for the purposes of this report only. RPS cannot vouch for its accuracy and cannot be held liable for any error(s) in these data. 2.6.2 No data was received from Greenspace Information for Greater London (GIGL). Survey……………

2.6.3 It should be noted that whilst every effort has been made to provide a comprehensive description of the site, no investigation can ensure the complete characterisation and prediction of the natural environment. 2.6.4 The protected/notable species assessment provides a preliminary view of the likelihood of these species occurring on the site, based on the suitability of the habitat, known distribution of the species in the local area provided in response to our enquiries and any direct evidence on the site. It should not be taken as providing a full and definitive survey of any protected/notable species group. 2.6.5 The Phase 1 Habitat Survey was carried out outside of the optimal survey season (April to October). Although the survey was carried out at a sub-optimal time of year, it is considered that sufficient information was obtained to enable an accurate assessment of the site to be carried out. Accurate Lifespan of Ecological Data

2.6.6 The majority of ecological data remain valid for only short periods due to the inherently transient nature of the subject. The survey results contained in this report are considered accurate for three years, assuming no significant considerable changes to the site conditions.

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 7

3 RESULTS 3.1 Designated Sites

3.1.1 There are 20 statutory designated sites for nature conservation value within 5 km of the site. The closest of these is Horton Country Park Local Nature Reserve (LNR), 0.09 km from the site. 3.1.2 Four non-statutory sites are located within the 2 km search radius of the site. The closest of these is Horton Country Park Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI), located 0.08 km from the site. 3.1.3 A summary of these sites is provided in Table 3.1 below and the location of each site is detailed in Figure 3.1. Table 3.1: Statutory designated sites within 5 km and non-statutory designated sites within 2 km of the study area

Site name Type Approx. Interest Features Distance area (ha) from site (km) Statutory Sites The Country Park has an assortment of distinctive 0.09 Horton Country LNR 152.32 habitats ranging from Ancient Woodland to open Park grassland and finally the various large and small ponds. The deer park had extended to Park Farm in the south, 1.04 and Bonesgate Stream to the west. Previously oak woodland, it was cleared of trees by the 19th century for Castle Hill LNR 3.48 fields and meadows. A small area of woodland near the earthwork was panted in the 19th century. Species include ancient woodland indicators Epsom and These two commons support a wide diversity of habitat 1.27 Ahstead SSSI 358 types and carries four nationally rare invertebrates that Commons are associated with dead wood (Rhizophagus oblonglcollis, Bibloporus minutus, Ctenophora bimaculate LNR 177.4 1.27 and Oedalea apicalis) and several others which are Ashstead 1.71 NNR 181 uncommon in Surrey. Common The combination of open grassy rides and woodland 1.32 Bonesgate Open LNR 5.07 copses provide habitat for a range of mammal, bird and Space insect species. The river is most noted as being home to kingfisher. The 1.66 combination of open grassy rides and woodland copses provide habitat for a range of mammal, bird and insect Hogsmill LNR 35.99 species. The scrub and woodland in particular is a haven for an abundance of bird life. More notable species found on the reserve include the firecrest, fieldfare and redwing. Stones Road Designated for having one of the largest colonies of great 2.07 SSSI 0.48 Pond crested newts in England. A mosaic of grazed and ungrazed pastures, hedgerows 2.34 Court and small copses. The fields are managed as hay LNR 40.18 Farm Fields meadows for wildlife. The hedge network is a genuine medieval relic, with several veteran oak pollards present. Planted to commemorate Queen Victoria’s Golden 2.37 Jubilee Wood LNR 2.24 Jubilee in 1887. Trees here include birch, pedunculate oak, ash, field maple, goat willow, wych elm and hazel. A wooded area which contains oak, hornbeam and 3.07 Claygate common LNR 14.1 beech. Brid species found at the site include kestrel, sparrowhawk and green woodpecker. is situated on heavy London clay and 3.23 contains characteristic vegetation, with mainly oak Ashtead Park LNR 24.18 woodland. Specimen redwood trees as American buckeye and Wellingtonia are also present.

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 8 Site name Type Approx. Interest Features Distance area (ha) from site (km) An urban fringe site with a variety of habitats including 4.15 woodland, grassland, scrub and a pond. Plant species of Stokes Field LNR 5.85 note include crab apple, cuckoo flower and pyramidal orchid. Southwood Open A linear park along the Hogsmill River. The site I mainly 4.24 LNR 12.91 Space grassland with hedgerows of elm scrub. Heathland, grassland, scrub, woodland, areas of marsh, 4.51 bog and open water present a rich variety of habitats supporting many species of plants and animals. In SSSI 358.3 particular, this site is famous as an important area for invertebrates. Over 2000 species of insects are known to have been found within the site, a great number of which are nationally scarce or rare. A site of abandoned allotments next to Tolworth Brook. 4.51 Edith Gardens LNR 0.44 The stream is of low wildlife value. There is a dense thicket of elms, oak, ash and sycamore. A linear open space along the western bank of the 4.75 Elmsbridge Open Hogsmill River and is a wild open space with a network of LNR 9.35 Space grass and surfaced paths. Many different bird species can be found including kingfisher. The Woods was a large Victorian house with a lake and 4.78 The Wood and mixed woodland in the grounds. A strong woodland bird Richard Jefferies LNR 1.46 community is represented including great spotted Bird Sanctuary woodpecker and tawny owl. Stag beetle are also present within the Ancient Woodland. Most of the site is grassland, which has a rich variety of 4.81 Hogsmill River LNR 0.58 wildlife, including locally unusual plants such as grass Park vetchling, devil’s-bit scabious and pepper saxifrage. A linear park along the Tolworth Brook. It has areas of 4.99 mown grass, unmanaged grassland, scrub and woods, Raeburn Open LNR 5 together with ancient hedgerows. Birds include hays, Space great spotted woodpeckers and kingfishers. Ringlet butterflies are also present. Non-statutory Sites Mosaic of habitats including ancient semi-natural 0.08 woodland and secondary woodland. One of the few Horton Country SNCI 107 places in Surrey which hasbreeding grasshopper warbler Park and also supports red-backed shrike. A good population of water vole is also present. The site is composed of grassland including an enclosed 0.44 Livingstone Park SNCI 10.7 meadow, areas of woodland and scrub, scattered trees including veteran oaks. Large mosaic of secondary native broadleaved woodland, 1.39 Epsom Common SNCI 55.5 scrub and rough unimproved mesotrophic and acid South grasslands. Forms a corridor of semi-natural vegetation including a 1.66 Hogsmill SNCI 47 mosaic of mesotrophic grassland, scrub and secondary woodland.

Abbreviations used in Table 3.1: SSSI: Site of Special Scientific Interest; NNR: National Nature Reserve; LNR: Local Nature Reserve; SNCI: Site of Nature Conservation Importance

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 9

Figure 3.1: Statutory designated sites within 5 km and non-statutory designated sites within 2km.

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 10 © 2020 RPS Group Raeburn Open Space Notes Elmbridge Open Space 1. This drawing has been prepared in accordance with the scope of The Wood and Edith Gardens RPS’s appointment with its client and is subject to the terms and ± conditions of that appointment. RPS accepts no liability for any use of this Richard Jefferies Nature Reserve document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. Bird Sanctuary Hogsmill River Park 2. If received electronically it is the recipients responsibility to print to correct scale. Only written dimensions should be used. Southwood Open Space Legend Stokes Field Tolworth Court Site Boundary Farm Fields 2km Search Buffer Bonesgate 5km Search Buffer Open Space Hogsmill Local Nature Reserve Site of Special Scientific Interest Hogsmill SNCI Ancient Woodland Castle Hill National Nature Reserves Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI)

Claygatem Common Horton Country Park

Horton Country Park SNCI Esher Commons

Jubilee Wood map not verified Stones Road Pond

Rev Description By CB Date

20 Western Avenue, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 4SH T: +44(0)1235 821 888 E: [email protected]

Client Hobbledown Farm Livingstone Park SNCI Project Hobbledown Statutory designated sites within Ashteadp Common Title 5 km and non-statutory designated sites within 2 km Status Drawn By PM/Checked By Epsom Common Epsom and -- DRAFT CR SB Ashtead Commons South SNCI Project Number Scale @ A3 Date Created ECO01598 1:42,000 DEC 2020

Epsom Common Figure Number Rev 3.1 - Ashtead Park

0 500 1,000 m © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2020 License number 0100031673,10001998,100048492. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2020. rpsgroup.com O:\_ECOLOGY\B O:\_ECOLOGY\B HobbledownECO01598 Farm\Tech\Drawings\1598-0004-01.mxd 3.2 Species

3.2.1 Records of protected species were obtained from SBIC. A number of species of conservation importance or otherwise notable were recorded within the 2 km search radius of the site and several highly mobile species were recorded within 5 km of the site. A summary of these records is provided in Table 3.2. 3.2.2 In order to simplify the results, only records of species from the last 10 years are shown. In addition, only data with a 6 figure grid reference resolution or higher have distances provided, since locations given at a lower resolution do not allow accurate calculation of distance to the site boundary. Table 3.2: Species records from the last 10 years within 2 km of the site

Common name Scientific name Nearest Year of Conservation Status distance from most recent site (km) record Flora Heather Calluna vulgaris 1.34 2012 NT Cornflower Centaurea cyanus 1.52 2010 NERC S41, UKBAP Chamomile Chamaemelum 1.47 2012 NERC S41, UKBAP, VU nobile Cross-leaved Erica tetralix 1.34 2012 NT heath Wild strawberry Fragaria vesca X 2010 NT Sea-buckthorn Hippophae X 2010 NS rhamnoides Bluebell Hyacinthoides 0.86 2012 WCA8 non-scripta Marsh Hydrocotyle 1.59 2012 NT pennywort vulgaris Bitter-vetch Lathyrus linifolius 1.75 2012 NT Welsh poppy Meconopsis 1.24 2012 NS cambrica Wood-sorrel Oxalis acetosella 1.38 2012 NT Annual beard- Polypogon 1.53 2012 NS grass monspeliensis Tormentil Potentilla erecta 1.26 2012 NT Lesser Ranunculus 1.26 2012 VU spearwort flammula Creeping willow Salix repens 1.34 2012 NT Sanicle Sanicula 1.75 2012 NT europaea Ragged-robin Silene flos-cuculi 1.26 2012 NT Devil’s-bit Succisa pratensis 1.75 2012 NT scabious Large-leaved Tilia platyphyllos 0.17 2013 NS lime Strawberry Trifolium X 2013 VU clover fragiferum subsp. fragiferum Heath Veronica 1.59 2012 NT speedwell officinalis Marsh Veronica 1.59 2012 NT speedwell scutellata

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 11 Common name Scientific name Nearest Year of Conservation Status distance from most recent site (km) record Invertebrate Purple emperor Apatura iris 0.90 2019 NT Small heath Coenonympha 1.38 2019 NERC S41, UKBAP, NT pamphilus White admiral Limenitis camilla 0.59 2019 NERC S41, UKBAP, VU Chalk hill blue Polyommatus 1.47 2017 NT coridon White-letter Satyrium w-album 0.28 2019 NERC S41, UKBAP, EN hairstreak Brown Thecla betulae 0.30 2019 NERC S41, UKBAP, VU hairstreak Birds Barn owl Tyto alba 1.16 2011 WCA1 Herpetofauna Smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris 0.48 2018 WCA5 Grass snake Natrix helvetica 1.19 2011 WCA5, NERC S41, UKBAP Common frog Rana temporaria 0.48 2018 WCA5 Great crested Triturus crstatus 1.24 2017 EPS, WCA5, NERC S41, newt UKBAP Adder Vipera berus 1.85 2014 WCA5, NERC S41, UKBAP Common lizard Zootoca vivipara 1.06 2011 WCA5, NERC S41, UKBAP Mammals (bats) Bat species Chiroptera sp. 3.12 2011 EPS, WCA5 Serotine Eptesicus 1.02 2019 EPS, WCA5 serotinus Myotis bat Myotis sp. 3.65 2017 EPS, WCA5, NERC S41, UKBAP Lesser noctule Nyctalus leisleri 3.65 2018 EPS, WCA5 Noctule Nyctalus noctula 1.02 2019 EPS, WCA5, NERC S41, UKBAP Pipistrelle bat Pipistrellus sp. 1.16 2019 EPS, WCA5, NERC S41, UKBAP Nathusius’s Pipistrellus 3.65 2018 EPS, WCA5 pipistrelle nathusii Common Pipistrellus 1.02 2019 EPS, WCA5 pipistrelle pipistrellus Soprano Pipistrellus 1.02 2019 EPS, WCA5, NERC S41, pipistrelle pygmaeus UKBAP Long-eared bat Plecotus sp. 1.00 2010 EPS, WCA5, NERC S41, UKBAP Brown long- Plecotus auritus 3.65 2019 EPS, WCA5, NERC S41, eared bat UKBAP Mammals (Other) West European Erinaceus 1.63 2016 NERC S41, UKBAP hedgehog europaeus Hazel dormouse Muscardinus 0.45 2014 EPS, WCA5, NERC S41, avellanarius UKBAP

Abbreviations used in Table 3.2: EPS: European Protected Species; WCA1: Wildlife & Countryside Act Schedule 1, part 1; WCA5: Wildlife & Countryside Act Schedule 5; WCA8: Wildlife & Countryside Act Schedule 8; NS: Nationally Scarce; NERC

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 12

S41: Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act Species of Principal Importance; UKBAP: UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species; NT: Global Red list status: Near Threatened; VU: Global Red list status: Vulnerable. 3.3 Phase 1 Habitat Survey

3.3.1 The survey results are presented in the form of a map with the habitat types and boundary features marked (Figure 3.2). An explanation of target notes from Figure 3.2 can be found in Appendix B. 3.3.2 Descriptions of the habitat types and boundary features are detailed below. Habitat descriptions are defined by broad habitat types (JNCC, 2010). A3.1 Scattered broadleaved trees

3.3.3 To the south of the zipwire, young cherry Prunus avium, alder Alnus glutinosa and lime trees Tilia sp. had been planted within the grassland field (TN1). J1.2 Amenity grassland

3.3.4 The site predominantly consisted a short managed grassland sward. Species that dominated the grassland included annual meadow grass and perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne. Other species within the grassland included ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata, white dead-nettle Lamium album, creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens and dandelion Taraxacum sp. J2.1.1 Native intact species-rich hedge

3.3.5 A single hedgerow was identified running along the northern boundary of the site (TN2), with a wire and post fence surrounding it. The hedgerow was up to 2.5 m high in places and comprised elm Ulmus procera, rowan Sorbus aucuparia, blackthorn Prunus spinosa, hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, field maple Acer campestre and ash Fraxinus excelsior. Bramble Rubus fruticosus and ivy Hedera helix were also present within the hedge. J2.4 Fence

3.3.6 A wire and post fence surrounded the hedgerow present along the northern boundary of the site. J4 Bare ground

3.3.1 In the east of the site, a zipwire was present, the ground of the zipwire comprised mulched bark (TN3). 3.3.2 To the east of the zipwire was a bare earth footpath that ran north to south along the length of the site (TN4).

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 13

Figure 3.2: Phase 1 Habitat Survey

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 14 © 2021 RPS Group Notes 1. This drawing has been prepared in accordance with the scope of RPS’s appointment with its client and is subject to the terms and ± conditions of that appointment. RPS accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. 2. If received electronically it is the recipients responsibility to print to correct scale. Only written dimensions should be used.

Legend Site Boundary AAA Amentiy grassland !! !!AAA!! Bare ground !! !!VVVV !! Intact hedge - native species-rich AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAV !! VVVVV ||||||| Fence ||||| VVVV |||||||| VVVV AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA|||||||| VVVV ! |||||||| VVVV Scattered tree - broadleaved |||||||| VVVV AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA|||||||| VVVV |||||||| VVVV |||||||| VVVV Target Note |||||||| VVVV AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA|||||||| VVV |||||||| VVVVV ||||||||| VVVV AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA||||||||| VVVV |||||||| VVVVV |||||||| VVVV 2 |||||||| VVVV AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA|||||||| VVVV ||||||||| VVVVV |||||||| VVVV AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA||||||||| VVVV |||||||| VVVV ||||||||| VVVV |||||||| VVVV AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA|||||||| VVVV |||||||| VVVV |||||||| VVVV |||||||| VVVV AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA|||||||| VVVVV !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!|||||| |||||||||| AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!3 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rev Description By CB Date AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 4 20 Western Avenue, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 4SH AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! ! !!!!!!! T: +44(0)1235 821 888 E: [email protected] AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Client Hobbledown Farm AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! Project Hobbledown AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! Title Phase 1 Habitat Survey

Status Drawn By PM/Checked By DRAFT BG SB Project Number Scale @ A3 Date Created ECO01598 1:300 APR 2021

Figure Number Rev 3.2 -

0 5 10 m © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2021 License number 0100031673,10001998,100048492. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2021. rpsgroup.com O:\_ECOLOGY\B O:\_ECOLOGY\B HobbledownECO01598 Farm\Tech\Drawings\1598-0002-03.mxd 3.4 GCN Habitat Suitability

3.4.1 A total of eight ponds or waterbodies were identified within 250 m of the site, four of these waterbodies were within the wider Hobbledown Farm land ownership boundary. The other four ponds were all identified as being on other landowners property with no access granted at the time of survey. 3.4.2 Out of the four ponds accessed, Pond 1 was identified as providing Average potential to support breeding GCN. 3.4.3 Ponds 2, 3 and 4 were identified as having Poor suitability to support breeding GCN . 3.4.4 The full set of results can be found in Appendix C. The locations of all ponds surveyed are shown on Figure 3.3. 3.5 Badger Survey

3.1 There were no setts identified on site or within 30 m of the site boundary. 3.2 No other evidence of badger activity was identified on site or within 30 m of the site boundary.

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 15 Figure 3.3 Pond locations

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 16 © 2021 RPS Group Notes 1. This drawing has been prepared in accordance with the scope of RPS’s appointment with its client and is subject to the terms and ± conditions of that appointment. RPS accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. 2. If received electronically it is the recipients responsibility to print to correct scale. Only written dimensions should be used.

Legend Site Boundary 250m Buffer Surface Water

Pond 2 Pond 3 Pond 1

Pond 4

Rev Description By CB Date

20 Western Avenue, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 4SH T: +44(0)1235 821 888 E: [email protected]

Client Hobbledown Farm

Project Hobbledown

Title Pond Locations

Status Drawn By PM/Checked By DRAFT BG SB Project Number Scale @ A3 Date Created ECO01598 1:2,500 MAR 2021

Figure Number Rev 3.3 -

0 55 110 m © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2021 License number 0100031673,10001998,100048492. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2021. rpsgroup.com O:\_ECOLOGY\B O:\_ECOLOGY\B HobbledownECO01598 Farm\Tech\Drawings\1598-0005-02.mxd

3.6 Ecological Scoping Survey

Plants…..

3.6.1 The site was identified as predominantly amenity grassland comprised of common and widespread flora species. No rare or notable species were identified during the survey. Invertebrates

3.6.2 The hedgerow and grassland provide suitable habitat for a range of common and widespread invertebrates. 3.6.3 The proximity of ponds and a small area of woodland to the east were regularly disturbed by people and livestock and relatively isolated from larger areas of suitable habitat to support any notable species. Amphibians and reptiles

3.6.4 The hedgerow along the northern site boundary provided some suitable habitat for sheltering reptiles and amphibians. The grassland was kept short and regularly managed and provides little potential for amphibians or reptiles. 3.6.5 There were eight ponds within 250 m of the site boundary, the closest of these was approximately 30 m east of the site. Four of these ponds were able to be assessed for their suitability to support GCN. 3.6.6 One of the ponds was identified as having Average potential to support GCN, the other three ponds were identified as having Poor potential to support GCN. The remaining ponds were not accessible at the time of survey. Birds…….

3.6.7 The hedgerow and trees on site have the potential to support widespread and common bird species. Bats…………………….

3.6.8 All the trees on site were young, recently planted trees with no potential to support roosting bats. 3.6.9 The hedgerow along the northern boundary provided suitable commuting habitat for bats. The hedgerow was in close proximity to a small wooded copse in the west as well as being a short distance from further hedgerows that led to suitable foraging and commuting habitat further out in the wider landscape. Dormouse…………………….

3.6.10 Dormouse have been recorded approximately 500 m west of the site. The hedgerow along the northern boundary provides suitable but isolated habitat for dormice. Badgers

3.6.11 No signs of badger were identified on site. The site provides suitable foraging habitat should badgers be in the local area.

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 17

4 EVALUATION AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

4.1 Designated sites

4.1.1 Horton Country Park SNCI is located approximately 80 m north of the development site and Horton Country Park LNR approximately 90 m north west of the site. Due to the small size of the development there is little to no potential for the development to impact on the upon these designated sites. 4.1.2 Good practice guidelines would be adhered to during the construction phase. 4.1.3 Due to the scale of the proposals, it is considered that there will be no significant impact to the remaining statutory and non-statutory designated sites and therefore no mitigation measures would be required, 4.2 Habitats

4.2.1 The habitats present on site were common and widespread. 4.2.2 Table 4.1 below summarises the habitat types within the site and outlines the potential impacts of the development proposals to each of these habitats. Table 4.1: Summary of potential habitat impacts

JNCC Code Habitat Type Ecological Potential impact Importance A3.1 Scattered Low If trees are removed there is the potential broadleaved trees that they support breeding birds. J1.2 Amenity grassland Low If badgers are in the wider area the grassland provides suitable foraging habitat for badgers that could be lost. J2.1.1 Native intact Moderate Hedgerow to be retained, hedgerow has the specie-rich hedge potential to support breeding birds, suitable reptile and amphibian terrestrial habitat and foraging and commuting bats. J2.4 Fence Low N/A J4 Bare ground Low N/A

4.3 Species

Plants…..

4.3.1 The Phase 1 Habitat Survey identified that the site was comprised common and widespread flora species. Even though the survey was undertaken outside of the optimal survey season, it is deemed that the Phase 1 Habitat Survey is sufficient and no further botanical survey is required. Invertebrates…..

4.3.1 Three NERC Section 41 species of principal importance, White admiral, white letter hairstreak and brown hairstreak, have been recorded within 600 m of the site. These species predominantly live in woodland edge habitats with large elm trees and abundant food sources. 4.3.2 Although the hedgerow has elm and bramble within it, it is regularly managed and reasonably isolated from wider areas of suitable habitat. As such no further invertebrate surveys are recommended.

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 18 Reptiles

4.3.3 The base of the hedgerow provides suitable shelter for reptiles but should not be affected. The grassland that will be affected is considered poor reptile habitat with limited foraging potential. It is recommended that there is no further requirement for reptile surveys. Amphibians…..

4.3.4 The site overall has low potential to support amphibians but the hedgerow provides suitable terrestrial amphibian habitat and is well connected to the three waterbodies within 250 m to the east of the site boundary and three of the waterbodies to the south of the site. The hedgerow is not going to be affected. 4.3.5 The HSI indicated that the majority of the waterbodies that were able to be accessed, within 250 m of the site, had Poor suitability to support GCN. However, the pond closest to the site was identified as having Average potential to support GCN. 4.3.6 It is recommended that further GCN eDNA surveys are carried out on the pond closest to the site. Birds

4.3.7 The young trees in the south of the site and the hedgerow in the north of the site had the potential to support breeding birds. Mitigation measures would be required if there was a need to remove any of the trees, the hedgerow on site will not be affected. Bats

4.3.8 There would likely be very little impact on bats using the site for commuting and foraging as the hedgerow is to be retained. No lighting is to be incorporated into the plans for the area. Overall there would be a negligible impact on bats. Dormouse…..

4.3.10 No suitable dormouse habitat is to be affected therefore no further surveys are required.

Badgers….. 4.3.11 No signs of badger were recorded during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey and the propsals would not have an impact on any badger setts. No further badger surveys are required.

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 19 5 MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT

5.1 Habitats

5.1.1 Several young trees may need to be removed. 5.1.2 As many trees, and the hedgerow should be retained within the development. 5.1.3 If any trees are needing to be removed, this should be undertaken between October and February so that it is removed outside of the breeding bird season 5.2 Species

Amphibians

5.2.1 As the development proposals includes the creation of a new water play area it is recommended that a GCN eDNA survey is initially undertaken on the pond closest to the site (Pond 1) to determine presence or likely absence of GCN. 5.2.2 However as there is no standing water, the application site presents little scope as a potential to habitat for GCN. Birds……

5.2.3 The hedgerow and trees within the site have the potential to support nesting birds. Several trees may need to be removed, this should take place outside of the main nesting season (February to August) where possible. Where this is not possible vegetation should be checked first by a suitably qualified ecologist to ensure no active nests are present. Any active nests would be left in place along with a 5 m buffer around the nest until the young had fledged. 5.2.4 Any lost habitat should be replaced where possible with similar vegetation and suitable bird boxes. 5.3 Enhancement opportunities

5.3.1 In addition to the mitigation measures outlined above, opportunities for enhancements include the provision of suitable bird boxes within the site.

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 20 6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1.1 The PEA desk study identified 20 statutory designated sites within 5 km of the site. The closest of these being Horton Country Park LNR, approximately 0.09 km from site. 6.1.2 The desk study identified four non-statutory designated sites within 2 km of the site. The closest non-statutory designated site was Horton Country Park SNCI approximately 0.08 km from site. 6.1.3 There would be no impact on any of the statutory or non-statutory designated sites as a result of the proposals, and good practice guidance would be adhered to during the clearance and construction phases of the development. 6.1.4 The desk study search for protected and notable species within 2 km of the site identified 22 plant species, six invertebrate, one bird, six amphibian and reptiles and two mammal species. At least seven species of bat were identified within 5 km of the site however other records of bats not identified to species level were also provided which could account for more species. 6.1.5 The Phase 1 Habitat Survey identified that the site was predominantly an amenity grassland field. A native species-rich hedgerow was present along the northern boundary and some young trees were present in the south of the site. A bark based zipwire and bare ground footpath were present in the east of the site. 6.1.1 The habitats on site provide some potential to support protected and notable species including, birds, foraging and commuting bats, badgers and suitable terrestrial amphibian habitat. 6.1.2 A total of eight ponds were identified within 250 m of the site boundary, four of these were present within Hobbledown Farm and four were off site with no access to them. A GCN HSI survey of the four ponds on site identified that one pond, approximately 30 m east of the site, provided Average suitability for GCN. The other three ponds were all assessed as providing Poor suitability for GCN. 6.1.3 No evidence of badgers or their setts were recorded within the site or 30 m from the application boundary. 6.1.4 It is recommended that a GCN eDNA survey is undertaken on the pond that was identified as being of Average potential to support GCN, as the proposals for the site include the creation of a new waterbody. 6.1.5 No other protected species surveys are recommended but mitigation and enhancement measures have been suggested. 6.1.6 Mitigation measures include, timing of vegetation removal to avoid the nesting bird season and as many trees as possible. 6.1.7 Enhancement measures could include providing bird boxes within the site.

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 21

REFERENCES

ARG UK (2010). ARG UK Advice Note 5: Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index. Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the UK. CIEEM (2016). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester. CIEEM (2017). Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Assessment. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester. Eaton M. A., Aebischer, N., Brown A., Hearn R., Lock L., Musgrove A., Noble D., Stroud D. & Gregory R. D. (2015). Birds of Conservation Concern 4: The population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108, 708-746. English Nature (2001). Great Crested Newt mitigation guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough. HMSO (1992). The Protection of Badgers Act 1992. HMSO, London. HMSO (2017). The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. HMSO, London. HMSO (1981). The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). HMS), London. ILP (2018). Bats and artificial lighting in the UK. Institute of Lighting Professionals, Rugby, Warwickshire. JNCC (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat survey: a technique for environmental audit (revised reprint). Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. MAGIC (2020). Statutory Designated Site and Ordnance Survey map information. Available from www.magic.gov.uk [Accessed, December 2020]. The Mammal Society (1989). Surveying Badgers. The Mammal Society, London. Natural England (2009). Guidance on ‘Current Use’ in the definition of a Badger Sett, WMLG17. Natural England, Peterborough.

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com Page 22

APPENDICES

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com

Relevant Legislation

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com

GREAT CRESTED NEWTS

Great Created Newts Triturus cristatus are listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and as amended), which affords the species protection under Section 9. The species is also listed on Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. In combination, this makes it an offence to: • intentionally kill, injure or take (capture etc.) a Great Crested Newt; • possess a Great Crested Newt; • intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy, obstruct access to any structure or place used by Great Crested Newt for shelter or protection, or disturb any animal occupying such a structure or place; and sell, offer for sale, possess or transport for the purpose of sale (live or dead animal, part or derivative) or advertise for buying or selling such things. Great Crested Newts are also listed on the UKBAP as a Priority Species and are listed as a species of principal importance for biodiversity in England & Wales under Section 41 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act (2006). BIRDS

All birds, their nests and eggs are afforded protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as updated by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. It is an offence to: • intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird; • intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built; and • intentionally take or destroy the egg of any wild bird. Schedule 1 birds cannot be intentionally or recklessly disturbed when nesting and there are increased penalties for doing so. Licences can be issued to visit the nests of such birds for conservation, scientific or photographic purposes but not to allow disturbance during a development even in circumstances where that development is fully authorised by consents such as a valid planning permission. BATS

All British bat species are fully protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as updated by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. All British bats are also included on Schedule 2 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as European Protected Species. It is an offence to: • intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or capture bats; • deliberately or recklessly disturb bats (whether in a roost or not); and • damage, destroy or obstruct access to bat roosts A roost is defined as 'any structure or place which [a bat] uses for shelter or protection'. As bats tend to reuse the same roosts, legal opinion is that a roost is protected whether or not bats are present at the time of survey. A licence will therefore be required by those who carry out any operation that would otherwise result in offences being committed. The following bat species are listed as being of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England, (commonly referred to as UKBAP Priority species): Barbastelle, Bechstein’s, Noctule, Soprano Pipistrelle, Brown Long-eared, Greater Horseshoe, and Lesser Horseshoe.

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com

BADGER

Badgers are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. This act is based on the need to protect badgers from baiting and deliberate harm or injury. The act makes it an offence to: • Wilfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger, or attempt to do so; • Intentionally or recklessly interfere with a sett. Sett interference includes disturbing badgers whilst they are occupying a sett, as well as damaging or destroying a sett or obstructing access routes. A sett is defined as “any structure or place that displays signs indicating current use by a badger”. DORMOUSE

Hazel Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius is fully protected under Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The Regulations prohibit: • Intentionally, recklessly or deliberately kill, injure or take a Dormouse; • The deliberate disturbance of this species in such a way as to be significantly likely to affect: − Their ability of to survive, hibernate, migrate, breed, or rear or nurture their young; or; − The local distribution or abundance of Dormice. • Damage or destruction of a breeding site or resting place (nest); • The possession or transport of Dormice or any other part of. Dormice are also protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) through their inclusion in Schedule 5. Under the Act, they are protected from: • Intentional or reckless disturbance (at any level); • Obstruction of access to any place of shelter, breeding or rest; • Selling, bartering or exchange of these species, or parts of. Offences can be deliberate, intentional or reckless and penalties for any of the above include fines of up to £5k and imprisonment of up to 6 months, per animal affected. Dormice are also listed on Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 as a Species of Principal Importance; national objectives & targets include the maintenance of the geographical range and viability of existing Dormice populations to ensure that it remains in favourable conservation status.

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com

Target Notes

Target Note No. Description 1 Young cherry, lime and alder trees in the south of the site that has the potential to support breeding birds. 2 A species rich hedgerow with the potential to support breeding birds, foraging and commuting bats and provides suitable amphibian terrestrial habitat. 3 A zipwire with a bark mulch base. 4 A bare earth footpath that runs the length of the eastern side of site.

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com

GCN HSI Assessment

Geographic Zone A/B/C A A A A SI value: 1 1 1 1

Pond Area Shape rectangle/circle/ellipse/irregular ellipse ellipse ellipse circle Long axis of rectangular or elliptical pond (m) 15 30 25 Short axis of rectangular or elliptical pond (m) 5 5 10 Circumference of circular pond (m) 40 Estimate of irregular area (m2) SI value: 0.12 0.24 0.39 0.25

Dessication Rate never/rarely/sometimes/frequently OR, years dry per decade (if known) rarely rarely never never SI value: 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90

Water Quality good/moderate/poor/bad moderate poor poor poor SI value: 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.33

Shade % of margin shaded 1m from bank 30 0 50 80 SI value: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60

Number of Waterfowl Number of waterfowl (per 1000m2) 0 0 10 0 SI value: 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00

Fish Population absent/possible/minor/major possible absent possible absent SI value: 0.67 1.00 0.67 1.00

Pond Density Number of ponds within 1km 14 14 14 14 SI value: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Terrestrial Habitat Quality good/moderate/poor/isolated poor isolated moderate isolated SI value: 0.33 0.01 0.67 0.01

Macrophyte Cover % macrophyte cover 40 20 10 0 SI value: 0.71 0.51 0.41 0.31

HSI Pond suitability <0.5 Poor 0.5 - 0.59 Below average HSI = 0.64 0.46 0.43 0.41 0.6 - 0.69 Average 0.7 - 0.79 Good >0.8 Excellent

ECO01598 | Hobbledown Farm | Final | April 2021 rpsgroup.com