Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Riplingham Quarry Extension
November 2020
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Project Title: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension Report Title: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Project No: 201926 Report Status: Final Client: Stoneledge Plant and Transport Limited Issued By: Wright Environment Limited
Document Revision Record Issue No Date Outline of Revision
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal 201926 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, November 2020 Riplingham Quarry Extension
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
LIMITATION
Wright Environment Limited has prepared this Report for the sole use of the Client Stoneledge Plant and Transport Limited in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were undertaken. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by us. This Report may not be relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of Wright Environment Limited. Unless otherwise stated in this Report, the assessments made assume that the sites and facilities will continue to be used for their current purpose without significant change. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report may be based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested and that where Wright Environment Limited has requested information from third parties, that the information supplied is complete and accurate in all material respects. Information obtained from third parties has not been independently verified by Wright Environment Limited, and no site visit has been made, unless otherwise stated in the Report. Permission to use certain data provided by record holders such as the ecological data Centre may expire after 12 months and must be removed from computers after this time. The intellectual copyright of the data may remain with the original collector/observer.
The principal aim of this Preliminary Ecological Appraisal was to classify the major habitats present on site based on the dominant plant species and vegetation types visible at the time of the survey. Distinction of the nutrient status of grasslands (unimproved/semi-improved/improved), species diversity and habitat quality can be difficult when grasslands are closely cropped/mown or when surveys are undertaken outside of optimal seasons.
Confidential: This document may contain information relating to the locations of protected species which could be subject to interference or persecution. This document should not therefore be released into the public domain without the agreement of WEL, who reserve the right to amend pertinent sections of the report.
COPYRIGHT
© This Report is the copyright of Wright Environment Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal 201926 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, November 2020 Riplingham Quarry Extension
CONTENTS
Section Page No
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
1.1. General Introduction ...... 1 1.2. Purpose of the Report ...... 1 1.3. Site Description and Survey Area ...... 2 1.4. Outline of The Proposed Development ...... 3 1.5. Surveyors Experience ...... 4
2. METHODOLOGY ...... 6
2.1. Desk Study ...... 6 2.2. Field Survey ...... 7 2.3. Assessment and Evaluation ...... 12 2.4. Survey Constraints ...... 13
3. ECOLOGICAL RECORDS AND DESK BASED ASSESSMENT ...... 15
3.1. Desk Study Findings ...... 15 3.1.1. Statutory Designated Sites ...... 15 3.1.2. Locally Designated and Non-Statutory Designated Sites ...... 15 3.1.3. Priority Habitat Inventory Habitats ...... 16 3.1.4. Protected / Notable Species ...... 17
4. FIELD SURVEY ...... 21
4.1. Habitat Description ...... 21 4.2. Protected / Notable Faunal Species ...... 23
5. CONSIDERATION OF ECOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... 27
5.1. Potential Ecological Constraints ...... 27 5.2. Mitigation by Design ...... 32 5.3. Recommendations ...... 33
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Data from Ecological Records Centre
Appendix C Photographs
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. General Introduction
Wright Environment Limited (WEL) was commissioned to undertake a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) of an area of land within the existing Riplingham chalk quarry in the East Riding of Yorkshire being considered for expansion of the quarrying activities.
Riplingham Quarry is managed by Stoneledge Plant and Transport Ltd for the extraction of chalk and has operated for a substantial period. The extension to the quarry will involve extraction of chalk from the easternmost corner of the quarry site, an area previously used for the storage of topsoil and overburden from the existing quarry operations and, under Environment Agency (EA) permit, for the temporary storage of materials from off-site locations.
We understand that Pegasus Planning is currently preparing a full planning application for the proposed extension, with preparatory work including an EIA screening exercise which confirmed that EIA was not required as the extension was simply a continuation of current activities as the quarry progressed into the next phase.
The full planning application will be supported by a number of technical assessments and a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) was requested to support the planning application.
The PEA comprised a habitat survey of the Application Site and an assessment of the potential for protected species and faunal species of conservation significance (i.e. Species of Principal Importance / UKBAP Priority Species) to be present. The PEA aimed to identify potential ecological constraints to the Proposed Development and opportunities for biodiversity enhancement.
1.2. Purpose of the Report
This report documents the assessment process followed for this PEA, and the findings. The objectives of the PEA were to:
• Assess the ecological baseline of the Application Site by identifying the habitat types using the standard Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology and identifying features of ecological value. • Review desk based sources of data to inform the ecological baseline. • Identify key ecological features and potential ecological constraints to the Proposed Development within the Application Site. • Identify and assess potential ecological impacts of the Proposed Development. • Assess the need for further ecological surveys and assessment e.g. for protected species. • Identify potential opportunities for ecological enhancement as part of the Proposed Development.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 1 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
1.3. Site Description and Survey Area
The Application Site comprised a relatively small field in the easternmost corner of the quarry site and the existing site access track for the quarry property which extended from the main road into the quarry as shown in Figure 1, Appendix A.
The field had been previously used for the temporary storage of overburden from quarrying activities and for the temporary storage of materials from off-site locations stored under EA permit. The ground surface had been significantly disturbed as a result although some vegetation remained around the edges and on some stockpiles. The access track was lined by deciduous trees (mainly ash and sycamore) of various ages with some ground flora and occasional small spoil mounds at the edges.
The land to the immediate north and west of the field part of the Application Site was a working quarry extracting chalk from a number of areas and at the time of the site visit extensive quarry workings and temporary haul roads etc. were visible. A deciduous woodland belt of mainly sycamore trees extended along the eastern boundary of the field on the opposite side of a fence.
The existing Riplingham quarry extended over a former railway line and into a railway cutting between two railway tunnel entrances. The western entrance opens into a tunnel known as Weedley tunnel on Ordnance Survey maps, and the easternmost entrance to Drewton tunnel. Weedley tunnel is short tunnel of approximately 120m, whereas the Drewton tunnel extends eastwards for almost 2km. The entrance to Drewton tunnel was approximately 250m1 to the west of the Application Site, with the area between the two having been quarried previously to just a few metres above the tunnel roof.
The existing Riplingham quarry was set within a rural landscape of arable fields bordered by hedgerows, several mixed deciduous and coniferous woodlands within and between dales, intersected by numerous minor roads. The quarry was within Weedley Dale, a gently undulating valley with relatively steep slopes and with a broadly south west to north east orientation.
1 Measurements taken from https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 2 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
1.4. Outline of The Proposed Development
The planning application to be submitted for the extension of the quarry into the Application Site will be for the following activities which comprise the Proposed Development:
• Extraction of chalk and other bulk aggregates to a depth similar to the existing adjacent extraction, removing chalk from three working shelves over a minimum period of 20 years.
• Haulage of chalk and bulk aggregate along the existing access track from the field to be quarried. This track is included within the Application Site.
• Backfilling of the quarry void using imported inert material and overburden to reinstate the original levels over a minimum period of 3 years.
• Restoration of the site to form a number of locally appropriate habitats including calcareous grassland, areas of woodland, tree and hedgerows. Native species only will be used in the creation of these habitats.
The extraction of aggregates will be undertaken using the methodologies used throughout the operation of the existing, surrounding quarry, and will comprise the use of, typically, a 20 tonne Kamatsu 210 excavator to remove the upper 25m of material, with a larger 38 tonne Volvo excavator used to remove the deeper materials. The extracted material will then be crushed and loaded onto trucks for transport from the site along the existing access track.
We understand that the operation will be undertaken over a considerable period of time, possibly over a period of 20 years, with activity levels dictated by the market requirements. The extraction will be undertaken in layers (or shelves) to a final depth similar to the existing quarry (approximately similar to the level of the former railway line) and will create a sloping quarry face angle along the southern field edge through the use of a batter or benched extraction in order to create a stable working quarry face along this boundary and to protect the access track and nearby Drewton tunnel. The extraction profile is illustrated on Figure 2, Appendix A.
In addition to the stable face angle, an additional area of 10m x 10m will be retained at the closest point of the proposed quarry extension to Drewton tunnel.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 3 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
1.5. Surveyors Experience
This assessment has been undertaken by Mr Chris Wright B.Sc., M.Sc (Ecology), with the field survey work completed by Dr Rebecca Morris (B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D).
Chris Wright Chris graduated as an ecologist in 1990 and has almost 30 years experience in environmental consultancy as a field surveyor, technical reviewer and team leader. Chris holds Natural England licenses for work with bats and great crested newts2, is a Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) trained EcIA practitioner and has attended, and passed, the Barn Owl Trust foundation and advanced training courses3.
Chris has undertaken numerous habitat surveys and protected species surveys for commercial, residential and infrastructure developments as well as for conservation monitoring purposes and has surveyed built and natural features to identify habitat types and condition, and to determine the potential for Protected Species and Species of Principal Importance / UK BAP Species. Chris has also assessed the implications of development proposals for European and Nationally Designated Sites (SPA, SAC and SSSI etc), Local Wildlife Sites, wildlife habitats and wildlife corridors.
Protected species work undertaken by Chris has included numerous surveys of bat roosts and bat foraging and commuting habitats, great crested newt, badger, riparian mammal, reptile and barn owl surveys. Chris has provided mitigation advice for a range of species and habitats including to inform European Protected Species Mitigation Licence work for Greater horseshoe, Lesser horseshoe, Brown Long-eared, Natterer’s, Common Pipistrelle and Soprano Pipistrelle bats.
In addition to professional ecology work, Chris has undertaken voluntary conservation work to monitor a great crested newt population for Chytrid, reptile and amphibian surveys for Leeds City Council, adder survey for Nidderdale AONB, and otter surveys for the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust. Chris is also a member of both the West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire Bat Groups and the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust.
Dr Rebecca Morris
Rebecca is a Member of the Botanical Society of the British Isles and Full member of the Chartered Institution for Environmental and Ecological Management (MCIEEM) with 15 years experience in field ecology, protected species mitigation, data analysis, laboratory analysis and agro-ecological field trial management. She has worked extensively on extended Phase 1 habitat surveys, National Vegetation Classification (N.V.C) system surveys, and the development of Geostatistical Vegetation Monitoring and has completed extensive vegetation surveys of grasslands, upland meadows, aquatic environments,
2 Class survey Licence WML A34 CL18 – Bat Survey Level 2: Registration 2017-27400-CLS-CLS and CL08 – Great Crested Newt Level 1: Registration 2016-19624-CLS-CLS. 3 “Barn Owl Ecology, Surveys and Signs” and “Advanced Barn Owl Surveying and Mitigation” courses run by the Barn Owl Trust in Devon.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 4 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
woodland, fen and sand dune vegetation systems. She routinely surveys Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
Rebecca also has survey experience working with bats, great crested newt, white-clawed crayfish, water voles, otter and Japanese knotweed and has a protected species licence for great crested newts. She has completed surveys and subsequent mitigation for this species as well as for reptiles and badger.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 5 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. Desk Study
An ecological desk study was undertaken as part of this assessment to collect existing ecological information of relevance to the Application Site and its vicinity. Data was collected for a search buffer considered sufficient to cover the potential Zone of Influence of the Proposed Development.
The following sources of information were consulted:
• North and East Yorkshire Ecological Data Centre (NEYEDC) - to request information on local wildlife sites, protected species and habitats on the site and in the area surrounding the site (2km search radius from centre of the site).
• The Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website (www.magic.defra.gov.uk) was searched to identify the presence of statutory internationally designated sites, including Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation, within 10km of the site, nationally designated sites such as Sites of Sites of Special Scientific Interest within 5km of the site, and local sites such as Local Wildlife Sites (LWS), as well as Granted European Protected Species Applications within 2km.
• Records previously provided to Stoneledge Plant and Transport Ltd by the East Yorkshire Bat Group (EYBG).
• Publically available aerial photographs (i.e. www.google.co.uk/maps) and OS based maps (i.e. MAGIC) were used to identify habitat features in the wider landscape and assess the ecological connectivity of the site to these features.
• The East Riding of Yorkshire Biodiversity Action Plan Strategy. Version 1.0 October 2010. East Riding of Yorkshire Council.
• Riplingham Quarry Extension, East Riding of Yorkshire. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. P17-1222.003. October 2020. Pegasus Group.
• Section, Riplingham Quarry Extension. P17-1222.101. 20 October 2020. Pegasus Environment.
• Landscape Masterplan, Riplingham Quarry Extension. P17-1222.100. 20 October 2020. Pegasus Environment.
• Ecological Management Plan for Bats. Riplingham Quarry. July 2020. Wright Environment Ltd.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 6 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
2.2. Field Survey
Habitats
Field survey of the Application Site was carried out on 27 October 2020. The survey used the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) standard Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology (JNCC 2010)4 to identify habitat types and features of ecological interest.
Protected Species
The field survey method was extended through additional search for, and recording of, specific features which could indicate the presence of protected species or other species of conservation significance (notable species) and therefore included a search for and recording of field signs such as footprints, feeding remains, latrines etc. within the Application Site and at site boundaries.
The potential for the Application Site to support legally protected faunal species / faunal species groups of nature conservation importance and breeding birds was also assessed based on the known range of species / species groups and the suitability of the habitats present.
Bats
Bats are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000. In addition, a number of species are also listed as Species of Principal Importance under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC) and a number are considered regionally important within the East Riding of Yorkshire.
Bats are also listed as European Protected Species in the European Union’s Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (1992), also known as the Habitats Directive, implemented in England and Wales by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended).
Features of potential use to bats for roosting, such as structural features in buildings including crevices, holes and gaps in roofs, and crevices and holes in trees, was searched for as detailed below and where present their suitability assessed using the following methodology. The search also looked for evidence of bats themselves. The Application Site and surrounding landscape was also assessed for its suitability for bat foraging and commuting.
Preliminary Ground Level Roost Assessment
Buildings and mature / semi-mature trees within the Application Site were inspected for Potential Roost Features (PRF) which could be used by bats. Survey was from ground level during daylight hours and used close focussing binoculars (Pentax Papilio II 8.5x21 or equivalent) to inspect the roof and upper walls of buildings and the trunks and limbs of
4 “Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey A technique for environmental audit” Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Revised reprint 2010.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 7 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
trees. Powerful torches5 were used where necessary to ensure adequate illumination of features too dark to inspect using binoculars and natural light only.
The buildings and trees were inspected systematically. Inspection of potentially suitable trees started at the base of the trunk and moved upwards and outwards along each limb.
Typical PRF in buildings are:
• Crevices between roof tiles • Crevices and voids within wall fabric • Crevices within mortar between • Gaps within soffit and barge boards. wall bricks • Voids within roof structure • Voids beneath roof ridge tiles
Typical PRF on trees are:
• Knot holes • Tear outs • Woodpecker holes • Gaps between overlapping branches • Partially detached ivy with stem • Vertical or horizontal cracks and splits e.g. diameters of >50mm frost cracks • Cracks and splits in branches • Cavities around cuts • Detached, loose or lifted bark • Bat or bird boxes • Hazard beams • Other splits, cracks or cavities in trunk or limbs • Compression forks with • Dense epicormic growth associated crevices and cavities
The PRFs identified were recorded, and information such as tree position and species, orientation of the feature, approximate height above ground level and other relevant data such as likely size/depth was collected.
5 Clulite ML1000 Pro Scanner, Clulite PLR 500 LED torch or equivalent.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 8 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Roost Suitability Assessment
Following the inspection of each building and potentially suitable tree a roost suitability was assigned based on Table 4.1 of the Good Practice Guidelines6, summarised as follows:
Suitability Description Negligible No or negligible features likely to be used by bats. One or more PRF that could be used by bats opportunistically. However these potential roost sites do not provide enough space, shelter, protection, conditionsa and/or suitable surrounding habitat to be used on a regular basis by Low large numbers of bats (i.e. unlikely to be suitable for maternity or hibernation). A tree of sufficient size and age to contain PRFs but with none seen from the ground or features seen but with very limited roosting potential. One or more PRF that could be used by bats due to their size, shelter, Moderate protection, conditions and surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation statusb. One or more PRF that are obviously suitable for use by larger numbers of bats High on a more regular basis and potentially for longer periods of time due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat. a - i.e. temperature, humidity, height above ground level, light levels or levels of disturbance. b - with respect to roost type only – assessment is irrespective of species.
Birds
All birds, their nests and eggs are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and it is an offence (with certain exceptions) 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. • Intentionally take or destroy the egg of any wild bird. • Intentionally or recklessly disturb any Schedule 1 wild bird (e.g. barn owl Tyto alba) while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird.
Barn owl, and a number of other bird species such as swallow (Hirunda rustica) and swift (Apus apus), are also listed in the East Riding of Yorkshire Biodiversity Action Plan Strategy.
A limited range of habitats were present on the Application Site and although the extent of these habitats was also generally limited they can be valuable to birds, with the potential to support regionally important species such as swallow, swift, thrushes (Turdus philomelos and T. viscivorus) and starling (Sturnus vulgaris) amongst others.
6 Collins, J. (Ed) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edn) The Bat Conservation Trust, London
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 9 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Survey for birds was undertaken on arrival at the Application Site and while walking over the site. Binoculars were used to aid bird identification and some observations of birds were also made based on call recognition where possible.
Badger (Meles meles)
Badgers are protected by the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. This Act consolidates previous legislation (including the Badgers (Further Protection) Act 1991). It is an offence to intentionally or recklessly:
• Kill, injure or take, or attempt to kill, injure or take a badger. • To damage, destroy or obstruct access to a sett. • To disturb a badger when it is occupying a set.
The field survey included a methodical search of the Application Site and wider property for field signs of badger such as badger setts, footprints, snuffle holes, dung pits, latrines, 7 8 and hairs, using recognised survey methodologies for badger (Harris et al , and Pearce ). Patches of exposed soil/ground were common and these were inspected closely for badger prints.
Brown Hare (Lepus europaeus)
This species is listed in Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 and is listed in the East Riding of Yorkshire Biodiversity Action Plan Strategy.
Brown hare occur in grassland, arable and woodland habitats and the suitability of the Application Site to support the species was considered by assessing the presence and extent of such habitats and their connectivity with similar habitats in the surrounding landscape.
Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus)
Hedgehog is protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), is a species of principal importance under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 and is listed in the East Riding of Yorkshire Biodiversity Action Plan Strategy.
The species occurs within woodlands, grasslands, along hedgerows and in gardens and the suitability of the Application Site to support the species was considered by assessing the presence and extent of such habitats and their connectivity with similar habitats in the surrounding landscape, and to search for field evidence of their presence such as droppings.
Great Crested Newts (Triturus cristatus)
Great crested newt is protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), listed as a “European Protected Species” in the European Union’s Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and
7 “Surveying Badgers” Stephen Harris, Penny Cresswell, Don Jefferies. The Mammal Society 1989 8 “Badger Behaviour Conservation & Rehabilitation” George E. Pearce (2011).
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 10 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Flora (1992), also known as the Habitats Directive, implemented in England and Wales by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and is listed as a Species of Principal Importance under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC). The species is also listed in the East Riding of Yorkshire Biodiversity Action Plan Strategy.
The suitability of the Application Site and the surrounding land for great crested newt was assessed based on the findings of the desk study and field survey.
Ponds were searched for within a 500m radius of the Application Site boundary, and the terrestrial habitat around any ponds, and the habitat connectivity between any such ponds and the Application Site, was assessed during field survey and using aerial photography.
With reference to the Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines9 the assessment for off- site ponds was further refined to look for ponds within a 250m radius of the Application Site which were not separated from the site by barriers to dispersal such as roads and urban areas. Publicly available on-line aerial photography and OS mapping was also used to assess the size and character (shading, likely permanence and presence of waterfowl etc) of any such ponds which could not be visited, to assess their suitability for the species. Reference was also made to the findings of the Natural England great crested newt environmental DNA (eDNA) pond surveys (updated May 2020) and class license returns included on the MAGIC website.
Where ponds were found they were considered for their suitability to support great crested newts using the recognised habitat suitability index formulated by Oldham et al10.
The HSI methodology formulated by Oldham et al was used to provide an objective assessment of any such ponds to determine their suitability for great crested newt by deriving a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) score and pond suitability as follows:
HSI Score Pond Suitability <0.5 Poor 0.5-0.59 Below Average 0.6-0.69 Average 0.7-0.79 Good >0.8 Excellent
9 Great crested newt mitigation guidelines Version: August 2001. English Nature. Suitable terrestrial habitats within 250m of a breeding pond are likely to be used most frequently by newts (page 27). 10 “Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus)”. Oldham R.S., Keeble J. Swan M.J.S. & Jeffcote M. (2000) Herpetological Journal 10(4). Revised by Lee Brady during the Herpetofauna Worker’s Workshop in 2007 as detailed in ARG UK Advice Note 5 “Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index”.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 11 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Reptiles
Widespread reptiles (adder Vipera berus, grass snake Natrix helvetica, common lizard Zootoca vivipara and slow worm Anguis fragilis) are protected under section 9(1) of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and listed in the East Riding of Yorkshire Biodiversity Action Plan Strategy. Other reptile species i.e. smooth snake (Coronella austriaca) and sand lizard (Lacerta agilis) are protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and Sub-sections 9(4) b & c and Section 9(5) of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
The suitability of the Application Site for reptiles was assessed with reference to habitat preferences11 and the findings of the desk study.
2.3. Assessment and Evaluation
The findings of the desk study and field survey were assessed to identify potentially significant ecological features at the site and within the Zone of Influence. Such features were assessed within the context of statutory requirements and policy objectives for biodiversity. Reporting of the findings made reference to the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management CIEEM guidelines12.
Where ecological features were identified, the ecological value has been considered in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) guidelines (2018)13.
11 “Reptile Habitat Management Handbook” Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, Froglife (1999) “Reptile survey: an introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation” and Gent, A. and Gibson, S. (1998). “Herpetofauna Worker’s Manual”. Peterborough, UK. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 12 “Guidelines on Ecological Report Writing” Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) (2017) and the “Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal”, 2nd edition CIEEM (2017). 13 CIEEM (2018) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 12 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
In summary the features have been considered in relation to:
Geographic Level of Protection / Examples Context Conservation Significance International / Designated Sites Statutory sites designated under International European Conventions / European legislation e.g. Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar), Special Area of National Conservation Statutory sites designated under National legislation Regional i.e. e.g. Site of Special Scientific Interest, National East Riding of Nature Reserve Yorkshire Non Statutory sites e.g. Local Wildlife Site
Legally Protected Species of European (International) conservation Metropolitan, Species importance, species that are considered to be County or priorities for conservation e.g. Annex IV of the EC other Local Habitats Directive, Wildlife and Countryside Act Authority area 1981 (as amended).
Site National Biodiversity Habitats / species of principal importance for Lists conservation of biodiversity e.g. UK and listed in the East Riding of Yorkshire Biodiversity Action Plan Strategy Nationally rare or RSPB/BTO Red List nationally scarce species / Species of Conservation Concern
2.4. Survey Constraints
The field survey was carried out in October, a sub optimal time for field surveys. However, as the majority of the site had been previously used for the temporary storage of various overburden and top soil materials, resulting in significant disturbance of the ground and a generally sparse or absent ground flora, this seasonal constraint is not significant as habitat types could be determined. The remaining part of the Application Site comprised the existing access track which will continue to be used for it’s current purpose and at the same level of use, and will therefore not be affected by the Proposed Development.
The relatively low amount of leaf cover on trees at this time of year enabled better visibility of main stems than would have been possible during peak growing seasons and thus features of potential suitability to bats were more likely to be identified. Similarly, the large areas of exposed ground was considered to facilitate the identification of field evidence of certain protected/notable faunal species such as badger.
As the principal aim of this PEA work was to identify the habitats present and the potential for legally protected faunal species and/or faunal species of nature conservation importance, rather than to identify all individual plant species, or the actual presence of protected fauna, it was considered that these aims would have been met.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 13 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Desk based data enquiries will not provide a comprehensive list of plants and animals for the site. However the field survey, aided by the use of recognised reference materials14 to identify specimens in very late growths stages, together with the desk-based sources of information obtained are considered sufficient to enable the ecological baseline of the site and the potential for protected/notable species to be assessed.
All areas of the Application Site were accessible and the desk study and field survey has provided a comprehensive dataset allowing the principal aim of this work to identify the major habitats present and the potential for legally protected faunal species and/or faunal species of nature conservation importance, to be achieved.
14 The following vegetative keys were used to aid in identification of species and reduce risk of misidentification of specimens in early growth stages “The vegetative Key to the British Flora” John Poland & Eric Clement (2009), “The Wild Flower Key” 2nd edn Rose F & O’Reilly (2006), and “Colour Identification Guide to the Grasses, Sedges, Rushes and Ferns of the British Isles and north-western Europe” Francis Rose 1989.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 14 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
3. ECOLOGICAL RECORDS AND DESK BASED ASSESSMENT
3.1. Desk Study Findings
The following sections present the key findings of the desk based study. Data provided by the local ecological records centre are provided in Appendix B.
3.1.1. Statutory Designated Sites
There were no internationally designated sites such as Special Protection Areas (SPA) or Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) within the Application Site. The Humber Estuary Ramsar, SPA, SAC was situated approximately 7.5km south of the Application Site. This site is a riverine habitat with qualifying criteria related to the aquatic and marginal habitats and associated species. The Humber Estuary designation extends along the River Humber and is an important site with important habitats of intertidal mudflats, sandflats, coastal saltmarsh, saline lagoons, sand dunes and standing waters. The estuary supports important numbers of wintering waterfowl and waders with assemblages of breeding birds associated with open water and their margins. It also supports important breeding colony of grey seals, river lamprey and sea lamprey with a vascular plant and invertebrate assemblages.
There were no nationally designated sites within the Application Site boundary but there were five Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) present within 5km of it:
• Brantingham Dale SSSI • Drewton lane Pits SSSI • Newbald Becksies SSSI • Everthorpe Quarrry SSSI • Wyedale SSSI
The Application Site falls within a SSSI Impact Risk Zone but the Proposed Development does not fall into any of the risk categories15 which would require consultation with Natural England.
There were no nationally designated sites within 2km of the Application Site.
3.1.2. Locally Designated and Non-Statutory Designated Sites
There were no Local Nature Reserves (LNRs), a statutory but local designation made under Section 21 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, within 2km of the Application Site.
15 This is a generic condition to consult with Natural England for discharges of >20m3 water/liquids to ground or to surface water, but not to mains sewer.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 15 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
A number of Local Wildlife Sites (LWS), a non statutory designation implemented through the planning system, were present within 2km of the site boundary as summarised below:
Site ID Site Name Grid Reference Local Wildlife Site Status
SE9030-03 Weedley Dale SE943339 Candidate LWS 720m E SE9030-08 Sweatty Hill Plantation SE943323 Historic LWS 1.5km SW Disused Railway and The SE9030-20 SE938330 Candidate LWS 800m W Warrens, Weedley Dale SE9530-01 Little Weighton Cutting SE971337-SE978336 Historic LWS 1.15km E
“Candidate LWS” have either not been surveyed, or no East Riding of Yorkshire LWS Panel decision has been reached on their status and “Historic LWS” have not been surveyed under the current LWS system (since 2007).
There were no LWS within 500m of the site. The closest of the LWS was “Weedley Dale” at a distance of 720m to the west at it’s closest point, and “Disused Railway and The Warrens, Weedley Dale” at 800m to the west.
There were no Yorkshire Wildlife Trust reserves within 2km of the Application Site.
3.1.3. Priority Habitat Inventory Habitats
Deciduous Woodland priority habitat was present within the Application Site. This habitat was located along the access track to the quarry and occurred as narrow strips of woodland both to the north and south of the track.
A number of other deciduous woodland habitats were present within the 2km search area with four of these within 1km of the Application Site.
The entire area of the existing quarry, including the Application Site, has been identified as an Open Mosaic Habitat, a recent draft addition to the habitat inventory. These habitats, typically associated with former industrial sites including quarries have been added due to their habitat diversity which can support rich assemblages of invertebrates.
An area of Lowland Calcareous Grassland occurred along the southern side of the disused railway about 400m to the west of the site.
A Traditional Orchard was located approximately 340m east of the Application Site.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 16 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
3.1.4. Protected / Notable Species
The NEYEDC and EYBG provided records of notable and protected species in the area of the Application Site. The most recent records (i.e. those recorded within the last 10 years) are summarised in the table below with full details provided in Appendix B. It should be noted that the absence of records for a species does not mean the absence of the species.
Table 3.1.4: Species Records Distance and Common Grid Scientific Name Dated Comments Direction from Name Reference Closest Site Boundary
Falco tinnunculus Kestrel SE957353 28/01/19 1 individual I.45km N Green Picus viridis SE937328 16/05/18 1 individual 1.7km WSW woodpecker Cichorium intybus Chicory SE93M 11/07/14 SW Clinopodium acinos Basil thyme SE93G 19/06/10 SW Hyacinthoides non- Bluebell SE93G 19/06/10 SW scripta Cinnabar Some count of Tyria jacobaeae SE939325 25/07/11 SW moth larvae
Additional, although older, records for bats were provided by NEYEDC and were at least 30 years old. The data is summarised below:
Grid Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Record Date Location Reference
Unidentified Bat Myotis Unidentified Bat 2 Count 14/01/90 SE952335 250m W
Myotis Daubenton's Bat Daubenton's Bat 14/01/90 SE952335 250m W daubentonii Myotis Daubenton's Bat Daubenton's Bat 09/12/89 SE952335 250m W daubentonii Brown Long- Brown Long- Plecotus auritus 14/01/90 SE952335 250m W eared Bat eared Bat Brown Long- Brown Long- Plecotus auritus 09/12/89 SE952335 250m W eared Bat eared Bat
Bats Vespertilionidae Bats 09/12/89 SE952335 250m W
Bats Vespertilionidae Bats 25/07/85 SE9332 ~2.5km SW
Bats Vespertilionidae Bats 07/08/84 SE9332 ~2.5km SW
We understand from correspondence provided to us by Stoneledge Plant and Transport Ltd that the EYBG have more recent bat survey data of the Drewton tunnel and that they’ve found that at least 5 species of bat use the tunnel for hibernation, with surveys at
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 17 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
the off site eastern entrance to the tunnel finding bat use from autumn throughout the winter and into spring. That area of the tunnel (the eastern end) is thought to be used as a swarming (mating) site but the species found by the EYBG, the more recent survey results, or exact locations don’t appear to have been reported to the local records centre. The data provided to WEL by Stoneledge includes some of the old survey records provided by NEYEDC (although there are differences in the number of bats recorded in those records), as well as more recent records. The data lacks specific locations, with all records being for the entire Drewton tunnel between the eastern and western entrances (grid references SE952 335 - SE971 337) and are summarised below.
Date Species Roost Type Count 09/12/89 Brown Long-eared Hibernation 3 09/12/89 Natterer's Hibernation 2 09/12/89 Daubentons Hibernation 3 14/01/90 Brown Long-eared Hibernation 5 14/01/90 Myotis spp Hibernation 5 13/04/90 Brown Long-eared Hibernation 1 13/04/90 Daubentons Hibernation 1 08/12/91 Brown Long-eared Hibernation 3 08/12/91 Whiskered Hibernation 2 27/12/93 Brown Long-eared Hibernation 2 14/02/93 Brown Long-eared Hibernation 1 14/02/93 Whiskered Hibernation 1 14/02/93 Myotis spp Hibernation 1 31/12/94 Brown Long-eared Hibernation Unknown 31/12/94 Myotis spp Hibernation Unknown 14/01/96 Brown Long-eared Hibernation 4 08/03/98 Whiskered Hibernation 3 08/03/98 Whiskered Hibernation 2 08/03/98 Daubentons Hibernation 5 14/02/99 Whiskered Hibernation Unknown 14/02/99 Brown Long-eared Hibernation Unknown 07/01/01 Whiskered Hibernation 4 07/01/01 Brown Long-eared Hibernation 5 30/12/01 Brown Long-eared Hibernation 30/12/01 Whiskered Hibernation 21 bats in total 30/12/01 Myotis spp Hibernation 03/01/04 Brown Long-eared Hibernation 8 03/01/04 Daubentons Hibernation 3 03/01/04 Myotis spp Hibernation 6 03/01/04 Whiskered Hibernation 2 14/01/05 Whiskered Hibernation Unknown 14/01/05 Whiskered Hibernation Unknown 14/01/05 Brown Long-eared Hibernation Unknown
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 18 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Date Species Roost Type Count 05/02/05 Brown Long-eared Hibernation 05/02/05 Whiskered Hibernation 15 bats in total 05/02/05 Whiskered Hibernation 05/02/06 Brown Long-eared Hibernation 3 05/02/06 Daubentons Hibernation 1 05/02/06 Whiskered Hibernation 2 04/02/07 Brown Long-eared Hibernation 10 bats in total 04/02/07 Whiskered Hibernation
A recent survey undertaken for Stoneledge Plant and Transport Ltd of the western end of the Drewton tunnel in December 2019 and January 2020 confirmed that the tunnel was a hibernation roost, with the following bats found16:
Date Findings
4 December 2019 2 Myotis and 1 Brown Long-eared bat
January 2020a 4 Myotis and 1 Brown Long-eared bat
a – exact date not known
The Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website was used to search for Granted European Protected Species Applications within 2km of the site.
Two Granted European Protected Species Applications were found within the search radius and these are detailed in the table below. The nearest great crested newt application was 4.7km from the Application Site and is also included in the table below:
Species Period Distance and Direction from Closest Site Boundary
Common pipstrelle November 2017 to November 2028 440m North West Common pipstrelle November 2010 to June 2011 1.1km South East Great Crested Newt 2018 4.7km NNE
The Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website was also used to search for surface water features in the area of the Application Site. There were no ponds within the Application Site and only one pond shown on Ordnance survey mapping within 500m of the site boundary17. This was a small garden pond located 400m north east of the field and 120m north of the site entrance track at its closest point. The pond was not visible on publicly accessible aerial photography and may not exist currently.
16 Email report of findings dated 4 December 2019 provided by The Ecology Consultancy 17 https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 19 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Data from the Natural England great crested newt environmental DNA (eDNA) pond surveys (updated May 2020) shown on the MAGIC website identified that the nearest results were all negative for the species. The nearest class license return for the species was for a site located 3.5km to the west.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 20 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
4. FIELD SURVEY
A site walkover was undertaken on 27th October 2020 to identify the habitats present on the Application Site.
The habitats recorded within the Application Site and adjacent to it are described below and shown in Figure 3, Appendix A.
4.1. Habitat Description
The Application Site consisted of an access track from the main road and a field used to store a variety of aggregates. The access track was frequently trafficked by various vehicles operating within the existing quarry and to access the field to traverse through it to the main quarry. Much of the field, especially in its centre, was bare ground due to the frequent movement of vehicles and spoil stockpiles.
Vegetation was found on top of some of the piles of spoil with it’s degree of colonisation dependant on how long the spoil had been stored, but the majority of plant growth was at the field margins and edges of the access track.
The habitats and dominant species present at the time of the field survey are described below.
Poor Semi-Improved Grassland
There was a very small patch of semi-improved grassland in the north eastern corner of the field by an access gate (Photograph 1) which appeared to have not been used for aggregate storage recently and was therefore relatively undisturbed. The sward here was species-poor with few flowering species other than grasses. It is dominated by false-oat grass (Arrhenatherum elatius) and Cock’s-foot grass (Dactylus glomerata).
Bramble Scrub
A few areas of dense bramble scrub (Photograph 2) were present at the field margins. These were generally very dense, with bindweed (Calystegia sepium) and common nettles (Urtica dioica) occurring at the edges.
Tall Tuderal / Ephemeral/Short Perennial
Several mounds of soil and other aggregates such as stony chalk were located on the field, some of which had been stored long enough for vegetation to colonise. The maturity of the vegetation varied significantly with some displaying an ephemeral community and others a tall ruderal habitat.
A top soil stockpile in the north eastern corner (Photograph 3) had vegetation over approximately 50% of its surface, dominated by annual meadow-grass (Poa annua), black mustard (Brassica nigra) and with other species beginning to establish including cleavers (Galium aparine), creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) and prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper).
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 21 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Other mounds of chalk subsoils with large flints (quarry spoil and overburden) were dominated by a prickly sow thistle, creeping thistle (Photograph 4), borage (Borago officinalis), teasel (Dipsacus fullonum) (Photograph 5 and 6), common nettle, rose-bay willow-herb (Chamaenerion angustifolium), prickly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), creeping thistle, broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius) and curled dock (Rumex crispus) with a range of other species including broad-leaved willowherb (Epilobium montanum) and pineapple weed (Matricaria discoidea).
A small number of very young ash (Fraxinus excelsior) saplings and young buddleja (Buddleja davidii) were also growing in these areas.
Line of Deciduous Trees
The western boundary of the Application Site was formed by a mound of spoil on which was a line of planted deciduous trees (Photograph 7) comprising a mixture of young beech (Fagus sylvatica), copper beech (Fagus sylvatica f. purpurea), yew (Taxus baccata) and sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) trees with some dog rose (Rosa canina), elder (Sambucus nigra) and ivy (Hedera helix).
Broad-leaved Woodland
An area of broad-leaved woodland (Photographs 8 and 9) dominated by ash with occasional sycamore was present either side of the access track, with a hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) hedge along the northern and southern boundaries. Several young sycamore trees had been planted throughout the woodland but notably by the eastern entrance to the track most of which appeared to be around 15 years old.
The woodland contained an understory of sycamore, elder and dog rose and some trees were covered in dense ivy. A number of trees had bird boxes attached to their trunks.
The ground flora was dominated in patches by dog’s mercury (Mercurialis perennis) with tall grasses including Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), cock’s foot and false-oat grass in other areas. In a few places brambles dominated and it is considered likely that other species would be recorded in spring or summer.
There were a number of historic spoil heaps present on the sides of the track. Some piles of dead wood, aggregate slabs and rubble (Photograph 10) were also located on some of the spoil heaps.
Built Structures
There were no permanent buildings on the site. There was an old container at the western edge of the access track and a kitchen and welfare facility near the entrance of the Application Site.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 22 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
4.2. Protected / Notable Faunal Species
The field survey aimed to identify habitat types and field signs which may indicate the potential presence of protected / notable faunal species. The Application Site was subject to high levels of human and vehicular disturbance and these activities are considered to reduce the potential of the site to support certain species.
Bats
The habitats within the Application Site were considered to be of use to foraging and commuting bats particularly along the access track which contained a number of mature ash and other deciduous trees, and around the boundaries of the field which also contained a number of deciduous trees.
A number of trees were considered to have bat roost potential due to the presence of crevices, tear out features and/or rot holes. The location of these trees is shown on Figure 3 with photographs provided in Appendix C. Each tree is described below:
Tree Tree Tree Location Potential Bat Roost Feature Roost ID Species Suitability
T1 Ash On boundary between field Small hole on branch high in Low and access track. tree. T2 Sycamore On southern bank of track Hole within the trunk. Low T3 Ash On northern side of track Rot hole on trunk of the tree Moderate on boundary of the field. roughly 1m from ground. T4 Ash On southern side of track Crevice along the trunk and a Moderate opposite field entrance. small hole where a branch has fallen. T5 Sycamore On northern side of track Rot hole less than 1m from the Moderate near the second field ground on the trunk. entrance. T6 Ash On northern side of the Hole roughly 2m from ground Moderate track at a slight track bend. on trunk. T7 Ash Southern side of the track. Broken branch has caused Low Surrounded by smaller crevices caused by splitting. sycamore trees. T8 Sycamore Northern side of the track. Rot hole in trunk caused by a Moderate. broken branch. T9 Ash On the northern side of the A small rot hole on southern Low track. side of trunk 1m above ground. T10 Ash Mature tree on southern Rot hole on lower branch Moderate side of track. where a smaller branch has fallen. T11 Ash Mature tree on southern Covered in dense ivy. Low side of the track. T12 Ash Mature tree on southern Covered in dense ivy. Low side of the track. T13 Sycamore On northern side of the Crevice on upper branch. Moderate
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 23 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Tree Tree Tree Location Potential Bat Roost Feature Roost ID Species Suitability
track. T14 Ash On southern side of the Extensive cracks and crevices High track. along its trunk. T15 Ash Mature tree on northern A bird box is situated on trunk. Low side of the track. T16 Ash Mature tree on northern A bird box is situated on the Low side of the track. trunk and there is some broken bark. T17 Ash Tree located by the Covered in ivy. Low weighing scale. T18 Sycamore Small sycamore tree on Crevice in branch leaning Low southern side of track. towards the hedgeline.
Great Crested Newt and Widespread Amphibians
There were no ponds within the Application Site and only one pond shown on an Ordnance survey mapping within 500m of the site boundary18. This was a small garden pond located 400m north east of the field and 120m north of the site entrance track. The pond was not visible on publicly accessible aerial photography and may not exist currently. There were no records of great crested newt within 500m of the site.
The majority of the Application Site, particularly the field, was considered to comprise unsuitable terrestrial habitat for great crested newt or the more common and widespread amphibian species due to the large expanses of bare ground and frequent quarry traffic.
Potentially suitable terrestrial habitat would be limited to the relatively small areas of trees, scrub and tall ruderal vegetation around the boundaries and along the edges of the access track. Some of the piles of rubble could provide refugia. However based on the desk study review and field survey of habitats on the site, it is considered highly unlikely that great crested newt occur on the site.
The most likely of the more common and widespread amphibian species to occur on the Application Site are common toad (Bufo bufo) and common frog (Rana temporaria) which may be able to utilise the woodland and taller vegetation for shelter and foraging.
Birds
No significant assemblages of birds were seen on the Application Site during the site visit but a variety of common or widespread birds were observed (or heard) during the survey. The weather during the survey was consistent rain, which will have affected the number of birds recorded.
18 https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 24 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Species observed included:
Wood pigeon (Columba palumbus) Carrion crow (Corvus corone) Great tit (Parus major) Blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs) Robin (Erithacus rubecula)
Most of the birds recorded were flying and foraging within the line of trees on the west of the field adjacent to the existing quarry. It was highly likely that other species occurred on or close to the Application site, at least occasionally but the occurrence will be predominantly along the access track and field edges where vegetation such as dense scrub and trees were present.
It was anecdotally reported by site staff that barn owl has been observed on occasion foraging over a horse paddock to the north east of the Application Site.
In it’s current state the field within the Application Site would be largely unsuitable to birds, but is likely to be used by individual common and widespread birds for occasional foraging and nesting. The mature trees and bird boxes along the access track would provide good nesting and foraging habitat for several bird species as would the field, hedgerow and woodland habitats adjacent to the Application site and further afield.
Reptiles
The habitats present within the Application Site were generally considered unsuitable for reptiles, and the high levels of land disturbance by quarrying activities was expected to reduce suitability further. Though piles of dead wood and rubble that could be used for shelter (Photograph 10) were present, no other suitable habitat was present. No reptiles were identified in the area of the Application Site during the desk study, and it is considered that they are likely to be absent from the Application Site.
Badger
Badger field signs and setts were actively and methodically searched for during the site visit but no evidence of badger was observed.
Hedgehog
The Application Site provided some suitable habitat for hedgehog along the access track which could be used by the species for foraging and shelter. This habitat was contiguous with hedgerows, a horse grazed paddock, arable field margins and areas of deciduous woodland in the vicinity of the Application Site.
Brown Hare (Lepus europaeus)
The Application Site provided some suitable habitat for hare along the woodland adjacent to the access track which could be used by the species for foraging and shelter. This habitat was contiguous with hedgerows, a horse grazed paddock, arable fields and areas of deciduous woodland in the vicinity of the Application Site. However the extent of
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 25 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
suitable habitats within the Application Site was extremely limited and it is considered unlikely that the species occurs in any number of for significant periods.
Other Species
Evidence of other faunal species found during the survey included the following:
Species Field Evidence Location
Rabbit (Oryctolagus Rabbit droppings evident throughout the Within field in Application Site cuniculus) field site and several rabbit burrows. Roe deer (Capreolus Two individuals seen within the Application Within field in Application Site capreolus) site and hoof prints throughout the field site. Fox (Vulpes vulpes) Dropping North western corner of the field.
Japanese knotweed
A small area of Japanese knotweed was recorded on a soil mound near the entrance of the field area (Photograph 11 and Target Note 1). This species is listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). No other species were found within the Application Site during the field survey.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 26 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
5. CONSIDERATION OF ECOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
5.1. Potential Ecological Constraints
Designated Sites
There were no internationally designated sites within the Application Site or close to it. The closest was the Humber Estuary SPA, SAC and RAMSAR at a distance of 7.5km to the south of the Application Site.
There were no nationally designated sites within the Application Site boundary and none within 2km of the Application Site.
The Application Site falls within a SSSI Impact Risk Zone but the Proposed Development does not fall into any of the risk categories19 which would require consultation with Natural England.
The Proposed Development is of a relatively small scale and will continue an existing activity within a small part of the quarry property. The Proposed Development is therefore not considered likely to have any negative affects on the designated sites or the reasons for their designations.
Locally Designated and Non-Statutory Designated Sites
There were no Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) within 2km of the Application Site.
There were no Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) within 500m of the site.
The closest LWS was Weedley Dale at a distance of 720m to the west at it’s closest point. Weedley Dale comprised an extensive area of woodland separated from the Application Site by the existing quarry.
The Proposed Development is of a relatively small scale and will continue an existing activity within a small part of the quarry property. The Proposed Development is therefore not considered likely to have any negative affects on the locally designated sites or the reasons for their designations.
Habitats
Two priority habitats were present within the Application Site. These were Deciduous Woodland along the access track to the quarry and Open Mosaic Habitat which covered the entire area of the existing quarry property, including the currently active areas and the Application Site, except for the easternmost part of the access track.
The Open Mosaic Habitats are typically associated with former industrial sites including quarries and, where such sites have been left undisturbed, can support rich assemblages
19 This is a generic condition to consult with Natural England for discharges of >20m3 water/liquids to ground or to surface water, but not to mains sewer.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 27 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
of invertebrates. Most of the Application Site mapped on the MAGIC website as Open Mosaic Habitat was actually bare, disturbed ground within an active quarry rather than habitat of high suitability for invertebrates. Consequently the Proposed Development will not have negative affect on this habitat.
The Proposed Development will retain the existing deciduous woodland habitat along the access track and the associated activities of the proposed quarry extension will continue the activities which have occurred for many years along the track. The Proposed Development will not add negative affects to this habitat.
The Proposed Development is of a nature which is not likely to have significant negative affects on habitats outside of it’s boundary. The nearest priority habitats off site are on the opposite side of the existing quarry and the Proposed Development is not therefore considered likely to have any significant negative affects on priority habitats located offsite.
Protected / Notable Species
The habitats on the Application Site were considered to be generally unsuitable for protected or notable species such as badger, amphibians, reptiles, or notable birds, due to the lack of, or poor quality and/or limited extent of habitats present. Consequently the potential for protected / notable species to occur on the Application Site and wider property site was negligible.
In addition, the quarry has been in active use for many years and continues to experience high levels of human and vehicular disturbance. This is anticipated to reduce the suitability of the Application Site to many faunal species.
However the Application Site is likely to be used by a small number of notable species, at least on an occasional basis, and the presence of some protected / notable species was confirmed as follows:
Bats
Legislative Context
When considering the potential for impacts to bats, the relevant legislation should be considered.
All species of British bat are protected by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended), commonly known as “the Habitats Regulations” which implements the European Union’s Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (1992), also known as the Habitats Directive. Certain species of bats are also listed under Annex II of this Directive due to their rarity.
Bats are also protected under the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 and under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). In addition a number of species are listed as Species of Principal Importance in Section 41 of the
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 28 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC) and have been identified for specific conservation action.
In summary, under the combined legislation it is an offence to:
• Deliberately take, injure or kill a wild bat. • Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat in its roost or deliberately disturb a group of bats. • Damage or destroy a place used by bats for breeding or resting (roosts) (even if bats are not occupying the roost at the time). • Possess or advertise/sell/exchange a bat of a species found in the wild in the EU (dead or alive) or any part of a bat. • Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to a bat roost.
A bat ‘roost’ is considered20 to be:
• A ‘place of shelter or protection’ • A ‘breeding site or resting place’
For the purposes of the second bullet point above (section 43(1)(b) of the Habitats Regulations21), disturbance includes any disturbance which is likely:
i. To impair their ability survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young; or ii. To impair their ability to hibernate or migrate; or iii. To affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong.
Bat Occurrence
Trees
A number of mature trees occurred on the Application Site which contained features of potential use to roosting bats. While most of these trees occurred along the access track which will continue to be used for the haulage of quarried materials and therefore not experience any different activity types or levels as a result of the Proposed Development, five trees were located on the southern edge of the field which will be excavated to extract chalk.
We understand that the excavation work will not require the removal of these (or neighbouring) trees nor will it encroach on the trees or their root zones, and that the hours of work will not extend beyond daylight hours. Therefore it is highly unlikely that bats, should roosts occur within these trees, be negatively affected by the Proposed Development. However recommendations are provided below in order to inform the works ahead of any excavation along the southern side of the field.
20 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/bats-protection-surveys-and-licences 21 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1012/regulation/43
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 29 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Drewton Tunnel
Drewton tunnel runs underground close to the south of the field within the Application Site and has an entrance within the existing quarry. A number of bat species are known to roost within this tunnel, with bats using it as a hibernation roost site, for several decades (since at least 1989). It is considered likely that the tunnel has notable conservation significance at a local or regional level for roosting bats22 and the potential influence of the Proposed Development on the tunnel habitat has been considered.
Drewton tunnel is almost 2km long and is expected to contain a number of roost sites. It is likely that bats move between roost sites within the tunnel in response to normal changes in environmental conditions such as changes in temperature, humidity and light levels throughout the seasons, and the choice of roost locations is likely to be a key factor in the suitability of the tunnel habitat for roosting bats.
The nearest tunnel entrance to the Application Site was approximately 250m to the west of the Application Site, and bats using this point of access are highly unlikely to be affected by the Proposed Development.
Quarrying activity has previously occurred adjacent to, and immediately above, a significant section of the western end of the Drewton tunnel between the Application Site and the nearest tunnel entrance. Previous quarrying activities are thought to have encroached to within about 10m of the tunnel roof along this section. This represents environmental baseline for roosting bats in this tunnel.
Given the presence of roosting bats within this part of Drewton tunnel despite the long period of quarrying activity, and the extent of previous excavation work above the tunnel, it is concluded that the baseline quarry activities have not impacted upon the tunnel habitat features of importance to bats and that the activities have been within levels tolerated by bats (with reference to the Habitats Regulations definition of disturbance, as summarised above).
However, without mitigation, the Proposed Development does have the potential to negatively affect bats within the tunnel if, for example excavation work encroached into the tunnel itself or extended close enough to cause disturbance through the creation of excessive noise and vibration.
Therefore a number of measures have been introduced to the Proposed Development during the design evolution in order to avoid negative affects on bats. Details are provided in the “Mitigation by Design” section below. In additional a limited number of further recommendations regarding bats have also been provided (see below).
Following completion of quarrying extension the Application Site will be restored to create a large area of species rich calcareous grassland, species rich hedgerows and with additional deciduous tree plating. The Proposed Development will ultimately increase the extent, variety and quality of foraging habitat for bats and therefore be of benefit to this
22 “Bat Mitigation Guidelines” Version: January 2004. A. J. Mitchell-Jones
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 30 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
species group over the long term due to the restoration plan proposed for the Application Site.
No significant long-term negative affects, and a number of beneficial improvements in habitat quality and extent, are anticipated if the recommendations given below are adhered to.
Hedgehog
No field evidence of the presence of this species was found within the Application Site, and the habitats within the area of proposed quarry extension were considered unsuitable for this species.
While hedgehog are likely to occur on the Application Site on occasion, they are most likely to remain within the deciduous woodland habitat which will remain unaffected by the Proposed Development.
The Proposed Development will ultimately increase the extent, variety and quality of foraging habitat and therefore be of benefit to this species over the long term due to the restoration plan proposed for the Application Site.
No significant long-term negative affects, and a number of beneficial improvements in habitat quality and extent, are anticipated if the recommendations given below are adhered to.
Birds
Subject to the adoption of appropriate recommendations (see below), the Proposed Development is not considered likely to significantly affect birds, with any negative affects being small, temporary and reversible. No significant long-term negative affects are anticipated.
Great Crested Newt and Widespread Amphibians
There were no ponds located within the Application Site or in close proximity to it. Based on the desk study review and field survey of habitats on the site, it is considered highly unlikely that great crested newt occur on the site.
Of the more widespread amphibian species, the common toad is considered most likely to occur, at least occasionally, on the Application Site. This species was not recorded within the property but is a widespread species which occurs at distances away from water features, can tolerate less humid conditions than other amphibians and is likely to be present in the surrounding area.
The Proposed Development scheme will retain the terrestrial habitat features considered to be of value to common toad such as the deciduous woodland and will also add further terrestrial habitat features during restoration which are considered to be of benefit to this species.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 31 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
No significant long-term negative affects on this species are anticipated and the Proposed Development is anticipated to provide significant beneficial affects for the species over the long term.
5.2. Mitigation by Design
During this PEA process the site proposals have been considered in consultation with the quarry operators and landscape professionals to ensure that the potential for negative impacts on habitats and protected species have been avoided wherever possible, and that opportunities for biodiversity enhancement can be secured within the Proposed Development.
As a result of this consultation a number of avoidance measures have been incorporated into the Proposed Development and ecological enhancements already included within the restoration scheme proposed for the Application Site.
Given the presence of bat roosts within Drewton tunnel in close proximity to the Application Site, and the possibility of negative affects on bats roosting within the tunnel, a number of avoidance measures have been integrated into the design of the Proposed Development. These are:
1. Extraction activity will not encroach any closer to the roof / walls of Drewton tunnel than previous quarry activity adjacent to the Application Site which occurred directly above the tunnel, and thus the Proposed Development will not deviate negatively from the historic environmental baseline.
2. Chalk will be extracted layer by layer (probably from three layers or shelves) in order to minimise the period of activity at the southern end of the excavation which is closest to the tunnel. This is anticipated to avoid the risk of noise or vibration being created for long periods within the vicinity of the tunnel. 3. The quarrying activity will proceed over a period of several years, with extraction being phased in response to market requirements rather than following an intensive extraction programme with stockpiling of materials. This will result in very low levels of activity at the southern end of the quarry extension at any one time which will avoid long periods of noise or vibration in the vicinity of the tunnel. Consequently noise or vibration, if generated, will be of short duration and temporary. 4. The quarry extension will utilise an appropriate batter and bench width to stabilise the southern working face and thus protect the adjacent line of trees with bat roost potential while also forming a buffer of significant thickness between the working face and the tunnel walls to the south of the extension and present at a lower elevation. This is anticipated to avoid the creation of noise or vibration within the vicinity of the tunnel and the line of trees along this part of the access track. 5. An additional 10m thick buffer will be retained within the benching of the southern quarry wall in the south westernmost corner of the quarry extension which is the closest point to the tunnel as shown in Figure 2. This is anticipated to avoid noise or vibration disturbance in the vicinity of the tunnel.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 32 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
6. The restoration of the Application Site will comprise the backfilling of the quarry void using site won overburden and imported inert fill material of appropriate geochemical characteristics for the site location, to return the site to a land form sympathetic to it’s original contours and the surrounding landscape. The restoration scheme will create a species rich calcareous grassland habitat over the entire area of the quarry extension which will integrate with the wider quarry restoration scheme. Additional habitats will be created on the boundaries of the Application Site through the planting of native species rich hedgerows and with additional tree planting along the southern boundary using native tree species. The restoration plan for the Application Site is shown in Figure 4. This restoration scheme is expected to result in a significant improvement in habitat quality, extent and diversity across the site that will enhance biodiversity at the Application Site and ultimately across the entire quarry property.
5.3. Recommendations
A limited number of additional recommendations are provided as detailed below.
1. Quarrying activities should not proceed during the hours of darkness in order to avoid impacts to foraging or commuting bats, or hedgehog (should they occur e.g. along the access track/haul road).
2. Any vegetation clearance within the Application Site prior to the commencement of quarrying activities should be undertaken and completed outside of the bird breeding season (generally considered to be between March and the end of August) to avoid impacts to breeding birds. If the work can't be completed outside of these months, then breeding bird checks will need to be undertaken prior to work starting, with appropriate action being taken to safeguard any nests found until young birds have fledged.
3. During vegetation clearance, care should be taken to avoid harm to wildlife such as hedgehog which may be present. In the highly unlikely event that animals such as hedgehog are encountered, they should be carefully moved to a suitable location i.e. the same or similar habitat close by but away from the clearance work and quarry extension.
4. Should any tree be identified for pruning or removal, for example for health and safety reasons, it should be surveyed for bats during the appropriate season. This includes any of the five trees located along the southern side of the field proposed for quarry extension. In addition, should quarrying activity encroach on these trees, they should be properly surveyed for bats during the correct season in advance of the encroachment, with the survey findings used to inform decisions on quarrying activity in their vicinity.
5. The stand of Japanese knotweed within the area of the proposed quarry extension will need to be removed properly in order to avoid the spread of this species. Specialist advice should be sought for the most appropriate removal/disposal methodology but excavation and deep burial on the quarry property may be an appropriate and acceptable eradication and disposal solution.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 33 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
6. The quarry extension and restoration should be carried out in compliance with the Ecological Management Plan prepared for the quarry site as a whole. The restoration scheme for the Application Site should proceed as outlined above and as detailed in the Pegasus Landscape Masterplan for the quarry extension and in accordance with the Ecological Management Plan for Bats referenced above in order to ensure it integrates with the restoration scheme for the rest of the quarry site so it can deliver the tangible biodiversity enhancements envisaged and specified.
7. New native species-rich hedgerow and tree planting should be initiated as soon as possible in order to maximise the time for establishment and delivery of biodiversity enhancement. The hedgerow maintenance regime should enable the development of tall and thick hedgerows with a diverse native groundflora of benefit to a range of wildlife including invertebrates, nesting and foraging birds, small mammals, hedgehog and bats.
8. The additional tree planting on the site should use a range of native species only and the planted areas managed to create diversity of tree and shrub height, development of native ground flora and a diverse species composition.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx Page 34 November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
APPENDIX A
Figures
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx November 2020 201926
Figure 1: Application Site Boundary and Boundary of Quarry Property Date November 2020 Scale Not to Scale Job No. 201926 Stoneledge Plant and Client Transport Ltd
Figure 2: Schematic Cross Section of Area of Excavation Date November 2020 Scale Not to Scale Job No. 201926 Stoneledge Plant and Client Transport Ltd
Figure 3: Habitat Map Date November 2020 Scale Not to Scale Job No. 201926 Stoneledge Plant and Client Transport Ltd
Figure 4: Restoration Plan Date November 2020 Scale Not to Scale Job No. 201926 Stoneledge Plant Client and Transport Ltd
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
APPENDIX B
Data from Ecological Records Centre
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx November 2020 201926
Our Ref: E05191
Your Ref: 201926 Riplingham
Date: 29/10/2020
Search area: 2km radius from SE955336
Site Data Search
Internationally designated sites: The following sources were searched:
Special Areas of Conservation published March 2016 - revised July 2019 Special Protection Areas published March 2016 - revised June 2019 Ramsar sites published March 2016 - revised June 2019
There are no internationally designated sites within the search area.
Nationally designated sites: The following sources were searched:
Sites of Special Scientific Interest published 14/09/2017 – revised June 2019 National Parks published 01/08/2016 – revised February 2019 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty published 11/05/2015 National Nature Reserves published March 2016 - revised May 2019
There are no nationally designated sites within the search area.
Locally designated and non-Statutory sites The following sources were searched:
Local Nature Reserves published 01/03/2016 - revised June 2019
There are no Local Nature Reserves within the search area.
East Yorkshire LWS [Local Wildlife Sites] Version: ERY_LWS V8.1 November 2018
The following LWS are in or partly within the search area, and are shown on the accompanying map:
Site Id Site Name Grid Reference LWS Status SE9030-03 Weedley Dale SE943339 Candidate LWS SE9030-08 Sweatty Hill Plantation SE943323 Historic LWS Disused Railway and The SE9030-20 SE938330 Candidate LWS Warrens, Weedley Dale SE9530-01 Little Weighton Cutting SE971337-SE978336 Historic LWS
Candidate Local Wildlife Sites These sites have either not been surveyed, or no East Riding of Yorkshire LWS Panel decision has been reached on their status. This designation is only be applied where there is compelling evidence to support the site having substantive value and includes, but is not limited to anecdotal species records, aerial photography, historic maps and application of the Radcliff criteria, especially with regard to size and a sites’ position in an ecological unit.
E05191 details.docx October 2020 Our Ref: E05191
Your Ref: 201926 Riplingham
Date: 29/10/2020
Search area: 2km radius from SE955336
Historic Local Wildlife Sites Historic LWS have not been surveyed under the current LWS system (since 2007), but unlike a Candidate LWS these sites lack compelling evidence of any substantive value, but equally lack compelling evidence to support their deletion.
Deleted Local Wildlife Sites The decision to delete LWS by the East Riding of Yorkshire LWS Panel is made based on one of the following situations; • The site overlaps with a statutory designated site e.g. SSSI • The site overlaps with another LWS or has been merged with another • The site no longer exists e.g. through changes in land use or management • The site has been surveyed and does not meet the robust LWS Guidelines for designation on habitat grounds.
In many cases just because a site has not met the high criteria for designation as a LWS it does not mean that it has no value for wildlife. The assessment is based on a botanical survey of the habitat and does not include surveys for animals including protected species, which the site may support. It may also be important as a local habitat as part of wider habitat network(s). It may be possible to enhance the value of the site for wildlife with certain types of management, which could even bring the site up to the standard required for designation as a LWS. If the site has been surveyed the citation for the deleted site will provide a description, botanical species list and scores against the LWS criteria.
Yorkshire Wildlife Trust Reserves Version: YWT Reserves January 2019
There are no YWT reserves within the search area.
Site-based Habitat data: Areas of habitats in or partly within the search area occurring in the Natural England Ancient Woodland Inventories and/or Priority Habitats are shown on the accompanying map, and are listed below:
Ancient Woodland Inventory Version: Ancient Woodlands July 2019
Habitat type Location or comments Ancient and Semi-Natural Woodland None within the search area Planted Ancient Woodland Sites
Priority Habitat Inventory Version: Priority Habitats Inventory August 2017
Habitat type Location or comments Deciduous woodland Several parcels throughout search area Lowland calcareous grassland S side disused railway Traditional orchard E of Low Hunsley Farm
E05191 details.docx October 2020 Our Ref: E05191
Your Ref: 201926 Riplingham
Date: 29/10/2020
Search area: 2km radius from SE955336
Species data search
Enclosed is a spreadsheet of species records found within the search area. The designations for Notable, Protected and Invasive species are listed on the second page of the spreadsheet. Where ‘all records’ have been requested, the Notable and/or Protected species will be indicated by grey shading.
Please note that a lack of survey information for any particular area or taxonomic group does not necessarily mean that there is no nature conservation interest present. We would therefore recommend that a site survey is carried out in order to assess any ecological interest that might be present before proceeding with the development.
By default, we return data for the past 50 years, but if older records are required these may be obtained at additional cost from NEYEDC upon request.
One particular point to bear in mind is that many bridges provide good opportunities for bats and support bat roosts. Please consult the relevant Bat Group regarding this aspect if the proposal is likely to require working close to or within the structure of any bridge. Bats are European Protected Species under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994. As you are probably aware, should a proposal be likely to affect or disturb bats and/or their roosts and therefore require derogation from the Regulations, a licence application to the Wildlife Licensing Unit, Natural England, is required in advance of the works commencing.
East Yorkshire: Roger Curtis Nova Scotia Farm, The Valley, Rimswell, HU19 2BZ Tel: 01964 614295 [email protected] https://eastyorkshirebatgroup.wordpress.com/
E05191 details.docx October 2020
Our Ref: E05191 Your Ref: 201926 Riplingham On behalf of: Wright Environment Ltd Date: 29/10/20 Search Area: 2km radius from SE955336 Please refer to NEYEDC's Electronic Data Licence for terms and conditions of use of these records (https://www.neyedc.org.uk/policies-and-data)
Taxonomic Scientific Name Common Name Location Grid Reference Custodian Survey Recorder(s) Date(s) Year Record Type Designation(s) Group Anne Brookes;Mike Bern-A2; Bird-Amber; Bird_RedList_GB_post2001-VU_Breeding; CMS_A2; Falco tinnunculus Kestrel bird High Hunsley SE957353 NEYEDC Personal Records: Mike Brookes 28/01/19 2019 1 Count Brookes ECCITES-A 1 Count of Picus viridis Green Woodpecker bird South Cave SE937328 NEYEDC Personal Records: Vaughan Grantham Vaughan Grantham 16/05/18 2018 Bern-A2 Individuals NBN Atlas OGL NE: Environmental Briza media Quaking-grass flowering plant SE9433 NEYEDC Monitoring Database Species data 1987 Withheld (NBN Atlas) 06/08/83 1983 RedList_ENG_post2001-NT to 2015 NBN Atlas OGL NE: Environmental Briza media Quaking-grass flowering plant SE9431 NEYEDC Monitoring Database Species data 1987 Withheld (NBN Atlas) 03/07/82 1982 RedList_ENG_post2001-NT to 2015 NBN Atlas OGL NE: Environmental Briza media Quaking-grass flowering plant SE9531 NEYEDC Monitoring Database Species data 1987 Withheld (NBN Atlas) 03/07/82 1982 RedList_ENG_post2001-NT to 2015 NBN Atlas OGL NE: Environmental Campanula rotundifolia Harebell flowering plant SE9433 NEYEDC Monitoring Database Species data 1987 Withheld (NBN Atlas) 06/08/83 1983 RedList_ENG_post2001-NT to 2015 NBN Atlas OGL NE: Environmental Campanula rotundifolia Harebell flowering plant SE9431 NEYEDC Monitoring Database Species data 1987 Withheld (NBN Atlas) 03/07/82 1982 RedList_ENG_post2001-NT to 2015 NBN Atlas OGL NE: Environmental Campanula rotundifolia Harebell flowering plant SE9531 NEYEDC Monitoring Database Species data 1987 Withheld (NBN Atlas) 03/07/82 1982 RedList_ENG_post2001-NT to 2015 NBN Atlas OGL NE: Environmental Carlina vulgaris Carline Thistle flowering plant SE9431 NEYEDC Monitoring Database Species data 1987 Withheld (NBN Atlas) 03/07/82 1982 RedList_ENG_post2001-NT to 2015 BSBI Notable and Protected Plant Cichorium intybus Chicory flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93M NEYEDC R. Middleton 11/07/14 2014 RedList_ENG_post2001-VU Records BSBI Notable and Protected Plant Clinopodium acinos Basil Thyme flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93G NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 England_NERC_S.41; RedList_ENG_post2001-VU; RedList_GB_post2001-VU Records BSBI Notable and Protected Plant Clinopodium acinos Basil Thyme flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93H NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 England_NERC_S.41; RedList_ENG_post2001-VU; RedList_GB_post2001-VU Records BSBI Notable and Protected Plant Clinopodium acinos Basil Thyme flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93K NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 England_NERC_S.41; RedList_ENG_post2001-VU; RedList_GB_post2001-VU Records BSBI Notable and Protected Plant Clinopodium acinos Basil Thyme flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93L NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 England_NERC_S.41; RedList_ENG_post2001-VU; RedList_GB_post2001-VU Records BSBI Notable and Protected Plant R. Middleton;Geoffrey Clinopodium acinos Basil Thyme flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93G NEYEDC 19/06/10 2010 England_NERC_S.41; RedList_ENG_post2001-VU; RedList_GB_post2001-VU Records Wilmore BSBI Notable and Protected Plant Clinopodium acinos Basil Thyme flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE9433 NEYEDC R. Middleton 19/06/07 2007 England_NERC_S.41; RedList_ENG_post2001-VU; RedList_GB_post2001-VU Records BSBI Notable and Protected Plant Euphorbia exigua Dwarf Spurge flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93Q NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 RedList_ENG_post2001-VU; RedList_GB_post2001-NT Records BSBI Notable and Protected Plant Euphorbia exigua Dwarf Spurge flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93R NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 RedList_ENG_post2001-VU; RedList_GB_post2001-NT Records BSBI Notable and Protected Plant Euphorbia exigua Dwarf Spurge flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93S NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 RedList_ENG_post2001-VU; RedList_GB_post2001-NT Records Fragaria vesca Wild Strawberry flowering plant Weedley Dale SE943339 NEYEDC Woodland Survey of North Humberside Unknown (Humberside CC) 1989 1989 RedList_ENG_post2001-NT BSBI Notable and Protected Plant England_NERC_S.41; NS-excludes; RedList_ENG_post2001-CR; Galeopsis angustifolia Red Hemp-nettle flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93G NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 Records RedList_GB_post2001-CR BSBI Notable and Protected Plant England_NERC_S.41; NS-excludes; RedList_ENG_post2001-CR; Galeopsis angustifolia Red Hemp-nettle flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93K NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 Records RedList_GB_post2001-CR BSBI Notable and Protected Plant England_NERC_S.41; NS-excludes; RedList_ENG_post2001-CR; Galeopsis angustifolia Red Hemp-nettle flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93L NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 Records RedList_GB_post2001-CR BSBI Notable and Protected Plant England_NERC_S.41; NS-excludes; RedList_ENG_post2001-CR; Galeopsis angustifolia Red Hemp-nettle flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93Q NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 Records RedList_GB_post2001-CR BSBI Notable and Protected Plant England_NERC_S.41; NS-excludes; RedList_ENG_post2001-CR; Galeopsis angustifolia Red Hemp-nettle flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93R NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 Records RedList_GB_post2001-CR BSBI Notable and Protected Plant England_NERC_S.41; NS-excludes; RedList_ENG_post2001-CR; Galeopsis angustifolia Red Hemp-nettle flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93R NEYEDC D.W. Shimwell 1970 - 1986 1986 Records RedList_GB_post2001-CR NBN Atlas OGL NE: Environmental Gentianella amarella Autumn Gentian flowering plant SE9433 NEYEDC Monitoring Database Species data 1987 Withheld (NBN Atlas) 06/08/83 1983 RedList_ENG_post2001-NT to 2015 NBN Atlas OGL NE: Environmental Gentianella amarella Autumn Gentian flowering plant SE9431 NEYEDC Monitoring Database Species data 1987 Withheld (NBN Atlas) 03/07/82 1982 RedList_ENG_post2001-NT to 2015 NBN Atlas OGL NE: Environmental Helianthemum Common Rock-rose flowering plant SE9433 NEYEDC Monitoring Database Species data 1987 Withheld (NBN Atlas) 06/08/83 1983 RedList_ENG_post2001-NT nummularium to 2015 NBN Atlas OGL NE: Environmental Helianthemum Common Rock-rose flowering plant SE9431 NEYEDC Monitoring Database Species data 1987 Withheld (NBN Atlas) 03/07/82 1982 RedList_ENG_post2001-NT nummularium to 2015 BSBI Notable and Protected Plant Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bluebell flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93K NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 WACA-Sch8 Records BSBI Notable and Protected Plant Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bluebell flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93L NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 WACA-Sch8 Records BSBI Notable and Protected Plant Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bluebell flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93M NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 WACA-Sch8 Records BSBI Notable and Protected Plant Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bluebell flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93Q NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 WACA-Sch8 Records BSBI Notable and Protected Plant R. Middleton;Geoffrey Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bluebell flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93G NEYEDC 19/06/10 2010 WACA-Sch8 Records Wilmore
1 Our Ref: E05191 Your Ref: 201926 Riplingham On behalf of: Wright Environment Ltd Date: 29/10/20 Search Area: 2km radius from SE955336 Please refer to NEYEDC's Electronic Data Licence for terms and conditions of use of these records (https://www.neyedc.org.uk/policies-and-data)
Taxonomic Scientific Name Common Name Location Grid Reference Custodian Survey Recorder(s) Date(s) Year Record Type Designation(s) Group Night-flowering BSBI Notable and Protected Plant Silene noctiflora flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93G NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 RedList_ENG_post2001-VU; RedList_GB_post2001-VU Catchfly Records Night-flowering BSBI Notable and Protected Plant Silene noctiflora flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93K NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 RedList_ENG_post2001-VU; RedList_GB_post2001-VU Catchfly Records Night-flowering BSBI Notable and Protected Plant Silene noctiflora flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93M NEYEDC Unknown (BSBI Recorder) 1978 - 1991 1991 RedList_ENG_post2001-VU; RedList_GB_post2001-VU Catchfly Records Night-flowering BSBI Notable and Protected Plant Silene noctiflora flowering plant South-east Yorkshire SE93K NEYEDC E.H. Wear 1970 - 1990 1990 RedList_ENG_post2001-VU; RedList_GB_post2001-VU Catchfly Records NBN Atlas OGL NE: Environmental Succisa pratensis Devil's-bit Scabious flowering plant SE9433 NEYEDC Monitoring Database Species data 1987 Withheld (NBN Atlas) 06/08/83 1983 RedList_ENG_post2001-NT to 2015 Satyrium w-album White-letter Hairstreak insect - butterfly Low Hunsley SE957342 NEYEDC Martin Greenland's Butterfly Records Martin Greenland 03/03/07 2007 England_NERC_S.41; RedList_GB_post2001-EN; WACA-Sch5_sect9.5a
Satyrium w-album White-letter Hairstreak insect - butterfly High Hunsley crossroads SE948352 NEYEDC Martin Greenland's Butterfly Records Martin Greenland 25/10/06 2006 England_NERC_S.41; RedList_GB_post2001-EN; WACA-Sch5_sect9.5a
Satyrium w-album White-letter Hairstreak insect - butterfly Low Hunsley SE959339 NEYEDC Martin Greenland's Butterfly Records Martin Greenland 25/10/06 2006 England_NERC_S.41; RedList_GB_post2001-EN; WACA-Sch5_sect9.5a Invertebrate records of North and East some Count of Tyria jacobaeae Cinnabar insect - moth N of Beverly Road, Beverely Clump SE939325 NEYEDC William Ely 25/07/11 2011 England_NERC_S.41 Yorkshire Larvae terrestrial Meles meles Eurasian Badger Little Weighton SE964344 NEYEDC Yorkshire Mammal Group Records Tony Lane 04/09/02 2002 Protection_of_Badgers_Act_1992 mammal terrestrial Bern_A2; CMS_A2; HabDir-A4; HabReg-Sch2; WACA-Sch5_sect9.4b; WACA- Myotis Unidentified Bat Little Weighton SE952335 NEYEDC East Yorkshire Bat Group (roost visits) Unknown 14/01/90 1990 2 Count mammal Sch5_sect9.5a terrestrial Bern-A2; CMS_A2; HabDir-A4; HabReg-Sch2; WACA-Sch5_sect9.4b; WACA- Myotis daubentonii Daubenton's Bat Little Weighton SE952335 NEYEDC East Yorkshire Bat Group (roost visits) Unknown 14/01/90 1990 mammal Sch5_sect9.5a terrestrial Bern-A2; CMS_A2; HabDir-A4; HabReg-Sch2; WACA-Sch5_sect9.4b; WACA- Myotis daubentonii Daubenton's Bat Little Weighton SE952335 NEYEDC East Yorkshire Bat Group (roost visits) Unknown 09/12/89 1989 mammal Sch5_sect9.5a terrestrial Bern-A2; CMS_A2; England_NERC_S.41; HabDir-A4; HabReg-Sch2; WACA- Plecotus auritus Brown Long-eared Bat Little Weighton SE952335 NEYEDC East Yorkshire Bat Group (roost visits) Unknown 14/01/90 1990 mammal Sch5_sect9.4b; WACA-Sch5_sect9.5a terrestrial Bern-A2; CMS_A2; England_NERC_S.41; HabDir-A4; HabReg-Sch2; WACA- Plecotus auritus Brown Long-eared Bat Little Weighton SE952335 NEYEDC East Yorkshire Bat Group (roost visits) Unknown 09/12/89 1989 mammal Sch5_sect9.4b; WACA-Sch5_sect9.5a terrestrial Vespertilionidae Bats Little Weighton SE952335 NEYEDC East Yorkshire Bat Group (roost visits) Unknown 09/12/89 1989 CMS_A2; HabReg-Sch2; WACA-Sch5_sect9.4b; WACA-Sch5_sect9.5a mammal terrestrial Vespertilionidae Bats South Cave SE9332 NEYEDC East Yorkshire Bat Group (roost visits) Unknown 25/07/85 1985 CMS_A2; HabReg-Sch2; WACA-Sch5_sect9.4b; WACA-Sch5_sect9.5a mammal terrestrial Vespertilionidae Bats South Cave SE9332 NEYEDC East Yorkshire Bat Group (roost visits) Unknown 07/08/84 1984 CMS_A2; HabReg-Sch2; WACA-Sch5_sect9.4b; WACA-Sch5_sect9.5a mammal
2 Key to Species Designations
Notable and protected species designations are based on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Conservation Designations for UK Taxa (January 2020): https://hub.jncc.gov.uk/assets/478f7160-967b-4366-acdf-8941fd33850b
Designation Short Name Designation NERC_S.41 England NERC S.41 (UK BAP) Bern_A1 Berne Convention Appendix 1 Bern_A2 Berne Convention Appendix 2 BirdsDir_A1 Birds Directive Annex 1 CMS_A1 Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn Convention) Appendix 1 CMS_A2 Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn Convention) Appendix 2 ECCITES_A EC CITES Annex A ECCITES_B EC CITES Annex B ECCITES_C EC CITES Annex C ECCITES_D EC CITES Annex D HabDir_A4 Habitats Directive Annex 4 HabDir_A5 Habitats Directive Annex 5 INNS Invasive and Non-Native Species (list mainly compiled from GB NNSS) RedList_Global_post2001-CR IUCN 2001 (Global Red List) - Critically endangered RedList_Global_post2001-EN IUCN 2001 (Global Red List) - Endangered RedList_Global_post2001_NT IUCN 2001 (Global Red List) - Near threatened RedList_Global_post2001-VU IUCN 2001 (Global Red List) - Vulnerable Protection_of_Badgers_Act_1992 Protection of Badgers Act 1992 HabReg-Sch2 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Schedule 2 HabReg-Sch2 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 Schedule 2 HabReg-Sch4 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 Schedule 4 HabReg-Sch5 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 Schedule 5 WACA-Sch1_part1 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 1 Part 1) WACA-Sch1_part2 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 1 Part 2) WACA-Sch5 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 5) WACA-Sch5_sect9.1 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 5 Section 9.1) WACA-Sch5_sect9.2 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 5 Section 9.2) WACA-Sch5_sect9.4a Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 5 Section 9.4a) WACA-Sch5_sect9.4b Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 5 Section 9.4b) WACA-Sch5_sect9.5a Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 5 Section 9.5a) WACA-Sch8 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 8) Notable Nationally Notable Notable-A Nationally Notable A Notable-B Nationally Notable B Marine-NR Nationally Rare Marine species (excludes red listed taxa) Marine-NS Nationally Scarce Marine Species (excludes red listed taxa) NR-excludes Nationally Rare (excludes red listed taxa) NS-excludes Nationally Scarce (excludes red listed taxa) RedList_GB_post2001-CR(PE) IUCN 2001 (GB Red List) - Critically endangered (possibly extinct) RedList_GB_post2001-CR IUCN 2001 (GB Red List) - Critically endangered RedList_GB_post2001-EN IUCN 2001 (GB Red List) - Endangered RedList_GB_post2001-NT IUCN 2001 (GB Red List) - Near threatened RedList_GB_post2001-RE IUCN 2001 (GB Red List) - Regionally extinct RedList_GB_post2001-VU IUCN 2001 (GB Red List) - Vulnerable Bird_RedList_GB_post2001-CR(PE)_Breeding IUCN 2001 (GB Bird Red List) - Critically endangered (possibly extinct) breeding Bird_RedList_GB_post2001-CR_Breeding IUCN 2001 (GB Bird Red List) - Critically endangered breeding Bird_RedList_GB_post2001-CR_NonBreeding IUCN 2001 (GB Bird Red List) - Critically endangered non-breeding Bird_RedList_GB_post2001-EN_Breeding IUCN 2001 (GB Bird Red List) - Endangered breeding Bird_RedList_GB_post2001-EN_NonBreeding IUCN 2001 (GB Bird Red List) - Endangered non-breeding Bird_RedList_GB_post2001-NT_Breeding IUCN 2001 (GB Bird Red List) - Near threatened breeding Bird_RedList_GB_post2001-NT_NonBreeding IUCN 2001 (GB Bird Red List) - Near threatened non-breeding Bird_RedList_GB_post2001-RE_Breeding IUCN 2001 (GB Bird Red List) - Regionally extinct breeding Bird_RedList_GB_post2001-VU_Breeding IUCN 2001 (GB Bird Red List) - Vulnerable breeding Bird_RedList_GB_post2001-VU_NonBreeding IUCN 2001 (GB Bird Red List) - Vulnerable non-breeding Bird-Red UK Red List for birds - red Bird-Amber UK Red List for birds - amber RedList_ENG_post2001-CR IUCN 2001 (England Red List) - Critically endangered RedList_ENG_post2001-EN IUCN 2001 (England Red List) -Endangered RedList_ENG_post2001-NT IUCN 2001 (England Red List) - Near threatened RedList_ENG_post2001-RE IUCN 2001 (England Red List) - Regionally extinct RedList_ENG_post2001-VU IUCN 2001 (England Red List) - Vulnerable Selby_LBAP Selby LBAP Priority Species Scar_LBAP Scarborough LBAP Priority Species Crav_LBAP Craven LBAP Priority Species Hamb_LBAP Hambleton LBAP Priority Species Harr_LBAP Harrogate LBAP Priority Species Rich_LBAP Richmond LBAP Priority Species Rye_LBAP Ryedale LBAP Priority Species Drewton Tunnel 2km search from SE952 335 Date Grid Reference Site Speices Record Type Count Comment 09/12/89 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Brown Long-eared Hibernation 3 09/12/89 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Natterer's Hibernation 2 09/12/89 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Daubentons Hibernation 3 14/01/90 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Brown Long-eared Hibernation 5 14/01/90 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Myotis sp Hibernation 5 13/04/90 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Brown Long-eared Hibernation 1 13/04/90 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Daubentons Hibernation 1 08/12/91 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Brown Long-eared Hibernation 3 08/12/91 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Whiskered Hibernation 2 27/12/93 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Brown Long-eared Hibernation 2 14/02/93 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Brown Long-eared Hibernation 1 14/02/93 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Whiskered Hibernation 1 14/02/93 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Myotis sp Hibernation 1 31/12/94 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Brown Long-eared Hibernation Unknown number 31/12/94 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Myotis sp Hibernation Unknown number 14/01/96 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Brown Long-eared Hibernation 4 08/03/98 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Whiskered Hibernation 3 08/03/98 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Whiskered Hibernation 2 08/03/98 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Daubentons Hibernation 5 14/02/99 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Whiskered Hibernation Unknown number 14/02/99 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Brown Long-eared Hibernation Unknown number 07/01/01 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Whiskered Hibernation 4 07/01/01 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Brown Long-eared Hibernation 5 30/12/01 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Brown Long-eared Hibernation Unknown number Total no 21 bats but no individual species numbers recorded 30/12/01 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Whiskered Hibernation Unknown number Total no 21 bats but no individual species numbers recorded 30/12/01 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Myotis sp Hibernation Unknown number Total no 21 bats but no individual species numbers recorded 03/01/04 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Brown Long-eared Hibernation 8 03/01/04 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Daubentons Hibernation 3 03/01/04 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Myotis sp Hibernation 6 03/01/04 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Whiskered Hibernation 2 14/01/05 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Whiskered Hibernation Unknown number 14/01/05 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Whiskered Hibernation Unknown number 14/01/05 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Brown Long-eared Hibernation Unknown number 05/02/05 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Brown Long-eared Hibernation Unknown number Total no 15 bats but no individual species numbers recorded 05/02/05 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Whiskered Hibernation Unknown number Total no 15 bats but no individual species numbers recorded 05/02/05 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Whiskered Hibernation Unknown number Total no 15 bats but no individual species numbers recorded 05/02/06 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Brown Long-eared Hibernation 3 05/02/06 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Daubentons Hibernation 1 05/02/06 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Whiskered Hibernation 2 04/02/07 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Brown Long-eared Hibernation Unknown number Total no 10 bats but no individual species numbers recorded 04/02/07 SE952 335 - SE971 337 Drewton Tunnel Whiskered Hibernation Unknown number Total no 10 bats but no individual species numbers recorded Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
APPENDIX C
Photographs
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Photograph 1: Area of Poor Photograph 2: Area of Photograph 3: Sparsely Semi-Improved Grassland Bramble Scrub with Nettles Vegetated Top Soil Mound
Photograph 4: Area of Tall Photograph 5: Area of Photograph 6: Area of Tall Ruderal Habitat Vegetated Chalk Spoil Ruderal Habitat
Photograph 8: Deciduous Woodland Along Access Photograph 9: Deciduous Photograph 7: Line of Trees Track Trees Along Access Track
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Photograph 10: Rubble by Photograph 11: Area of Access Track Japanese Knotweed Photograph 12: Tree T1
Photograph 13: Tree T2 Photograph 14: Tree T3 Photograph 15: Tree T4
Photograph 16: Tree T5 Photograph 17: Tree T7 Photograph 18: Tree T8
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx November 2020 201926
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Photograph 19: Tree T9 Photograph 20: Tree T10 Photograph 21: Tree T13
Photograph 22: Tree T14 Photograph 23: Tree T18
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Riplingham Quarry Extension.docx November 2020 201926