Site Reference Client Name

Botanical Survey

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle for: BXB Tintwistle Ltd SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd

Contact Details:

Enzygo Ltd. The Byre tel: 01454 269237 Woodend Lane email: [email protected] Cromhall www: enzygo.com Gloucestershire GL12 8AA

Botanical Survey

Project: Bridge Mills, Tintwistle

For: BXB Tintwistle Ltd

Status: Final

Date: 13th December 2016

Author: Phil Eades PhD MCIEEM – Consultant Ecologist

Reviewer: Derek Allan MSc BSc (Hons) MCIEEM – Principal Ecologist

Disclaimer: This report has been produced by Enzygo Limited within the terms of the contract with the client and taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the client. We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above. This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at their own risk.

Enzygo Limited Registered in England No. 6525159 Registered Office Stag House Chipping Wotton-Under-Edge Gloucestershire GL12 7AD

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Commission ...... 1

1.2 Aims and Objectives ...... 1

1.3 Background...... 1

1.4 Site Context ...... 2

2 Methodology ...... 3

2.1 Desk Study ...... 3

2.2 Field Survey ...... 3

2.3 Assessment ...... 4

2.4 Nomenclature...... 4

2.5 Limitations ...... 4

3 Results and Evaluation ...... 6

3.1 Desk Study ...... 6

3.2 Field Survey ...... 6

4 Relevant Legislation and Policy ...... 10

4.1 Legislation ...... 10

4.2 National Planning Policy ...... 10

4.3 Local Planning Policy ...... 11

5 Discussions and Recommendations ...... 12

5.1 Further Survey ...... 12

5.2 Mitigation ...... 12

6 Conclusion ...... 13

7 References ...... 14

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page i Botanical Survey December 2016

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd

Tables and Figures

Figure 1.1: Surveyed Area...... 2

Table 2.1: Domin values ...... 3

Table 3.1: Desk Study Findings ...... 6

Table 3.2: NVC Results ...... 7

Table 4.1: Legislation Protection Afforded to Sites/Habitats that could Potentially be Affected by the Proposed Works ...... 10

Table 4.2: Legislation Protection Afforded to Species that could Potentially be Affected by the Proposed Works ...... 10

Drawings and Appendices

Drawing SHF.1325.001.EC.D.004 – NVC ...... 16

Appendix A – Proposed Site Layout ...... 17

Appendix B – Community Species Lists/DOMIN ...... 18

Appendix C – Target Notes and Photographs ...... 19

Appendix D – NVC Community MATCH outputs...... 20

Appendix E – UK BAP Priority Habitat “Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land” ...... 21

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page ii Botanical Survey December 2016

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd 1 Introduction

1.1 Commission

1.1.1 In late-October 2016 Enzygo Ltd was commissioned by BXB Tintwistle Ltd to undertake a Botanical Survey of Bridge Mills, New Road, Tintwistle, SK13 1JN (central grid reference: SK 01905 96928), located within the Derbyshire County (High Peak District) planning authority. The study will inform outline planning permission for residential development. 1.1.2 The proposed works will include: clearance and re-profiling of the site, including removal of most trees along the northern and western boundaries. There will be no construction/re-profiling works within at least an 8m buffer of the River Etherow, with the exception of a small drainage pipe (approx. 3-4m working footprint) which is to be installed at the eastern end (but no works from within River channel). Construction activities will then include: building in excess of 100 units; creation of access and an internal road network; creation of Public Open Space (POS); replanting of trees along the northern and western boundaries; and landscaping/creation of a nature mitigation area along the southern boundary/edge of River Etherow and to the south- western corner of the site. Refer to Appendix A proposed site layout for further details.

1.2 Aims and Objectives

1.2.1 The aim of the survey was to ascertain:  Category of habitats present in accordance with National Vegetation Classification (NVC) and the condition of these;  Presence/absence of UK BAP Priority Habitat and other important areas (specifically those relating to “Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land”;  Identify likely impacts of the proposed development on important habitats;  Recommend measures to avoid, mitigate or compensate for identified impacts to important habitats; and  Recommend enhancements. 1.2.2 This report has been produced with reference to current guidelines for NVC (Rodwell, 1991- 2000), and in accordance with BS42020:2013: Biodiversity – Code of Practice for Planning and Development (BSI, 2013). 1.2.3 This report remains valid for 2 years from the date of publication, or until conditions across the site should substantially alter.

1.3 Background

1.3.1 There is an expired planning permission for residential development across the site (HPK/2011/0493). There were a number of conditions/reserved matters associated with this permission, including a requirement to undertake an assessment of habitat present against UK BAP Priority habitat “Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land” i.e. botanical surveys. 1.3.2 A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) of the site (Enzygo, 2016) identified a matrix of habitats across the previous industrial site, which could meet criteria to warrant classification as “Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land” UK BAP Priority Habitat.

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 1 Botanical Survey December 2016

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd

1.3.3 To date, there has been no correspondence with the County Ecologist (or any third parties relevant to ecology) in regards to this application.

1.4 Site Context

1.4.1 The approx. 4.01ha site has historically served as various commercial uses. The majority of the site now comprises ephemeral/short perennial which has established over bare ground with areas of tall ruderal, scattered scrub, semi-improved grassland, and broad-leaved woodland. 1.4.2 The River Etherow delineates the southern boundary beyond which lies Hadfield, a sewage works sits immediately to the west beyond which lies an expanse of grassland and woodland, New Road delineates the eastern boundary, and the village of Tintwistle extends to the north beyond a band of woodland and allotments. A series of Reservoirs extend further to the east, with another further to the north-west. Figure 1.1: Surveyed Area

Image courtesy of Google Image Pro 7.1.5.1557, 53o28’07.92”N 1o58’21.78”W Elev. 136m. Imagery date 06/02/2016. Image accessed 12/09/2016.

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 2 Botanical Survey December 2016

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd 2 Methodology

2.1 Desk Study

2.1.1 Desk study details were obtained from the following sources on the associated dates to provide background on similar/important habitats on/in the vicinity of the site. In each case the search included the site and the specified area beyond the site boundary. The search radius was based on the professional judgement of the ecologist leading the appraisal, taking into account the scope of the proposed works and associated potential impacts. Records obtained included:  Any national statutory sites within a 2km radius designated for or associated with a similar habitat type to that occurring within the application footprint (Natural England GIS Digital Boundary Database and Natural England Site Designations, on 12th September 2016); and  Records of local wildlife sites/protected habitats within a 0.5km radius designated for similar habitat types to that occurring within the application footprint (Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT), 12th September 2016).

2.2 Field Survey

National Vegetation Classification 2.2.1 A National Vegetation Classification (NVC) survey was undertaken of habitats across the site (excluding areas of woodland and the River Etherow) in accordance with current guidance (Rodwell, 1991-2000). The survey was undertaken on the 31st October 2016 by Dr Phil Eades (PhD MCIEEM), a consultant ecologist representing Enzygo Ltd, who satisfies all necessary field survey competencies as stipulated by the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). Weather conditions on the day of survey were dry with a light wind, 5% cloud, and a temperature of 14oC. 2.2.2 Plant communities were mapped, and whole community species lists compiled using the DAFOR scale (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional, Rare), with a L (Local) prefix where appropriate. Target notes were also used to note and describe local variations in species composition and other features of interest. 2.2.3 Quadrats were taken of each habitat type, and their locations/extent mapped. Quadrats were typically 2x2 m in areas of short herbaceous vegetation, 4x4 m in areas of more robust grassland and Bramble-rich vegetation, and 10x10 m (or equivalent) of scrub. Small patches of vegetation have been sampled in their entirety. A digital photograph was taken of every quadrat. All higher plant species within each quadrat were recorded, and cover was assessed using Domin cover values as detailed within Table 2.1. Table 2.1: Domin values % cover Domin value 91-100 10 76-90 9 51-75 8 34-50 7 26-33 6 11-25 5 4-10 4 <4 many individuals 3

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 3 Botanical Survey December 2016

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd

% cover Domin value <4 several individuals 2 <4 few individuals 1

2.3 Assessment

2.3.1 Quadrat data have been quality assured prior to running them through the MATCH vegetation analysis software (Malloch, 1992) to aid with their classification. Where several samples have been collected from the same vegetation type, these have been collated to produce a constancy table, and that has also been run through MATCH; this can assist in the process of assigning vegetation types, which is particularly important for disturbed and derelict sites where the presence of vegetation at different stages of succession can cause confusion. The MATCH outputs have been checked against the published NVC community descriptions (Rodwell, 1991- 2000). However, in cases where the published descriptions and field experience of the surveyor conflicted with the MATCH outputs, the highest MATCH coefficients have not necessarily been chosen as the most appropriate vegetation type. 2.3.2 Potential ecological constraints to development have been identified from desk study and field survey data using current development proposals (see Appendix A). 2.3.3 An assessment of likely ecological impacts has been undertaken in accordance with CIEEM guidelines (CIEEM, 2016) only where clear evidence is available to substantiate and justify the findings. This covers construction and operational impacts and includes (but is not limited to): short-term impacts: disturbance; long-term impacts: modification, loss, and fragmentation/ isolation; and post-development interference impacts. In the absence of such evidence, the ecological feature is merely identified as a potential constraint to development. 2.3.4 Where ecological constraints to development are identified, further survey requirements and/or avoidance, mitigation, compensation measures that are proportionate to the predicted degree of risk to biodiversity and to the nature and scale of the proposed works are described. In addition, in accordance with the NPPF, opportunities to enhance or create benefits to wildlife are explored alongside the hierarchy of aforementioned measures.

2.4 Nomenclature

2.4.1 The English names of flora and fauna species are given in the main text of this report. Scientific names are used alongside the English name where this first occurs. Vascular plants and Charophytes follow the nomenclature of The Botanical Society for the British Isles database (BSBI, 2007) with all other flora and fauna following the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway (NBN, 2014).

2.5 Limitations

2.5.1 Data held by consultees may not be exhaustive. The absence of evidence, does not indicate evidence of absence. 2.5.2 Enzygo cannot take responsibility for the accuracy of external data sources and as such discrepancies and inaccuracies may occur. 2.5.3 The survey was undertaken late in the season and species lists should not be considered fully comprehensive, as rarely-occurring or early-flowering species may have been missed during the survey.

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 4 Botanical Survey December 2016

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd

2.5.4 It should be noted that change in vegetation types is often very gradual, and as a consequence, mapped boundaries are only approximate. 2.5.5 Natural successional processes can lead to rapid vegetation change. Consequently, in the absence of any development activity at this site, given time, it is likely that there would be a different distribution of the vegetation types. 2.5.6 Difficulties in classification of habitats are to be expected on recently disturbed ground, as pioneer species quickly colonise new areas, and vegetation can rapidly change its character in just a few years.

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 5 Botanical Survey December 2016

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd

3 Results and Evaluation

3.1 Desk Study

3.1.1 A description of desk study findings relevant to the botanical interest of the site is presented in Table 3.1. Along with predicted impacts and their effect, determined following guidelines set out by CIEEM (CIEEM 2016), in the absence of mitigation. Refer to Drawing SHF.1325.001.EC.D.004 for location/extent of any identified as a potential constraint. Table 3.1: Desk Study Findings Reference Description Assessment Potential Constraint Statutory Sites Designated or Associated with similar habitat types None - - - Local Wildlife Sites Designated or Associated with similar habitat types None - - - Historical Records None - - -

3.2 Field Survey

3.2.1 A description of each habitat type, and corresponding NVC, is presented in Table 3.2. Refer to Drawing SHF.1325.001.EC.D.004 for location/extent. 3.2.2 NVC types OV23, MG1a, MG9a, W24 & S12b were identified. Refer to Appendix B for full community species lists/DOMIN values from quadrats, Appendix C for associated Target Notes and Photographs, and Appendix D for NVC community MATCH outputs. 3.2.3 Gravel hardstanding has become colonised by a short growth of grassland that is quite open, with scattered young scrub (1-2 m tall). In places the scrub is thicker, but over the same type of grassland. Much of the ground between the access tracks is marked by wet furrows or small ditches with shallow standing water in many places. These areas support rushy grassland and taller scrub (2-4 m tall). The perimeter of the site is marked by a narrow belt of deciduous woodland. On the inner side of the peripheral woodland strip is a variable width belt of vegetation that is dominated in most places by dense Bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.), with scattered scrub and a range of tall ruderal and grassland.

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 6 Botanical Survey December 2016

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd

Table 3.2: NVC Results Reference Description Assessment OV23 Lolium Disused gravel hardstanding has become colonised by a short growth of grassland with scattered DOMIN species composition/values and perenne – Dactylis young scrub. In some places the scrub is quite thick, but overlies similar grassland vegetation, into MATCH output coefficients represents glomerata which it is clearly spreading. This is a plant community of disturbed ground that in some cases may OV23. community (short, have resulted from reseeding with a Rye-grass seed mix (Rodwell, 2000). The sward comprises a Several other plant communities were open grassland) number of plant species that are typical of OV23 including Cocks-foot (Dactylis glomerata) and considered as possibilities because of their Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), with Creeping Buttercup (Ranunculus repens), Ribwort Plantain high MATCH coefficients, but were (Plantago lanceolata), and Dandelion (Taraxacum agg.). However, some plant species typical of discounted for the following reasons: OV23 were absent or less frequent than would be expected, including Rye-grass (Lolium perenne) MG6a (typical of permanent pasture); and Annual meadow-grass (Poa annua), and the forbs Greater Plantain (Plantago major), White MG7E (generally produced by seeding grass Clover (Trifolium repens) and Yarrow (Achillea millefolium); while others were more frequent than verges and lawns); would be expected: the grasses Creeping bent-grass (Agrostis stolonifera), Red Fescue (Festuca MG9a (permanently moist and frequently rubra) and Tufted hair-grass (Deschampsia cespitosa); the forbs Red Clover (Trifolium pratense) and inundated neutral soils). Ragwort (Senecio jacobaea); and the mosses Calliergonella cuspidata, Kindbergia praelonga and Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus. MG1a Ground between the peripheral belt of dense bramble and the disused access tracks supports areas DOMIN species composition/values and Arrhenatherum of tall, unmanaged grassland with occasional patches of bramble and scattered willow scrub. This MATCH output coefficients represents elatius grassland, vegetation has its strongest affinity to MG1a grassland, which is typical of ungrazed neutral lowland MG1a. Festuca rubra soils in a wide range of situations, including neglected pastures and meadows, disused building sites, community (tall quarries, rubbish dumps, road verges and railway embankments (Rodwell, 1992). MG1a grassland is grassland) characterised by frequent and often abundant False Oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), Cock’s-foot grass, Red Fescue, Hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium), Ribwort Plantain, and Creeping Thistle (Cirsium arvense), and a wide range of less frequent species, including Bramble, Bush Vetch (Vicia sepium), Creeping Bent-grass, Dandelion, Meadow Vetchling (Vicia sepium), Ragwort and Yorkshire Fog. Also supports several plant species not typically found in MG1a, e.g. Tufted Hair-grass, Field Horse- tail (Equisetum arvense), and the moss Calliergonella cuspidata, which are indicative of the prevailing poorly drained soil conditions at the site. This grassland vegetation also had fairly strong affinity to the MG9 wet grassland community and its two sub-communities, perhaps partly because of the presence of tufted hair-grass (which is characteristic of MG9). However, a number of other plants of the wetter soil conditions associated with MG9 were not present in these grassland areas, e.g. Rough Meadow-grass, Meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria), Soft Rush (Juncus effusus), and Creeping Buttercup.

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 7 Botanical Survey December 2016

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd

Reference Description Assessment MG9a Holcus Between the grassy access tracks are a series of furrows or small ditches that hold shallow water in DOMIN species composition/values and lanatus – many places, and support a range of wetland plants. These include abundant grasses and sedges: MATCH output coefficients represents Deschampsia Creeping Bent-grass, Hairy Sedge (Carex hirta), and Tufted Hair-grass; the rushes Hard Rush (Juncus MG9a. cespitosa grassland, inflexus), Jointed Rush (Juncus articulatus) and Soft Rush; an abundance of the moss Calliergonella Poa trivialis sub- cuspidata; and much young grey willow scrub to about 2-3 m in height. Other plants that were community (wet present include abundant field horsetail, Yorkshire fog, and scattered Birch scrub (both downy and furrows & shallow silver birch), over occasional Common Reed (Phragmites australis), Common Vetch (Vicia sativa), ditches) Creeping Thistle, Curled Dock (Rumex crispus), Great Willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum), Greater Bird’s-foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), Hoary Willowherb (Epilobium parviflorum), Pendulous Sedge (Carex pendula), and Square-stalked St John’s-wort (Hypericum tetrapterum). Whilst this vegetation had affinities to both MG9 grassland and MG10 rush-pasture, MG9a is considered to be the most appropriate classification, in part because MG10 does not typically support tufted hair-grass, which was abundant here. MG10 rush-pasture may also require more consistently wet soils than MG9. Both plant communities are characteristic of permanently moist, periodically inundated soils, particularly in pastures, woodland clearings, road verges, river banks and fen margins (Rodwell, 1992). W24 Rubus The perimeter of the site is marked by a narrow belt of deciduous woodland that was not sampled DOMIN species composition/values and fruticosus – Holcus as part of this project. Inside this there is a variable width belt of vegetation that is dominated in MATCH output coefficients represents W24. lanatus under scrub most places by dense bramble, with scattered to locally dense scrub of young willow and birch trees (dense Bramble & (to about 4 m tall), and occasional Buddleia (Buddleia davidii) and Broom (Cytisus scoparius). In some scrub) places the bramble was less dense, and a range of other robust plants was found scattered throughout, including grasses (cock’s-foot, common reed, false oat-grass, tufted hair-grass, and Yorkshire fog), and robust forbs such as creeping thistle, greater willow-herb, hogweed, nettle (Urtica dioica), ragwort, and rose-bay willowherb (Chamaerion angustifolium). In addition, the invasive alien species Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) was found occasionally on the bank leading down to the river; and Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica) was found there too, and at various points elsewhere around the periphery of the site. W24 underscrub is considered to be the most appropriate classification for this vegetation. W24 is typical of abandoned and neglected ground in the British lowlands, and can represent an early stage in succession to mixed deciduous woodland (Rodwell, 1991). However, the vegetation at Bridge Mills also has affinity to MG1 grassland, into which it grades (and from which it has probably developed), and to the OV27 Epilobium [Chamaerion] angustifolium community, which is typical of damp, fertile, disturbed ground.

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 8 Botanical Survey December 2016

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd

Reference Description Assessment S12b Typha latifolia In the north-eastern corner of the site, beside an area of tarmac hardstanding and patches of open, DOMIN species composition/values and swamp, Mentha low-growing grassland, there is a small, shallow, water-filled hollow about 6x3 m in area, that MATCH output coefficients represents S12b. aquatica sub- supports dense Bulrush (Typha latifolia) and abundant Calliergonella cuspidata, mixed with creeping community bent-grass, curled dock, field horse-tail, great willowherb, soft rush, and tufted hair-grass. This (Bulrush swamp) vegetation is clearly an example of the S12b swamp community, which is characteristic of permanent shallow water such as occur around lake and pond margins (Rodwell, 1995) 3.2.4 Each of the following criteria must be met to define a habitat as Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land (OMH). Refer to Appendix E for full details of UK BAP Priority Habitat definition of “Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land”: 1. The area of open mosaic habitat is at least 0.25ha in size; 2. Known history of disturbance at the site or evidence that soil has been severely modified by previous use(s) of the site. Extraneous material such as industrial spoil may have been added; 3. The site contains some vegetation. This will comprise early successional communities consisting mainly of stress tolerant species (e.g. indicative of low nutrient status or drought). Early successional communities are composed of a) annuals, or b) mosses/liverworts, or c) lichens, or d) ruderals, or e) inundation species, or f) open grassland, or g) flower-rich grassland, or h) heathland; 4. The site contains unvegetated, loose bare substrate and pools may be present; 5. The site shows spatial variation, forming a mosaic of one or more of the early successional communities a)-h) above (criterion 3) plus bare substrate, within 0.25ha. 3.2.5 Habitats across the site meet criteria: 1 (>0.25ha); 2 (disturbance/previous industrial use), 3 (successional communities a, d, e, f & g), 4 (remnant bare substrate and pools), and 5 (mosaic/spatial variation). No one particular area has been identified as more important than any other, with a similar matrix/habitat distribution recorded across the site. In the absence of mitigation, the proposed works would result in the loss of approximately 3ha of this UK BAP Priority Habitat type during site clearance/construction activities (the other 1.1ha of habitat on site being woodland and riparian edges). It is worth noting that over time the site will eventually become grassland and scrub, and not form a mosaic of habitat as listed above, hence the UK BAP Priority Habitat definition of Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land would be lost to natural succession.

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 9 Botanical Survey December 2016

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd

4 Relevant Legislation and Policy

4.1 Legislation

4.1.1 Wildlife legislation and policy relevant to the proposed works, based on the findings of the desk study and field survey are set out below. This legal information is a summary only, and the original legal documents should be consulted for definitive information. Table 4.1: Legislation Protection Afforded to Sites/Habitats that could Potentially be Affected by the Proposed Works Designated Legal Status Site/Habitat None - Table 4.2: Legislation Protection Afforded to Species that could Potentially be Affected by the Proposed Works Species Legal Status European Protected None - Nationally Protected None - Invasive Species None - 4.1.2 Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (the NERC Act) places a legal duty on public bodies, including planning authorities, to ‘have regard’ to the conservation of biodiversity when carrying out their normal functions, which includes consideration of planning applications. 4.1.3 In compliance with Section 41 of the NERC Act, the Secretary of State has published a list of species and habitats considered to be of principal importance for conserving biodiversity in England under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. This is known as the list of Habitats and Species of Principal Importance (HPI/SPI), of which there are 56 habitats and 943 species. The HPI/SPI list is used to guide planning authorities in implementing their duty under the NERC Act.

4.2 National Planning Policy

4.2.1 The NPPF set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This presumption does not apply where development requiring Appropriate Assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined. 4.2.2 The NPPF states that: ‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:  if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 10 Botanical Survey December 2016

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd

 proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) likely to have an adverse effect on a SSSI (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of SSSIs;  development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted;  opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged;  planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss; and  the following wildlife sites should be given the same protection as European sites: potential Special Protection Areas (SPA) and possible Special Areas of Conservation (SAC); listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sites, potential SPAs, possible SACs, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites.’ 4.2.3 Under the NPPF, the Planning Authority has a responsibility to promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets, and identify suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity in the plan. 4.2.4 Also under the NPPF the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures.

4.3 Local Planning Policy

4.3.1 The following policies of High Peak Local Plan are applicable (High Peak Borough Council, 2016):  Policy EQ 5 Biodiversity;  Policy EQ 8 Green Infrastructure; and  Policy EQ 9 Trees, woodland and hedgerows.

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 11 Botanical Survey December 2016

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd 5 Discussions and Recommendations

5.1 Further Survey

5.1.1 No further surveys are recommended.

5.2 Mitigation

5.2.1 For each potential constraint identified, all mitigation options provided follow the established mitigation hierarchy as set out in BS42020:2013 (BSI, 2013). This seeks as a preference to avoid impacts, then to mitigate unavoidable impacts, and as a last resort, to compensate for unavoidable residual impacts that remain after avoidance and mitigation measures. All recommended mitigation measures follow current best practice guidance as identified by CIEEM and is proportionate to the level of impact identified and to the nature and scale of the proposed works. A clear and valid justification of methods has been provided where necessary. The implementation of mitigation methods should make reference to the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CITB, 2016) where applicable. Avoidance 5.2.2 Not possible (site clearance and land re-profiling needs to occur to permit the proposed development). Mitigation 5.2.3 The loss of OMH UK BAP Priority Habitat will be partially mitigated for by the retention/re- creation of a matrix of habitats along the southern boundary, to the south-western corner, and to the north-western corner of the site. Refer to Appendix A proposed site layout for further details. This nature/green space area will contain a matrix of habitat including open ground, and be approximately 0.5ha in size. As necessary, this mitigation can be secured as a planning condition. 5.2.4 Full mitigation within the application boundary is not possible (no capacity within site to retain/re-create sufficient areas of OMH UK BAP Priority Habitat which would require considerable management to maintain in this state/prevent natural succession). Compensation 5.2.5 To provide additional compensation for the loss of OMH UK BAP Priority Habitat, additional habitats are to be created across the site, including: tree lines along the northern and western site boundaries; swale to the south-western corner; and tree planting throughout new residential gardens. Refer to Appendix A proposed site layout for further details. As necessary, this compensation can be secured as a planning condition. Enhancement 5.2.6 In accordance with NPPF, biodiversity enhancements will be incorporated throughout the site. Refer to PEA report (Enzygo, 2016) for further details.

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 12 Botanical Survey December 2016

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd 6 Conclusion

6.1.1 There will be an unavoidable loss of OMH UK BAP Priority Habitat (as the whole site cannot be retained) as a result of the proposed development.

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 13 Botanical Survey December 2016

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd 7 References

Publications

BSBI, 2007. Botanical Society for the British Isles. BSBI 2007 List. Available at: http://www.bsbi.org.uk/resources.html [Accessed on 3rd February 2016].

BSI, 2013. Biodiversity - Code of Practice for Planning and Development BS42020:2013. BSI Standards Limited: London.

CIEEM, 2016. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal, 2nd edition. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.

CITB, 2016. Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. Available at: http://www.citb.co.uk/health-safety-and-other-topics/health-safety/construction-design-and- management-regulations/cdm-guidance-documents [Accessed on 3rd February 2016].

Enzygo, 2016. Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. Enzygo, Cromhall.

JNCC, 2015. UK BAP Priority Species and Habitats. Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5705 [Accessed on 3rd February 2016].

Malloch, A.J.C. (1992). MATCH – a computer programme to aid the assignment of vegetation data to the communities and subcommunities of the National Vegetation Classification. University of Lancaster, Lancaster.

NBN, 2014. National Biodiversity Network Gateway Species Dictionary. Available at: http://nbn.org.uk/Tools-Resources/NBN-Dictionaries/Species-Dictionary.aspx [Accessed on 23rd September 2016].

Rodwell, J.S. (ed.) 1991. British Plant Communities. Volume 1. Woodlands and scrub. Cambridge University Press.

Rodwell, J.S. (ed.) 1991. British Plant Communities. Volume 2. Mires and heath. Cambridge University Press.

Rodwell, J. S. (ed.) 1992. British Plant Communities. Volume 3. Grassland and montane communities. Cambridge University Press.

Rodwell, J.S. (ed.) 1995. British Plant Communities. Volume 4. Aquatic communities, swamps and tall- herb fens. Cambridge University Press.

Rodwell, J.S. (ed.) 2000. British plant communities. Volume 5. Maritime communities and vegetation of open habitats. Cambridge University Press.

Smith, A.J.E. (2004). The Moss Flora of Britain and Ireland. 2nd Ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

Stace, C. (2010). New flora of the British Isles (3rd edition). Cambridge University Press.

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 14 Botanical Survey December 2016

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd

Legislation Sources

Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1927/contents/made [Accessed on 3rd February 2016].

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/contents [Accessed on 3rd February 2016].

National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/97 [Accessed on 3rd February 2016].

National Planning Policy Framework (2012). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2 [Accessed on 3rd February 2016].

Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006: Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/ [Accessed on 3rd February 2016].

The Habitats Directive. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm. [Accessed on 3rd February 2016].

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 [Accessed on 3rd February 2016].

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 15 Botanical Survey December 2016

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd Drawing SHF.1325.001.EC.D.004 – NVC

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 16 Botanical Survey December 2016 Key

Site Boundary

Quadrant and Target Note Location

Hardstanding and Access Tracks

MG1a Tall Grassland

MG9a Wet Furrow and Shallow Ditched

OV23 Short Open Grassland

S12b Bulrush Swamp

T1 T2 Q19 W24 Dense Scrub

Q1 Q14 Q5 Woodland

Q15 Q6

Q10

Q20

Q9 Q2 T6

T5

T7 Q4

Q16 Q3

Q13 Q12

Q8 T3 Q7 Q11 Q18

CLIENT: T4 BXB Tintwistle Ltd

PROJECT REF: Q17 SCALE: 1:1,500@A3 SHF.1325.001

DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: MG DA Dec 2016

PROJECT: Bridge Mills, Tintwistle

TITLE: NVC Survey

DRAWING NO: SHF.1325.001.EC.D.004

‹&URZQFRS\ULJKWDQGGDWDEDVHULJKWV2UGQDQFH6XUYH\

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd Appendix A – Proposed Site Layout

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 17 Botanical Survey December 2016

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd Appendix B – Community Species Lists/DOMIN

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 18 Botanical Survey December 2016 NVC sample data for quadrats 1-4 (OV23) Quadrat ID 1 2 3 4 Easting 401967 401892 401870 401913 Northing 397002 396915 396867 396882 Quadrat size 2 x 2 m 2 x 2 m 2 x 2 m 2 x 2 m Photo ID: (all have prefix DSC0) 3505 3510 3511 3512 Species name Domin Domin Domin Domin Constancy Agrostis stolonifera 6 7 7 6 V Calliergonella cuspidata 7 6 6 5 V Cynosurus cristatus 3 I Dactylis glomerata 3 I Deschampsia cespitosa cespitosa 1 2 II Festuca rubra 2 3 II Holcus lanatus 5 4 4 IV Hypericum tetrapterum 1 I Kindbergia praelonga 3 4 3 3 V Plantago lanceolata 4 5 4 4 V Prunella vulgaris 2 I Ranunculus repens 3 I Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 3 I Senecio jacobaea 3 3 3 3 V Taraxacum seedlings 3 3 3 3 V Trifolium campestre 2 3 II Trifolium pratense 5 5 5 5 V Tussilago farfara 1 I

NVC sample data for quadrats 5-9 (MG1a) Quadrat ID 5 6 7 8 9 Easting 401924 401903 401893 401822 401828 Northing 396998 396972 396838 396839 396920 Quadrat size 4 x 4 m 4 x 4 m 4 x 4 m 4 x 4 m 4 x 4 m Photo ID: (all have prefix DSC0) 3506 3508 3514 3520 Species name Domin Domin Domin Domin Domin Constancy Agrostis stolonifera 4 4 II Arrhenatherum elatius 5 5 5 III Calliergonella cuspidata 4 4 4 5 4 V Carex hirta 4 4 II Centaurea nigra 3 I Cirsium arvense 3 3 4 III Dactylis glomerata 4 4 4 III Deschampsia cespitosa cespitosa 3 3 4 III Elytrigia repens 3 I Epilobium hirsutum 2 4 II Epilobium parviflorum 2 I Equisetum arvense 3 1 3 3 3 V Festuca rubra 4 5 II Heracleum sphondylium 3 I Holcus lanatus 5 3 4 5 4 V Hypericum tetrapterum 1 I Juncus inflexus 3 I Lathyrus pratensis 3 1 3 III Lolium perenne 2 I Lotus pedunculatus 2 I Phalaris arundinacea 2 I

Quadrat ID 5 6 7 8 9 Plantago lanceolata 4 4 4 5 3 V Potentilla reptans 3 3 II Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 4 4 4 3 IV Rubus fruticosus agg. 4 3 II Salix cinerea 3 I Senecio jacobaea 4 4 4 4 4 V Stachys sylvatica 3 2 II Taraxacum seedlings 3 3 II Torilis japonica 4 II Trifolium pratense 5 I Tussilago farfara 2 I Vicia sativa 3 I Vicia sepium 3 3 II Vicia tetrasperma 4 3 II

NVC sample data for quadrats 10-13 (MG9a) Quadrat ID 10 11 12 13 Easting 401916 401849 401894 401805 Northing 396953 396834 396852 396852 Quadrat size 2 x 2 m 2 x 2 m 2 x 2 m 2 x 2 m Photo ID: (all have prefix DSC0) 3509 3518 3515 Species name Domin Domin Domin Domin Constancy Agrostis stolonifera 6 5 5 4 V Betula pendula 1 1 II Betula pubescens 1 I Calliergonella cuspidata 9 7 8 7 V Carex hirta 5 3 4 IV Carex pendula 4 I Cirsium arvense 3 I Deschampsia cespitosa cespitosa 3 3 3 4 V Epilobium hirsutum 3 3 II Epilobium parviflorum 1 3 II Equisetum arvense 7 5 3 4 V Geranium molle 1 I Holcus lanatus 4 4 3 4 V Hypericum tetrapterum 1 3 II Juncus articulatus 5 3 3 IV Juncus effusus 3 1 3 3 V Juncus inflexus 3 4 6 5 V Kindbergia praelonga 3 I Lathyrus pratensis 1 I Lotus pedunculatus 4 I Medicago lupulina 1 I Phragmites australis 4 I Plantago lanceolata 4 3 4 IV Potentilla anserina 3 I Prunella vulgaris 2 I Rumex crispus 3 3 II Rumex obtusifolius 2 2 II Salix cinerea 4 3 3 IV Senecio jacobaea 2 2 II Taraxacum seedlings 2 2 3 IV Trifolium pratense 4 I Vicia sativa 2 I Vicia tetrasperma 3 I

NVC sample data for quadrats 15-20 (W24) Quadrat ID 15 16 17 18 19 20 Easting 401882 401945 401789 401882 401967 401892 Northing 396971 396870 396785 396828 397013 396930 Quadrat size 4 x 4 m 4 x 4 m 4 x 4 m 4 x 4 m 5 x 20 m 5 x 20 m Photo ID: (all have prefix DSC0) 3507 3513 3517 3516 3519 Species name Domin Domin Domin Domin Domin Domin Constancy Agrostis stolonifera 5 I Alnus glutinosa 1 I Arrhenatherum elatius 3 4 5 III Betula pendula 3 2 3 4 IV Betula pubescens 3 I Budleia davidii 1 1 II Calliergonella cuspidata 6 6 II Calystegia sepium 2 I Chamerion angustifolium 3 4 3 3 IV Cirsium arvense 3 4 II Cytisus scoparius 1 I Dactylis glomerata 3 4 4 III Deschampsia cespitosa cespitosa 3 4 II Epilobium hirsutum 3 4 II Equisetum arvense 3 3 II Fallopia japonica 4 I Fraxinus excelsior 3 1 II Galium aparine 3 I Geranium molle 2 I Heracleum sphondylium 4 I Holcus lanatus 3 5 5 III Impatiens glandulifera 3 2 II Kindbergia praelonga 4 I Phalaris arundinacea 3 4 II Plantago lanceolata 2 4 II Potentilla reptans 3 I Quercus seedling/sp 1 I Ranunculus repens 3 I Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 4 I Rubus fruticosus agg. 9 10 10 5 3 3 V Rumex crispus 2 I Salix caprea 3 3 II Salix cinerea 3 3 8 7 IV Senecio jacobaea 3 3 II Symphytum officinale 5 I Taraxacum seedlings 3 3 II Trifolium pratense 3 3 II Tussilago farfara 2 I Urtica dioica 4 3 4 III Vicia sativa 3 I

NVC sample data for quadrat 14 (S12b) Quadrat ID 14 Easting 401981 Northing 397004 Quadrat size 3 x 6 m Photo ID: (all have prefix DSC0) 3504 Species name Domin

Agrostis stolonifera 4 Calliergonella cuspidata 8 Deschampsia cespitosa cespitosa 2 Epilobium hirsutum 4 Equisetum arvense 3 Juncus effusus 2 Rumex crispus 3 Typha latifolia 9

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd Appendix C – Target Notes and Photographs

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 19 Botanical Survey December 2016 NVC quadrat descriptions and target notes Quadrat / NVC Notes Photo Target note type Q1 OV23 Open dry grassland, low growing, on old gravel hard standing, surrounded by young, fairly dense willow scrub on similar vegetation

Q2 OV23 Open grass on old access track

Q3 OV23 Open grass on old access track. Scattered small willow seedlings.

Q4 OV23 Open grass on old access track

Q5 MG1a Tall grassland

Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist / Dec 2016 1 Q6 MG1a Tall unmanaged, robust grassland, with scattered willow scrub, dense patches of bramble, and occasional wet areas with Juncus inflexus and Epilobium hirsutum.

Q7 MG1a Tall grassland with scattered scrub, brambles and tall ruderals in places

Q8 MG1a Tall damp grassland between furrows

Q9 MG1a Tall grassland with scrub and bramble Q10 MG9a Wet hollow with rushes, Agrostis stolonifera, Calliergonella cuspidata, Equisetum arvense, some deschampsia, Epilobium hirsutum, close to the main access track.

Q11 MG9a Strips alongside the old access tracks comprise a series of shallow, wet furrows that support rushy vegetation, with varying degrees of scrub development over them. In places the drier ground alongside the furrows supports patchy dry grassland, similar to either the access tracks or the more mature grassland

Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist / Dec 2016 2 Q12 MG9a Damp rushy ground with a small patch of Phragmites. Most of this strip lacks Phragmites, having instead much Juncus inflexus over Calliergonella cuspidata

Q13 MG9a Wet furrows with young willow scrub Q14 S12b Small patch of Typha in wet hollow, 6 x 3 m, shallow water

Q15 W24 Dense bramble scrub adjacent to a narrow strip of mixed ash & oak woodland that borders the site on the north side. Also present are patches of Japanese knotweed.

Q16 W24 Bramble scrub on bank above river, very dense, species poor

Q17 W24 Brambles with patches of Japanese knotweed

Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist / Dec 2016 3 Q18 W24 An area of robust ruderals at the top of the bank above the river, grading into dense bramble on the bank itself

Q19 W24 Dense willow scrub 2-4 m tall over dry, open grassland Q20 W24 Scrub over dry grassland

T1 Bare tarmac. Adjacent area is bare gravel with scattered grasses and young willow scrub, similar to old access tracks

T2 Open grassland around hardstanding

T3 Open grassland, but with much small scrub 50-100 cm

T4 Willow and birch woodland beside the river over a stand (50 m x 5 m) of Iris pseudacorus, Impatiens glandulifera, Urtica dioica, Epilobium hirsutum, Carex pendula, Dryopteris felis-femina (not sampled)

T5 Open grassland with scrub

T6 A strip on the south-east side of an old access track that supports a mosaic of open grass, scrub and some rushy furrows

T7 Tall willow scrub along the western boundary overhangs dense bramble scrub

Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist / Dec 2016 4

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd Appendix D – NVC Community MATCH outputs

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 20 Botanical Survey December 2016 Matching of data with diagnoses for: All vegetation

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 1 Community code co-efficient MG 7E 41.1 0 subcommunities. MG 9 37.8 2 subcommunities. MG 5 36.7 3 subcommunities. MG 4 34.9 0 subcommunities. OV23 34.2 4 subcommunities. MG 7F 33.1 0 subcommunities. MG 7D 32.9 0 subcommunities. MC 9 32.5 5 subcommunities. MG 6 32.3 3 subcommunities. SD 8 31.2 5 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient MG 7E 41.1 MG 9a 39.7 MG 9b 39.6 MG 5b 37.8 MG 9 37.8 SD 8d 37.7 MG 5 36.7 SD 8e 36.1 MG 5a 36.0 MG 4 34.9

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 2 Community code co-efficient MG 7E 37.6 0 subcommunities. OV23 33.1 4 subcommunities. MG 7F 31.1 0 subcommunities. MG10 29.0 3 subcommunities. MG 7D 28.7 0 subcommunities. MG 4 27.9 0 subcommunities. MG 7C 27.5 0 subcommunities. MC 9 27.1 5 subcommunities. MG 5 26.8 3 subcommunities. SD17 25.6 4 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient MG 7E 37.6 OV23c 35.9 OV23 33.1 OV23a 33.0 MG10a 31.7 MG 7F 31.1 OV23d 29.6 SD17a 29.3 MG10 29.0 MG 7D 28.7

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 3 Community code co-efficient MG 9 36.3 2 subcommunities. MG 7E 36.1 0 subcommunities. MC 9 33.2 5 subcommunities. MG 4 31.4 0 subcommunities. MG12 30.4 2 subcommunities. MG 7D 29.8 0 subcommunities. MG 8 29.2 0 subcommunities. SM28 28.9 0 subcommunities.

SD 8 28.8 5 subcommunities. MG 5 28.6 3 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient MG 9a 40.3 MG 9 36.3 MG 7E 36.1 MG 9b 35.0 MC 9a 34.7 MG12a 33.7 SD 8d 33.5 MC 9 33.2 SD 8a 32.6 MG 4 31.4

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 4 Community code co-efficient OV23 30.9 4 subcommunities. MG 7E 30.1 0 subcommunities. MG 4 30.0 0 subcommunities. OV28 29.6 2 subcommunities. SD17 29.3 4 subcommunities. MG10 28.7 3 subcommunities. MG 8 28.4 0 subcommunities. MG 7D 26.7 0 subcommunities. MG 5 26.6 3 subcommunities. OV21 26.4 3 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient OV23c 35.9 SD17a 34.8 OV23 30.9 MG 7E 30.1 MG 4 30.0 OV28 29.6 SD17 29.3 MG10a 29.1 MG10 28.7 OV23a 28.6

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 5 Community code co-efficient MG 9 32.4 2 subcommunities. MG 1 31.3 5 subcommunities. SD 9 29.4 2 subcommunities. MG 4 28.4 0 subcommunities. MG 5 28.1 3 subcommunities. SD 8 26.7 5 subcommunities. SD 7 25.4 4 subcommunities. MG 6 25.0 3 subcommunities. MG 7E 24.3 0 subcommunities. OV23 24.1 4 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient MG 9b 36.5 SD 9a 33.8 MG 1e 32.7 MG 1a 32.6 MG 9 32.4 MG 1 31.3 MG 9a 30.0 SD 9 29.4 MG 1c 29.2

MG 5a 28.5

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 6 Community code co-efficient MG 1 32.2 5 subcommunities. SD 9 31.7 2 subcommunities. SD 8 30.8 5 subcommunities. MG 9 30.5 2 subcommunities. MC 9 30.3 5 subcommunities. MG 7E 29.9 0 subcommunities. MG 5 28.0 3 subcommunities. MC11 27.3 3 subcommunities. MG 6 26.0 3 subcommunities. MC12 25.5 2 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient SD 9a 38.1 MG 9b 37.4 MG 1a 35.7 MG 1e 35.2 MC 9b 35.1 SD 8a 33.1 SD 9b 32.9 SD 8d 32.3 MG 1 32.2 SD 9 31.7

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 7 Community code co-efficient MG 9 37.3 2 subcommunities. MG 1 36.3 5 subcommunities. W24 33.8 2 subcommunities. OV26 29.2 5 subcommunities. OV25 27.3 3 subcommunities. OV27 25.4 5 subcommunities. OV23 25.3 4 subcommunities. MG 7E 24.8 0 subcommunities. SD 9 24.4 2 subcommunities. MG 6 24.4 3 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient MG 9b 43.7 MG 1a 39.0 MG 1c 38.5 MG 1b 37.5 MG 9 37.3 MG 1 36.3 OV26d 34.9 MG 9a 34.2 W24 33.8 W24a 33.3

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 8 Community code co-efficient MG 7E 29.4 0 subcommunities. MG10 28.0 3 subcommunities. OV23 26.6 4 subcommunities. SD 8 26.0 5 subcommunities. SD17 25.0 4 subcommunities. MC 9 24.9 5 subcommunities. MG 9 24.6 2 subcommunities. MG 7D 24.4 0 subcommunities. MG 4 24.4 0 subcommunities.

MG 5 23.1 3 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient SD 8d 32.1 OV23c 31.1 MG10a 30.2 MG 7E 29.4 MG10b 29.2 MG 9a 28.6 SD17a 28.2 SD 8e 28.1 MG10 28.0 SD 8a 27.7

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 9 Community code co-efficient MG 9 32.2 2 subcommunities. MG 1 30.4 5 subcommunities. OV26 27.6 5 subcommunities. W24 26.8 2 subcommunities. OV25 26.0 3 subcommunities. MG 7E 25.2 0 subcommunities. MG 6 23.9 3 subcommunities. OV23 23.0 4 subcommunities. MG 5 22.3 3 subcommunities. MG10 21.7 3 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient OV26d 34.6 MG 1b 33.0 MG 9b 32.5 MG 9 32.2 MG 9a 31.2 MG 1c 30.8 MG 1a 30.4 MG 1 30.4 OV26a 29.1 OV25b 28.7

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 10 Community code co-efficient MG10 35.2 3 subcommunities. MG 9 33.3 2 subcommunities. M23 32.0 2 subcommunities. SD17 27.2 4 subcommunities. MG13 25.7 0 subcommunities. OV26 25.6 5 subcommunities. M22 23.4 4 subcommunities. SD15 22.7 4 subcommunities. SD14 22.4 4 subcommunities. OV32 22.2 0 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient MG10a 36.8 MG10 35.2 MG 9a 35.1 MG10b 34.8 OV26a 34.3 M23b 34.3 MG 9 33.3 M23 32.0 MG 9b 29.9 OV26c 28.3

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 11 Community code co-efficient MG10 32.9 3 subcommunities. MG 9 30.5 2 subcommunities. MG 4 27.0 0 subcommunities. SD17 26.3 4 subcommunities. M22 24.4 4 subcommunities. M23 22.1 2 subcommunities. SD14 22.1 4 subcommunities. MG 7E 21.4 0 subcommunities. MG12 21.3 2 subcommunities. W 1 21.0 0 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient MG 9a 34.2 MG10 32.9 MG10a 30.9 MG10b 30.6 MG 9 30.5 M22b 30.1 MG 9b 28.1 SD17a 27.5 MG 4 27.0 SD17 26.3

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 12 Community code co-efficient MG10 36.0 3 subcommunities. MG 9 31.4 2 subcommunities. SD17 25.5 4 subcommunities. M22 25.3 4 subcommunities. S 4 24.9 4 subcommunities. OV26 24.8 5 subcommunities. MG13 23.7 0 subcommunities. M23 23.2 2 subcommunities. SD15 22.8 4 subcommunities. SD14 21.5 4 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient MG10b 38.6 MG10 36.0 MG10a 33.5 MG 9a 31.5 MG 9 31.4 MG 9b 31.3 M22b 27.8 M22a 27.5 MG10c 27.4 M23b 26.4

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 13 Community code co-efficient MG10 33.9 3 subcommunities. MG 9 31.2 2 subcommunities. OV26 24.1 5 subcommunities. OV23 21.8 4 subcommunities. SD17 20.8 4 subcommunities. MG 7E 20.3 0 subcommunities. MG 4 20.2 0 subcommunities. MG 1 19.4 5 subcommunities. S17 19.3 0 subcommunities. MG 6 19.1 3 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient MG10b 37.4 MG10 33.9 MG 9a 32.6 MG 9 31.2 MG10a 30.3 MG 9b 29.0 OV26a 28.5 OV23c 24.9 MG10c 24.6 OV26d 24.2

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 14 Community code co-efficient S12 35.9 4 subcommunities. OV26 27.6 5 subcommunities. MG13 27.5 0 subcommunities. MG10 26.9 3 subcommunities. S18 26.5 2 subcommunities. MG 9 23.2 2 subcommunities. SD17 21.1 4 subcommunities. S 4 19.9 4 subcommunities. S26 19.5 4 subcommunities. S28 18.3 3 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient S12b 38.5 OV26a 38.0 S12 35.9 MG10a 29.4 S12a 28.7 OV26 27.6 S12d 27.6 MG13 27.5 MG10 26.9 OV26e 26.8

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 15 Community code co-efficient OV27 40.1 5 subcommunities. W24 33.5 2 subcommunities. OV24 31.6 2 subcommunities. W 6 30.6 4 subcommunities. W25 27.7 2 subcommunities. MG 1 26.1 5 subcommunities. OV26 24.1 5 subcommunities. MG 9 23.8 2 subcommunities. W12 23.2 3 subcommunities. W10 23.0 5 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient OV27b 43.3 OV27 40.1 MG 1b 40.0 OV27c 35.4 MG 9b 34.5 W 6e 34.5 W24 33.5 OV24b 32.9 MG 1c 32.0 W24b 31.7

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 16 Community code co-efficient OV27 38.6 5 subcommunities. W24 24.1 2 subcommunities. W 1 23.5 0 subcommunities. W 4 23.0 3 subcommunities. W 6 21.7 4 subcommunities. W25 19.8 2 subcommunities. W16 19.5 2 subcommunities. W10 19.0 5 subcommunities. W14 18.3 0 subcommunities. SD18 17.5 2 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient OV27 38.6 OV27a 33.1 W10d 32.1 OV27b 32.0 OV27c 30.0 W16a 25.0 W24a 24.9 W10b 24.7 W25b 24.3 W24 24.1

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 17 Community code co-efficient W 6 35.2 4 subcommunities. S28 31.9 3 subcommunities. OV27 30.5 5 subcommunities. OV26 27.6 5 subcommunities. S26 22.5 4 subcommunities. W 1 20.6 0 subcommunities. W 2 20.5 2 subcommunities. W24 20.1 2 subcommunities. W 5 19.6 3 subcommunities. W25 17.8 2 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient W 6 35.2 S28b 34.0 W 6b 33.2 W 6a 32.4 S28 31.9 W 6d 30.8 OV27 30.5 OV26e 28.7 OV26 27.6 OV26d 27.2

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 18 Community code co-efficient OV26 40.1 5 subcommunities. OV24 39.1 2 subcommunities. S26 36.5 4 subcommunities. S28 32.3 3 subcommunities. OV25 31.4 3 subcommunities. W24 31.2 2 subcommunities. MG 1 30.5 5 subcommunities. W 6 26.9 4 subcommunities. OV27 24.0 5 subcommunities. W21 23.3 4 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient OV26d 51.6 S26b 48.0 MG 1b 44.8 OV24b 43.5 OV26e 43.0 OV26 40.1 OV24 39.1 S28b 36.8 S26 36.5 MG 1c 35.5

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 19 Community code co-efficient MG 7E 32.5 0 subcommunities. OV23 30.0 4 subcommunities. MG 7D 28.4 0 subcommunities. MG 1 26.2 5 subcommunities. W 1 25.8 0 subcommunities. MG 9 25.3 2 subcommunities. W24 24.9 2 subcommunities. MG 5 24.8 3 subcommunities. W 4 24.6 3 subcommunities. MC 9 24.2 5 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient MG 7E 32.5 OV23c 32.2 OV23 30.0 OV23d 29.2 MG 7D 28.4 MG 9a 27.4 MG 1a 27.0 OV23a 26.8 MC 9b 26.7 MG 9b 26.6

The matching procedures have produced the following results for sample 20 Community code co-efficient OV23 30.1 4 subcommunities. MG 7E 29.0 0 subcommunities. MG 9 28.0 2 subcommunities. MG 1 27.4 5 subcommunities. W24 26.1 2 subcommunities. MG 4 25.2 0 subcommunities. OV27 24.5 5 subcommunities. MG 7D 23.0 0 subcommunities. MG 5 21.6 3 subcommunities. MG 7F 21.0 0 subcommunities.

Matches against sub-communities. Community code co-efficient MG 9b 31.6 OV23d 31.6 OV23 30.1 OV23c 29.6 MG 7E 29.0 MG 9a 28.4 MG 9 28.0 MG 1d 28.0 MG 1c 27.7 OV23a 27.6

Samples 1-4 Matching of data with diagnoses for: All vegetation The matching procedures have produced the following results for Combined data The N.V.C. communities most closely matching the test data are: 1. MG 7E coefficient = 43.8, 0 subcommunities. 2. MG 9 coefficient = 41.3, 2 subcommunities. 3. OV23 coefficient = 39.2, 4 subcommunities. 4. MG 4 coefficient = 38.0, 0 subcommunities. 5. MG 5 coefficient = 36.9, 3 subcommunities. 6. MG 7F coefficient = 36.7, 0 subcommunities. 7. MG 6 coefficient = 36.6, 3 subcommunities. 8. SD17 coefficient = 35.9, 4 subcommunities. 9. MG 7D coefficient = 34.9, 0 subcommunities. 10. MG 7C coefficient = 33.4, 0 subcommunities.

The N.V.C subcommunities most closely matching the test data are: 1. MG 9a coefficient = 44.8 2. MG 7E coefficient = 43.8 3. MG 9 coefficient = 41.3 4. MG 6a coefficient = 40.8 5. MG 9b coefficient = 40.3 6. OV23c coefficient = 40.3 7. OV23 coefficient = 39.2 8. MG 5b coefficient = 38.1 9. MG 4 coefficient = 38.0 10. SD17a coefficient = 37.6

Table of test data matched against diagnosis of OV23 , coefficient = 39.2 Lolium perenne-Dactylis glomerata community

The information for each species is presented in the order: code, species name, constancy, maximum quantitative value with the constancy and maximum quantitative values of the N.V.C. unit in brackets. Any marked discrepancies are indicated by asterisks.

796 Lolium perenne . ( V)* 0 ( 8) 465 Dactylis glomerata II ( IV)* 3 ( 8) 973 Plantago lanceolata V ( IV) 5 ( 7) 2982 Taraxacum seedling/sp V ( IV) 3 ( 5) 1343 Trifolium dubium III ( II) 3 ( 6) 684 Hordeum murinum . ( I) 0 ( 9) 1240 Senecio squalidus . ( I) 0 ( 2) 2707 Vicia sativa . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1298 Stellaria media . ( I) 0 ( 3) 450 Crepis vesicaria . ( II)* 0 ( 5) 1147 Rumex obtusifolius . ( II)* 0 ( 5) 990 Poa trivialis . ( I) 0 ( 8) 265 Buddleja davidii . ( I) 0 ( 7) 1243 Senecio vulgaris . ( I) 0 ( 3) 415 Cirsium arvense . ( I) 0 ( 4) 981 Poa annua . (III)* 0 ( 6) 974 Plantago major . ( II)* 0 ( 4) 1350 Trifolium repens . ( II)* 0 ( 6) 1095 Ranunculus repens II ( II) 3 ( 3) 1143 Rumex crispus . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1283 Spergula arvensis . ( I) 0 ( 7) 2929 Polygonum arenastrum . ( I) 0 ( 3) 959 Phleum bertolonii . ( I) 0 ( 4) 972 Plantago coronopus . ( I) 0 ( 3) 104 Achillea millefolium . (III)* 0 ( 5) 680 Holcus lanatus IV ( II)* 5 ( 5) 844 Medicago lupulina . ( II)* 0 ( 8) 197 Arrhenatherum elatius . ( II)* 0 ( 4) 123 Agrostis capillaris . ( I) 0 ( 5) 200 Artemisia vulgaris . ( I) 0 ( 6) 384 Cerastium fontanum . ( I) 0 ( 4)

661 Heracleum sphondylium . ( I) 0 ( 3) 1519 Brachythecium rutabulum . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1239 Senecio jacobaea V ( I)* 3 ( 4) 574 Festuca ovina . ( I) 0 ( 4) 410 Cichorium intybus . ( I) 0 ( 4) 371 Centaurea nigra . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1259 Silene vulgaris . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1337 Torilis japonica . ( I) 0 ( 4) 403 Leucanthemum vulgare . ( I) 0 ( 4) 391 Chamerion angustifolium . ( I) 0 ( 6) 1349 Trifolium pratense V ( II)* 5 ( 8) 258 Bromus hordeaceus hordeaceus . ( II)* 0 ( 4) 1368 Urtica dioica . ( II)* 0 ( 5) 122 Agrostis stolonifera V ( II)* 7 ( 8) 706 Hypochoeris radicata . ( II)* 0 ( 5) 262 Anisantha sterilis . ( I) 0 ( 7) 447 Crepis capillaris . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1050 Potentilla reptans . ( I) 0 ( 5) 839 Matricaria discoidea . ( I) 0 ( 3) 1273 Sonchus oleraceus . ( I) 0 ( 4) 290 Capsella bursa-pastoris . ( I) 0 ( 5) 622 Geranium dissectum . ( I) 0 ( 5) 1272 Sonchus asper . ( I) 0 ( 3) 230 Bellis perennis . ( I) 0 ( 3) 988 Poa pratensis . ( I) 0 ( 5) 1265 Sisymbrium officinale . ( I) 0 ( 4) 837 Malva sylvestris . ( I) 0 ( 6) 460 Cynosurus cristatus II ( I) 3 ( 3) 1339 Tragopogon pratensis . ( I) 0 ( 4) 843 Medicago arabica . ( I) 0 ( 7) 1586 Ceratodon purpureus . ( I) 0 ( 3) 419 Cirsium vulgare . ( I) 0 ( 4) 681 Holcus mollis . ( I) 0 ( 2) 1435 Vulpia myuros . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1360 Tussilago farfara II ( I) 1 ( 7) 754 Lapsana communis . ( I) 0 ( 3) 457 Cymbalaria muralis . ( I) 0 ( 3) 1086 Ranunculus bulbosus . ( I) 0 ( 3) 383 Cerastium glomeratum . ( I) 0 ( 2) 1526 Bryum argenteum . ( I) 0 ( 5) 1158 Sagina procumbens . ( I) 0 ( 3) 576 Festuca rubra III ( I)* 3 ( 3) 605 Galium aparine . ( I) 0 ( 3) 1355 Tripleurospermum maritimum . ( I) 0 ( 7) 1393 Veronica arvensis . ( I) 0 ( 3) 963 Picris echioides . ( I) 0 ( 5)

The following species found in the test data at a constancy of II or more are not recorded in the N.V.C. diagnostic table for the unit OV23 The data for each species are presented as follows: species code, name, constancy, maximum quantitative value.

477 Deschampsia cespitosa cespitosa III 2 703 Hypericum tetrapterum II 1 1059 Prunella vulgaris II 2 1445 Calliergon cuspidatum V 7 1677 Eurhynchium praelongum V 4 1940 Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus II 3

The following numbers of species per sample were recorded: Mean Min Max Test data 11.0 9 15 OV23 15.0 7 35

Samples 5-9 Matching of data with diagnoses for: All vegetation The matching procedures have produced the following results for

Combined data

The N.V.C. communities most closely matching the test data are:

1. MG 9 coefficient = 47.1, 2 subcommunities. 2. MG 1 coefficient = 45.3, 5 subcommunities. 3. W24 coefficient = 41.1, 2 subcommunities. 4. OV26 coefficient = 38.6, 5 subcommunities. 5. OV23 coefficient = 36.4, 4 subcommunities. 6. SD 9 coefficient = 34.8, 2 subcommunities. 7. MG 6 coefficient = 34.1, 3 subcommunities. 8. OV24 coefficient = 33.2, 2 subcommunities. 9. SD 8 coefficient = 32.1, 5 subcommunities. 10. MG 7C coefficient = 32.0, 0 subcommunities.

The N.V.C subcommunities most closely matching the test data are: 1. MG 1a coefficient = 48.9 2. MG 9 coefficient = 47.1 3. MG 9b coefficient = 46.8 4. MG 9a coefficient = 45.3 5. MG 1 coefficient = 45.3 6. MG 1c coefficient = 44.8 7. MG 1b coefficient = 44.3 8. W24 coefficient = 41.1 9. MG 1e coefficient = 39.3 10. SD 9a coefficient = 38.9

Table of test data matched against diagnosis of MG 1a, coefficient = 48.9 Arrhenatherum elatius grassland: Festuca rubra subcommunity.

The information for each species is presented in the order: code, species name, constancy, maximum quantitative value with the constancy and maximum quantitative values of the N.V.C. unit in brackets. Any marked discrepancies are indicated by asterisks.

197 Arrhenatherum elatius III ( V)* 5 ( 9) 465 Dactylis glomerata III ( IV) 4 ( 8) 680 Holcus lanatus V ( II)* 5 ( 8) 661 Heracleum sphondylium I (III)* 3 ( 6) 173 Anthriscus sylvestris . ( II)* 0 ( 7) 122 Agrostis stolonifera II ( II) 4 ( 6) 749 Lamium album . ( I) 0 ( 4) 939 Papaver rhoeas . ( I) 0 ( 2) 938 Papaver dubium . ( I) 0 ( 1) 290 Capsella bursa-pastoris . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1272 Sonchus asper . ( I) 0 ( 3) 110 Aegopodium podagraria . ( I) 0 ( 5) 1368 Urtica dioica . ( I) 0 ( 3) 605 Galium aparine . ( I) 0 ( 5) 945 Pastinaca sativa . ( I) 0 ( 2) 104 Achillea millefolium . ( II)* 0 ( 5) 973 Plantago lanceolata V (III)* 5 ( 5) 613 Galium verum . ( I) 0 ( 7) 123 Agrostis capillaris . ( I) 0 ( 8) 574 Festuca ovina . ( I) 0 ( 5) 1239 Senecio jacobaea V ( I)* 4 ( 3)* 743 Knautia arvensis . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1053 Sanguisorba minor . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1059 Prunella vulgaris . ( I) 0 ( 5) 113 Agrimonia eupatoria . ( I) 0 ( 3) 422 Clinopodium vulgare . ( I) 0 ( 3) 372 Centaurea scabiosa . ( I) 0 ( 7) 576 Festuca rubra II (III) 5 ( 9) 800 Lotus corniculatus . ( I) 0 ( 5) 371 Centaurea nigra I ( II) 3 ( 6) 1356 Trisetum flavescens . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1396 Veronica chamaedrys . ( I) 0 ( 4) 403 Leucanthemum vulgare . ( I) 0 ( 6)

1349 Trifolium pratense I ( I) 5 ( 7) 701 Hypericum perforatum . ( I) 0 ( 8) 415 Cirsium arvense III (III) 4 ( 5) 988 Poa pratensis . ( II)* 0 ( 6) 990 Poa trivialis . ( II)* 0 ( 8) 1139 Rumex acetosa . ( I) 0 ( 3) 1350 Trifolium repens . ( I) 0 ( 4) 758 Lathyrus pratensis III ( II) 3 ( 7) 118 Elytrigia repens I ( II) 3 ( 8) 796 Lolium perenne I ( II) 2 ( 8) 1136 Rubus fruticosus agg. II ( II) 4 ( 6) 2982 Taraxacum seedling/sp II ( II) 3 ( 5) 1410 Vicia sativa nigra . ( II)* 0 ( 4) 1519 Brachythecium rutabulum . ( II)* 0 ( 7) 1677 Eurhynchium praelongum . ( I) 0 ( 7) 1914 Pseudoscleropodium purum . ( I) 0 ( 3) 1940 Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus IV ( I)* 4 ( 3)* 158 Alopecurus pratensis . ( I) 0 ( 8) 384 Cerastium fontanum . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1081 Ranunculus acris . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1411 Vicia cracca . ( I) 0 ( 4) 607 Galium mollugo . ( I) 0 ( 4) 262 Anisantha sterilis . ( I) 0 ( 8) 247 Brachypodium sylvaticum . ( I) 0 ( 5) 433 Convolvulus arvensis . ( I) 0 ( 6) 460 Cynosurus cristatus . ( I) 0 ( 8) 637 Glechoma hederacea . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1066 Pteridium aquilinum . ( I) 0 ( 6) 1095 Ranunculus repens . ( I) 0 ( 6) 802 Lotus pedunculatus I ( I) 2 ( 2) 769 Leontodon hispidus . ( I) 0 ( 3) 1050 Potentilla reptans II ( I) 3 ( 7) 575 Festuca pratensis . ( I) 0 ( 3) 1296 Stellaria graminea . ( I) 0 ( 3) 1088 Ranunculus ficaria . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1416 Vicia sepium II ( I) 3 ( 4) 391 Chamerion angustifolium . ( I) 0 ( 6) 960 Phleum pratense . ( I) 0 ( 4) 419 Cirsium vulgare . ( I) 0 ( 5) 1143 Rumex crispus . ( I) 0 ( 4) 706 Hypochoeris radicata . ( I) 0 ( 2) 1106 Rhinanthus minor . ( I) 0 ( 2) 959 Phleum bertolonii . ( I) 0 ( 3) 299 Carduus nutans . ( I) 0 ( 4) 807 Luzula campestris . ( I) 0 ( 1) 681 Holcus mollis . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1086 Ranunculus bulbosus . ( I) 0 ( 3) 475 Daucus carota . ( I) 0 ( 4) 258 Bromus hordeaceus hordeaceus . ( I) 0 ( 4) 622 Geranium dissectum . ( I) 0 ( 5) 652 Hedera helix (g) . ( I) 0 ( 5) 1147 Rumex obtusifolius . ( I) 0 ( 4) 431 Conopodium majus . ( I) 0 ( 3) 967 Pimpinella major . ( I) 0 ( 4)

The following species found in the test data at a constancy of II or more are not recorded in the N.V.C. diagnostic table for the unit MG 1a The data for each species are presented as follows: species code, name, constancy, maximum quantitative value.

324 Carex hirta II 4 477 Deschampsia cespitosa cespitosa III 4 521 Epilobium hirsutum II 4 532 Equisetum arvense V 3 1293 Stachys sylvatica II 3 1418 Vicia tetrasperma II 4 1445 Calliergon cuspidatum V 5

The following numbers of species per sample were recorded: Mean Min Max Test data 15.6 11 21 MG 1a 12.0 4 19

Samples 10-13 Matching of data with diagnoses for: All vegetation

The matching procedures have produced the following results for Combined data

The N.V.C. communities most closely matching the test data are:

1. MG10 coefficient = 40.5, 3 subcommunities. 2. MG 9 coefficient = 38.5, 2 subcommunities. 3. OV26 coefficient = 32.4, 5 subcommunities. 4. M22 coefficient = 30.1, 4 subcommunities. 5. SD15 coefficient = 29.1, 4 subcommunities. 6. SD14 coefficient = 27.7, 4 subcommunities. 7. SD17 coefficient = 27.6, 4 subcommunities. 8. MG12 coefficient = 27.0, 2 subcommunities. 9. OV23 coefficient = 26.8, 4 subcommunities. 10. M23 coefficient = 26.7, 2 subcommunities.

The N.V.C subcommunities most closely matching the test data are: 1. MG 9a coefficient = 42.3 2. MG10 coefficient = 40.5 3. MG10b coefficient = 39.6 4. MG 9 coefficient = 38.5 5. MG10a coefficient = 37.5 6. MG 9b coefficient = 36.7 7. OV26 coefficient = 32.4 8. M22b coefficient = 32.3 9. OV26a coefficient = 31.8 10. MG10c coefficient = 31.5

Table of test data matched against diagnosis of MG 9a, coefficient = 42.3 Holcus lanatus-Deschampsia cespitosa grassland: Poa trivialis subcommunity.

The information for each species is presented in the order: code, species name, constancy, maximum quantitative value with the constancy and maximum quantitative values of the N.V.C. unit in brackets. Any marked discrepancies are indicated by asterisks.

477 Deschampsia cespitosa cespitosa V ( V) 4 ( 9) 680 Holcus lanatus V ( IV) 4 ( 8) 990 Poa trivialis . ( IV)* 0 ( 6) 1081 Ranunculus acris . ( II)* 0 ( 4) 575 Festuca pratensis . ( II)* 0 ( 7) 171 Anthoxanthum odoratum . ( II)* 0 ( 6) 583 Filipendula ulmaria . ( II)* 0 ( 5) 730 Juncus effusus V ( II)* 3 ( 7) 2982 Taraxacum seedling/sp IV ( II)* 3 ( 3) 1349 Trifolium pratense II ( II) 4 ( 4) 1350 Trifolium repens . ( II)* 0 ( 6) 1519 Brachythecium rutabulum . ( II)* 0 ( 7) 1677 Eurhynchium praelongum II ( II) 3 ( 6) 1445 Calliergon cuspidatum V ( II)* 9 ( 7)* 339 Carex panicea . ( I) 0 ( 5) 418 Cirsium palustre . ( I) 0 ( 4) 431 Conopodium majus . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1148 Rumex sanguineus . ( I) 0 ( 2) 701 Hypericum perforatum . ( I) 0 ( 2) 251 Briza media . ( I) 0 ( 3) 1239 Senecio jacobaea III ( I)* 2 ( 2) 1236 Senecio aquaticus . ( I) 0 ( 1)

639 Glyceria fluitans . ( I) 0 ( 2) 955 Phalaris arundinacea . ( I) 0 ( 5) 333 Carex nigra . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1147 Rumex obtusifolius III ( I)* 2 ( 3) 1356 Trisetum flavescens . ( I) 0 ( 1) 197 Arrhenatherum elatius . ( I) 0 ( 2) 465 Dactylis glomerata . ( II)* 0 ( 7) 371 Centaurea nigra . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1143 Rumex crispus III ( I)* 3 ( 3) 576 Festuca rubra . ( II)* 0 ( 6) 122 Agrostis stolonifera V (III)* 6 ( 7) 1095 Ranunculus repens . (III)* 0 ( 7) 123 Agrostis capillaris . ( II)* 0 ( 9) 415 Cirsium arvense II ( II) 3 ( 6) 1139 Rumex acetosa . ( II)* 0 ( 5) 384 Cerastium fontanum . ( II)* 0 ( 3) 158 Alopecurus pratensis . ( II)* 0 ( 8) 796 Lolium perenne . ( II)* 0 ( 6) 973 Plantago lanceolata IV ( II)* 4 ( 5) 758 Lathyrus pratensis II ( II) 1 ( 5) 733 Juncus inflexus V ( II)* 6 ( 5)* 295 Cardamine pratensis . ( I) 0 ( 3) 1046 Potentilla erecta . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1142 Rumex conglomeratus . ( I) 0 ( 4) 167 Angelica sylvestris . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1056 Primula veris . ( I) 0 ( 3) 324 Carex hirta IV ( I)* 5 ( 4)* 681 Holcus mollis . ( I) 0 ( 7) 768 Leontodon autumnalis . ( I) 0 ( 3) 1043 Potentilla anserina II ( I) 3 ( 4) 1368 Urtica dioica . ( I) 0 ( 2) 1136 Rubus fruticosus agg. . ( I) 0 ( 4) 988 Poa pratensis . ( I) 0 ( 3) 1411 Vicia cracca . ( I) 0 ( 6) 1069 Pulicaria dysenterica . ( I) 0 ( 2) 802 Lotus pedunculatus II ( I) 4 ( 4) 104 Achillea millefolium . ( I) 0 ( 3) 960 Phleum pratense . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1088 Ranunculus ficaria . ( I) 0 ( 5) 800 Lotus corniculatus . ( I) 0 ( 4) 722 Juncus articulatus IV ( I)* 5 ( 2)* 855 Mentha aquatica . ( I) 0 ( 1) 1249 Danthonia decumbens . ( I) 0 ( 1) 1305 Succisa pratensis . ( I) 0 ( 3) 105 Achillea ptarmica . ( I) 0 ( 5) 1940 Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus . ( I) 0 ( 2) 460 Cynosurus cristatus . ( I) 0 ( 5) 1059 Prunella vulgaris II ( I) 2 ( 1)* 572 Festuca arundinacea . ( I) 0 ( 5) 613 Galium verum . ( I) 0 ( 2) 1250 Silaum silaus . ( I) 0 ( 5) 403 Leucanthemum vulgare . ( I) 0 ( 2) 466 Dactylorhiza fuchsii . ( I) 0 ( 2) 113 Agrimonia eupatoria . ( I) 0 ( 1) 685 Hordeum secalinum . ( I) 0 ( 2) 661 Heracleum sphondylium . ( I) 0 ( 6) 959 Phleum bertolonii . ( I) 0 ( 5) 419 Cirsium vulgare . ( I) 0 ( 1)

The following species found in the test data at a constancy of II or more are not recorded in the N.V.C. diagnostic table for the unit MG 9a The data for each species are presented as follows: species code, name, constancy, maximum quantitative value.

236 Betula pubescens (c) II 1 237 Betula pendula (c) III 1 343 Carex pendula II 4 521 Epilobium hirsutum III 3

526 Epilobium parviflorum III 3 532 Equisetum arvense V 7 625 Geranium molle II 1 703 Hypericum tetrapterum III 3 844 Medicago lupulina II 1 961 Phragmites australis II 4 1169 Salix cinerea (s) IV 4 1418 Vicia tetrasperma II 3 2707 Vicia sativa II 2

The following numbers of species per sample were recorded: Mean Min Max Test data 17.8 12 23 MG 9a 15.0 7 36

Samples 15-20 Matching of data with diagnoses for: All vegetation

The matching procedures have produced the following results for Combined data

The N.V.C. communities most closely matching the test data are:

1. W24 coefficient = 44.6, 2 subcommunities. 2. MG 1 coefficient = 44.1, 5 subcommunities. 3. OV27 coefficient = 43.4, 5 subcommunities. 4. W 6 coefficient = 42.0, 4 subcommunities. 5. OV26 coefficient = 40.7, 5 subcommunities. 6. OV24 coefficient = 39.1, 2 subcommunities. 7. OV23 coefficient = 38.4, 4 subcommunities. 8. MG 9 coefficient = 36.8, 2 subcommunities. 9. OV25 coefficient = 36.4, 3 subcommunities. 10. SD18 coefficient = 34.8, 2 subcommunities.

The N.V.C subcommunities most closely matching the test data are: 1. MG 1b coefficient = 46.9 2. W24 coefficient = 44.6 3. MG 1c coefficient = 44.3 4. MG 1 coefficient = 44.1 5. OV27 coefficient = 43.4 6. OV27b coefficient = 43.2 7. OV26d coefficient = 42.3 8. W24a coefficient = 42.2 9. W 6 coefficient = 42.0 10. OV26 coefficient = 40.7

Table of test data matched against diagnosis of W24 , coefficient = 44.6 Rubus fruticosus agg.-Holcus lanatus underscrub: 2 subcommunities.

The information for each species is presented in the order: code, species name, constancy, maximum quantitative value with the constancy and maximum quantitative values of the N.V.C. unit in brackets. Any marked discrepancies are indicated by asterisks.

2614 Fraxinus excelsior (s) . ( I) 0 ( 7) 2600 Acer pseudoplatanus (s) . ( I) 0 ( 4) 2612 Fagus sylvatica (s) . ( I) 0 ( 5) 445 Crataegus monogyna (s) . ( II)* 0 ( 5) 1187 Sambucus nigra (s) . ( I) 0 ( 4) 2627 Quercus robur (s) . ( I) 0 ( 3) 1065 Prunus spinosa (s) . ( I) 0 ( 3) 441 Corylus avellana (s) . ( I) 0 ( 4) 2604 Betula pubescens (s) . ( I) 0 ( 5) 1136 Rubus fruticosus agg. V ( V) 10 ( 8)* 680 Holcus lanatus III ( IV) 5 ( 8) 415 Cirsium arvense II ( II) 4 ( 4) 122 Agrostis stolonifera I ( II) 5 ( 8)

419 Cirsium vulgare . ( II)* 0 ( 4) 391 Chamerion angustifolium IV ( II)* 4 ( 8) 637 Glechoma hederacea . ( II)* 0 ( 4) 1095 Ranunculus repens I ( I) 3 ( 4) 1059 Prunella vulgaris . ( I) 0 ( 5) 1254 Silene dioica . ( I) 0 ( 5) 482 Digitalis purpurea . ( I) 0 ( 6) 1519 Brachythecium rutabulum . ( I) 0 ( 4) 587 Fragaria vesca . ( I) 0 ( 5) 521 Epilobium hirsutum II ( I) 4 ( 5) 1268 Solanum dulcamara (g) . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1363 Ulex europaeus (s) . ( I) 0 ( 5) 1239 Senecio jacobaea II ( I) 3 ( 3) 955 Phalaris arundinacea II ( I) 4 ( 4) 961 Phragmites australis . ( I) 0 ( 6) 418 Cirsium palustre . ( I) 0 ( 3) 384 Cerastium fontanum . ( I) 0 ( 3) 465 Dactylis glomerata III (III) 4 ( 7) 1368 Urtica dioica III (III) 4 ( 9) 605 Galium aparine I (III)* 3 ( 6) 197 Arrhenatherum elatius III (III) 5 ( 7) 661 Heracleum sphondylium I (III)* 4 ( 6) 2982 Taraxacum seedling/sp II ( II) 3 ( 4) 576 Festuca rubra . ( II)* 0 ( 7) 173 Anthriscus sylvestris . ( II)* 0 ( 5) 104 Achillea millefolium . ( II)* 0 ( 3) 390 Chaerophyllum temulum . ( II)* 0 ( 5) 455 Cruciata laevipes . ( II)* 0 ( 4) 988 Poa pratensis . ( I) 0 ( 7) 118 Elytrigia repens . ( I) 0 ( 3) 1051 Potentilla sterilis . ( I) 0 ( 4) 500 Dryopteris filix-mas . ( I) 0 ( 3) 1416 Vicia sepium . ( I) 0 ( 2) 1410 Vicia sativa nigra . ( I) 0 ( 4) 758 Lathyrus pratensis . ( I) 0 ( 6) 583 Filipendula ulmaria . ( I) 0 ( 5) 1297 Stellaria holostea . ( I) 0 ( 7) 754 Lapsana communis . ( I) 0 ( 2) 1088 Ranunculus ficaria . ( I) 0 ( 6) 144 Alliaria petiolata . ( I) 0 ( 4) 652 Hedera helix (g) . ( II)* 0 ( 4) 990 Poa trivialis . ( II)* 0 ( 6) 247 Brachypodium sylvaticum . ( II)* 0 ( 7) 1677 Eurhynchium praelongum I ( II) 4 ( 4) 630 Geranium robertianum . ( II)* 0 ( 3) 634 Geum urbanum . ( II)* 0 ( 4) 864 Mercurialis perennis . ( II)* 0 ( 4) 1396 Veronica chamaedrys . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1081 Ranunculus acris . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1429 Viola riviniana . ( I) 0 ( 4) 532 Equisetum arvense II ( I) 3 ( 2)* 706 Hypochoeris radicata . ( I) 0 ( 4) 171 Anthoxanthum odoratum . ( I) 0 ( 4) 796 Lolium perenne . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1122 Rosa canina agg. . ( I) 0 ( 4) 262 Anisantha sterilis . ( I) 0 ( 7) 1293 Stachys sylvatica . ( I) 0 ( 3) 477 Deschampsia cespitosa cespitosa II ( I) 4 ( 5) 123 Agrostis capillaris . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1356 Trisetum flavescens . ( I) 0 ( 4) 371 Centaurea nigra . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1350 Trifolium repens . ( I) 0 ( 4) 201 Arum maculatum . ( I) 0 ( 4) 1270 Solidago virgaurea . ( I) 0 ( 5) 1914 Pseudoscleropodium purum . ( I) 0 ( 4) 522 Epilobium montanum . ( I) 0 ( 3) 1766 Hypnum cupressiforme . ( I) 0 ( 5) 1148 Rumex sanguineus . ( I) 0 ( 4)

2611 Crataegus monogyna (g) . ( I) 0 ( 2) 800 Lotus corniculatus . ( I) 0 ( 4)

The following species found in the test data at a constancy of II or more are not recorded in the N.V.C. diagnostic table for the unit W24 The data for each species are presented as follows: species code, name, constancy, maximum quantitative value.

237 Betula pendula (c) IV 4 265 Buddleja davidii II 1 589 Fraxinus excelsior (c) II 3 708 Impatiens glandulifera II 3 973 Plantago lanceolata II 4 1168 Salix caprea (s) II 3 1169 Salix cinerea (s) IV 8 1349 Trifolium pratense II 3 1445 Calliergon cuspidatum II 6

The following numbers of species per sample were recorded: Mean Min Max Test data 12.7 8 21 W24 18.0 8 39

Bridge Mills, Tintwistle BXB Tintwistle Ltd Appendix E – UK BAP Priority Habitat “Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land”

SHF.1325.001.EC.R.004A Page 21 Botanical Survey December 2016

UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat Descriptions

Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land (Updated July 2010)

From: UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions. BRIG (ed. Ant Maddock) 2008.

This document is available from: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5706

For more information about the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) visit http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-5155

Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land

Correspondence with existing habitat/s . UK BAP broad habitat: Built up areas and gardens. . Phase 1: Quarry, Spoil, Mine, Ephemeral/short perennial, Bare Ground. . NVC: Overall there is a poor fit to described communities and this weakness is identified in the revie w of covera ge of the NVC commu nities (Rodwell et al., 2000). Although some components of the habitat are characterised by a nnual/open vegetation plant communities described in the NVC (Rodwell et al., 2000) others are allied to scl erotic associations better described in continental Europe. Grassland communities associated with this habitat complex include MG1-2, MG9, MG10, MG11, MG13; CG10 (Rodwell et al., 1992); and U1-2, whilst the scrub communities W6 and W23 are also commonly encountered (Rodwell et al., 1991). Complexes and mosaics can also include a range of aquatic plant communities (see Rod well et al., 1995) and swamp communities (Rodwell et al., 1995). . Annex I: None (Calaminarian grasslands ar e covered by another priority habitat proposal). . Other: Poor fit to Shimwell (1983), b ut includes 3B and artificial-substrate equivalents of 7A . The priority habitat is d elimited by edaphic and other site conditions, a nd specific sites are likely to include ele ments of other priority habitats as minor components of the overall mosaic. With th e specific exception of post-industrial substrate s that are rich in heavy metal which would qualify as the proposed Calaminarian grassland priority habitat, sites with such mosaics will be co nsidered as qualifying as ‘open mosaic habit ats on previously developed land’ priority habitat.

Definition and criteria for field recognition of the habitat The main source of evidence for this definition came from a Defra research project, Riding et al. (2009). Their proposed definition was very slightly amended by the inter-agency working group, in consultation with Defra and some members of their project steering group.

Each of these criteria must be met.

Criterion 1. The area of open mosaic habitat is at least 0.25 ha in size.

Known history of disturbance at the site or evidence that soil has been r emoved or 2. severely modified by previous use(s) of the sit e. Extrane ous materials/substrates such as industrial spoil may have been added. The site contains so me vegetation. This will comprise early successiona l communities consisting mainly of stress-to lerant species (e.g. indicative of low 3. nutrient status or droug ht). Early successiona l communities are composed of (a ) annuals, or (b) mosses/liverworts, or (c) lichen s, or (d) ruderals, or (e) inundation species, or (f) open grassland, or (g) flower-rich grassland, or (h) heathland.

4. The site contains unvegetated, loose bare substrate and pools may be present. The site sh ows spatial variation, forming a mosaic of o ne or more of the early 5. successional communities (a)–(h) above (criterion 3) plus bare substrate, within 0.25 ha.

Definition: explanatory notes

The criteria are for guidance but cannot cover all potentia l scenarios and an ele ment of expert judgement is therefore needed. It is assu med that the user will be able to recognise plant communities and the key component species.

1. The minimum size refer s to the po tential open mosaic habitat (OMH), which might be a part of a larger site containing other habitats such as woodland or developed land.

2. Disturbance refers to that resulting from major historical industrial use or development. 2.1 Extraneous materials refer to exten sive additions of spoil rather than incidental dumping of litter, broken glass, etc. 2.2 There might be evidence of heavy metal conta mination but extensive stands of Calaminarian grasslands are specifically excluded as that is a distinct Priority Habitat.

3. Brief descriptions of the early successional communities: (a) Annual communities are those co mprised mainly of stress tolerant r uderals, which are short in sta ture and suited to lo w nutrient availability. Typical examples would be Arenaria serpyllifolia, Centaurium erythrea, Linum catharticum or Trifolium arvense. (b) Moss/liverwort communities can contain both acrocarpous (i.e. usually unbranched, tufted) and pleurocarpous (usually branched, carpeted) mosses and are usually relatively open and less luxuriant than in more mature habitats, often with bare ground present in a fine-grained mosaic. They can occur in discrete patches or interspersed in other communities such as open grassland or heathland. Co mmon species are usually present such as the mosses Brachythecium rutabulum, Dicranum scoparium or Hypnum cupressiforme and the liverworts Lophocolea heterophylla or Ptilidium ciliare. (c) Lichen communities are likely to occur in extensive patches or interspersed with other communities such as open grassland or heathland. Species with a range of growth forms might be present, for example foliose (leaf-like), crustose (crust) or fruticose (shrubby and branched). (d) Ruderal communities are those co mposed mainly of taller annuals, bie nnials or short-lived perennials and typical of slightly more nutrient-rich, or less d isturbed conditions than the annual commu nities. Typical example s would be Daucus carota, Linaria vulgaris, Medicago lupulina or Reseda luteola. (e) Inundation communities are comprised of species suited to perio dic, often seasonal flooding. Vegetation is u sually interspersed with bare areas of mud which can have a caked surface during dry periods and can result in annuals establishing. Typical species wo uld be Alopecurus geniculatus, Juncus bufonius, Persicaria maculosa or Ranunculus flammula. (f) Open grassland is comprised mainly of perennial, stress- tolerant species of short stature with patches of bare ground at very fine-grained scale a nd often with a signif icant number of annua l species or lichens in the sward. Typical species would be Festuca ovina, Hypochaeris radicata, Pilosella officinarum or Rumex acetosella. (g) Flower-rich grassland is a more typical, mature community with fewer gaps and characterised by more robust mesotrophic forbs such as Centaurea nigra, Lotus corniculatus, Ranunculus acris or Trifolium pratense. (h) Heathland communities are composed mainly of dwarf shrubs, often interspersed or in mosa ics with graminoids, bryophytes or lichens. On OMH they tend to have a more open structure with less plant litte r and other organic matter build up on the substrate t han in more typical heathlands. Typical species include Calluna vulgaris, Deschampsia flexuosa, Festuca ovina or Nardus stricta. 3.1 Annex 1 sh ows species of vascular pl ant known to be associated with, but no t confined to, the habitat in certain areas and/or substrates. 3.2 Other plant species associated with the particular edaphic conditions might also b e present, for example eri caceous species on acidic sites. Species composition will also vary with geographic location and site age. 3.3 One of the principal reasons for the habitat being a priority is its imp ortance for invertebrates. Many have very precise requirements for habitat ‘niches’ within their landscape. As well as areas of b are ground and food plants, these may be for sheltered places at various times o f the year, or for rough vegetation or cover at others. At any particular site, featur es such as scrub may be essential to maintain the invertebrate value o f the main h abitat. Therefore, scattered scrub (up to 10– 15% cover) may be pre sent and adds to the conservation value of the site. Other communities or habitats might also be present (e.g. reed swamp, open water), but early successional communities should comprise the majority of the area.

4. ‘Loose bare’ substrate is intended to separat e substrate potentially colonisable by plants from large expanses of sealed surface (concrete, tarmac, etc) where vegetation could only establish if it is broken up or heavily weathered. 4.1 Bare substrate can occur at a rang e of spatial scales, from unvegetated patches easily seen from a distance, to small, open spaces between individual plants within a community. On so me substrates, for example coal sp oil, the patches of bare ground may be 10 cm across or le ss. A site with a wide variety of patch sizes could also qualify. 4.2 Bare substrate also implies absence of organic matter accumulation.

5. A mosaic is defined as an area where a range of contigu ous plant communit y types occur in transition with one another, usually wit h ecotone habitat gradients and repeated occurrences of each community, and often at a small scale. 5.1 The mosaic could comprise either:  a mixture o f one of the habitats (a)–(c) or (e)–(h) plus bare ground together forming a mosaic;  a mixture of two or more of the hab itats (a)–(h) in a mosaic, with adjacent bare ground;  a mixture of two or more of the habitats (a)–(h) plus bare ground together forming a mosaic. 5.2 Continuous blocks of a closed plant communi ty greater than 0.25 ha would be classified as a habitat other than OMH, although those containing very fine-grained mosaics might qualify.

Background Information The information in this section comes from t he submission to the BAP species and Habitats review in 2 006–07 (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/library/BRIG/SHRW/SpeciesandHabitatReview Report2007.pdf). It has been edited.

These are generally primary successions, a nd as such u nusual in th e British la ndscape, especially the lowlands. The veget ation can have similarities to ear ly/pioneer communities (particularly grasslands) on more ‘natural’ substrates but, due to the eda phic conditions, the habitat can often persist (remaining relatively stable) for decades without active management (intervention). Stand s of veget ation commonly comprise small pat ches and may vary over relatively small are as, reflecting small-scale variation in substrat e and topography.

Plant assemblages are unusual, selected by propagule supply as well as site conditions (Ash et al. (1991) for several waste types, Shaw (1994) on Pulverized Fuel Ash (PFA)). The habitat supports a range of notable vascular plant, moss and lichen spe cies. These ofte n include species declining in the w ider countryside su ch as Ophrys apifera, Gymnadenia conopsea (alkaline wastes), Epipactis youngiana (acid waste), Osmunda regalis (acid sandstone quarries), Peltigera rufescens (lime waste, PFA), Cladonia pocillum (calcareous wastes), Diploschistes muscorum (PFA) and a UK BAP p riority liverwort, Petalophyllum ralfsii (PFA). Exotic plant species, which are well adapted to the prevailing environmental conditions, are a characteristic component of associated plant assemblages.

Invertebrate faunas can be species-rich and include many u ncommon species (Eyre et al., 2002, 2004). Between 12% and 15% of all nationally-rare and nationally-scarce in sects are recorded from brownfield sites, which will in clude many post-industria l examples (Gibson, 1998; Jones, 2002) (see below). Exotic plants provide fo r an extend ed flowering season and, with the floristic and structural diversity of the habitat mosaic, con tribute to the value of the habitat for invertebrates (see Bodsworth et al., 2005).

Some areas are important for birds that are primarily associated with previously developed or brownfield land such as little ringed plover (in 1984 97% of LRP nests in England were in ‘man-made’ habitats), as well as more widespr ead, but UK BAP priorit y species, including skylark and grey partri dge. The habitat provides secure breeding and feeding areas commonly absent from land under agricultural management.

The heterogeneity within the habitat mosaic reflects chemical and physical modification b y former development or previous industrial processes, including the expo sure of underlying substrates and the tipping of wastes and spoils. Features su ch as ditches, other exposures, spoil mounds and even the relicts of built structures provide topographical heterogeneity at the macro- and micro-scale. Sealed surfaces and comp action add further variat ion and contribute to the modified hydrology of such habitats resulting in ar eas of impeded and accelerated drainage. Stochastic factors also have a sign ificant influence in shaping the habitat.

Edaphic conditions for this hab itat are severely limiting o n plant gro wth. Examples are substrates with extreme pH, whether alkalin e (e.g. chemical wastes) or acid (e. g. colliery spoils); deficiency of nitrogen (PFA), or available phosp hate (highly calcareou s Leblanc waste, blast furnace slag and ca lcareous quarry spoil); or water-deficient (dry gravel and sand pits). Other t ypical situations where such conditions arise inclu de disused quarries, former railway sidings, extraction pits and landfill sites.

The habitat is con centrated in u rban, urban fringe and large-scale former industrial landscapes, especially in the lowla nds, though more isolat ed examples can be fo und on previously developed land in more remote rural areas.

References Ash, H.J., Gemmell, R.P. and Bradshaw, A.D. (1991) The introduction of nat ive plant species on industrial waste heaps: a test of immigration and other factors affectin g primary succession. Journal of Applied Ecology, 31, 74–8.

Bodsworth, E., Shepherd, P. and Plant, C. (200 5) Exotic plant species on brownfield land: their value to invertebrates of nature conservation importance. Peterborough, English Nature.

Eyre, M.D., Luff, M.L. and Woodward, J.C. (20 02) Rare and notable Coleoptera from post- industrial and urban sites in England. Coleopterist, 11, 91–101.

Eyre, M.D., Luff, M.L. and Woodward, J.C. (2004) Beetles (Coleoptera) on brownfield sites in England: an important conservation resource? Journal of Insect Conservation, 7, 223–231.

Gibson, C.W.D. (1998) Brownfield: red data. The values of artificial habitats have for uncommon invertebrates. Peterborough, English Nature.

Jones, R. (2002) Brown can be beautiful. Urbio, 2, 12–13.

Rodwell and Cooch (1997) Red Data Book of British Plant Communities. Unpublished report to WWF.

Riding, A., Critchley, N., Wilson, L. and Parker , J. (2 009) Definition and mapping of open mosaic habitats on previously developed land: Phase 1 Final Report. ADAS UK Ltd, December 2009. Available from: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu& Module=More&Location=None&Completed=2&ProjectID=16067 [Accessed 20 July 2010].

Rodwell, J.S., Dring, J.C., Averis, A.B.G., Proctor, M.C. F., Malloch, A.J.C., Schaminee, J.N.J. and Dargie, T .C.D. (2000) Review of covera ge of the National Vegetation Classification. JNCC Report, No. 302. Peterborough, JNCC. Avail able from www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2312 [Accessed 20 July 2010].

Shaw, P. (1994) Orchid woods and floating isla nds – the ecology of fly ash. British Wildlife, 6, 149–57.

Shimwell, D.W. (1983) A conspectus of urban vegetation types. Manchester, School of Geography, University of Manchester.

ANNEX 1: CHARACTERISTIC SPECIES NOTE: these are provisional working lists, from February 2010. As more sites are surveyed and mapped, more up-to-date lists are likely to beco me available. Please check the UKBAP website http://www.ukbap.org.uk for up-dates.

Species Common Name (species (species S. Wales S. Scotland Scotland Southern Southern N. England England N. colliery sites colliery Thames area area Thames important for for important invertebrates) Achillea millefolium Yarrow x Agrimonia eupatoria Agrimony x Agrostis vineale Brown Bent x Aira caryophyllea Silver Hair-grass x Aira praecox Early Hair-grass x Anthemis arvensis* Corn Chamomile x Anthemis cotula* Stinking Chamomile x Anthyllis vulneraria Kidney Vetch x Arctium lappa* Greater Burdock x Arctium minus Lesser Burdock x Armeria maritima Thrift x Artemisia absinthium* Wormwood x x Artemisia verlotiorum* Chinese Mugwort x Artemisia vulgaris* Mugwort x x x Confused Michaelmas- Aster novi-belgii* x x x daisy Atriplex patula Common Orache x Atriplex prostrata* Spear-leaved Orache x Ballota nigra* Black Horehound x Barbilophozia floerkei Common Pawwort x Beta vulgaris Beet x Blackstonia perfoliata Yellow-wort x x Calluna vulgaris Heather x Campanula glomerata Clustered Bellflower x Campanula rotundifolia Harebell x Carduus crispus Welted Thistle x Carduus nutans Musk Thistle x Carduus tenuiflorus Slender Thistle x Carex arenaria Sand Sedge x Carex otrubae False Fox-sedge x Carex pilulifera Pill Sedge x Catapodium rigidum Fern-grass x Centaurea cyanus Cornflower x Centaurea nigra Common Knapweed x x x x Centaurium erythraea Common Centaury x x Centranthus ruber* Red Valerian x Cerastium fontanum Common Mouse-ear x x x Chaenorhinum minus* Small Toadflax x Chenopodium album Fat-hen x Chenopodium bonus- Good-King-Henry x henricus* Chenopodium ficifolium* Fig-leaved Goosefoot x Chenopodium hybridum* Maple-leaved Goosefoot x Chenopodium Many-seeded Goosefoot x polyspermum* Chenopodium rubrum Red Goosefoot x Chrysanthemum Corn Marigold x segetum* Cichorium intybus* Chicory x x x x Clinopodium acinos Basil Thyme x Clinopodium vulgare Wild Basil x Conium maculatum* Hemlock x x x Conyza canadensis* Canadian Fleabane x Conyza sumatrensis* Guernsey Fleabane x Crepis biennis Rough Hawk’s-beard x x x Crepis capillaris Smooth Hawk’s-beard x x x x Dactylorhiza Southern Marsh-orchid x x praetermissa Daucus carota ssp. Carrot x x sativus* Deschampsia flexuosa Wavy Hair-grass x x x Dianthus armeria Deptford Pink x Dianthus deltoides Maiden Pink x Diplotaxis tenuifolia* Perennial Wall-rocket x Dipsacus fullonum Wild Teasel x Echium vulgare Viper’s-bugloss x x x x Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail x x x Erica cinerea Bell Heather x Erigeron acer Blue Fleabane x x x Erodium cicutarium Common Stork’s-bill x Euphrasia spp. Eyebright x x Festuca ovina Sheep’s-fescue x Filago minima Small Cudweed x Filago vulgaris Common Cudweed x Galega officinalis* Goat’s-rue x Galeopsis bifida Bifid Hemp-nettle x Large-flowered Hemp- Galeopsis speciosa* x nettle Galeopsis tetrahit Common Hemp-nettle x Galium verum Lady’s Bedstraw x Geranium molle Dove’s-foot Crane’s-bill x Glaucium flavum Yellow Horned-poppy x Gnaphalium uliginosum Marsh Cudweed x Helianthemum Common Rock-rose x nummularium Hieraceum aurantiacum* Fox-and-cubs x Hieracium sabaudum Autumn Hawkweed x x Hypericum perforatum Perforate St John’s-wort x x x x Hypochaeris radicata Cat’s-ear x x x Juncus inflexus Hard Rush x x x Kickxia elatine* Sharp-leaved Fluellen x Kickxia spuria* Round-leaved Fluellen x Knautia arvensis Field Scabious x Lactuca serriola* Prickly Lettuce x Lactuca virosa Great Lettuce x Lamium amplexicaule* Henbit Dead-nettle x Lamium hybridum* Cut-leaved Dead-nettle x Broad-leaved Everlasting- Lathyrus latifolius* x pea Leontodon autumnalis Autumn Hawkbit x Leontodon hispidus Rough Hawkbit x Lepidium ruderale* Narrow-leaved Pepperwort x Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye Daisy x Linaria purpurea* Purple Toadflax x x x Linaria repens* Pale Toadflax x x x Linaria vulgaris Common Toadflax x x x x x Linum catharticum Fairy Flax x x x Lophozia ventricosa A liverwort x Lotus corniculatus Common Bird’s-foot-trefoil x x Narrow-leaved Bird’s-foot- Lotus glaber x trefoil Malva moschata Musk-mallow x Marrubium vulgare* White Horehound x Matricaria matricarioides Pineapple Weed x x x Matricaria recutita* Scented Mayweed x Medicago lupulina Black Medick x x x x Medicago sativa Lucerne x Melilotus altissimus* Tall Melilot x x Melilotus officinalis* Ribbed Melilot x x Mentha arvensis Corn Mint x Misopates orontium* Weasel’s-snout x Nardus stricta Mat-grass x x Odontites vernus Red Bartsia x x x Oenothera spp.* Evening Primrose x x Ononis spinosa Spiny Restharrow x Onopordum acanthium* Cotton Thistle x Ophrys apifera Bee Orchid x x Origanum vulgare Wild Marjoram x Orobanche minor Common Broomrape x Parentucellia viscosa Yellow Bartsia x Picris echioides* Bristly Oxtongue x x x Picris hieracioides Hawkweed Oxtongue x x Pilosella officinarum agg Mouse-ear-hawkweed x x Pilosella praealta* Tall Mouse-ear-hawkweed x Plantago coronopus Buck’s-horn Plantain x Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain x x x Plantago media Hoary Plantain x Poa compressa Flattened Meadow-grass x Primula veris Cowslip x Prunella vulgaris Selfheal x Ptilidium ciliare Ciliated Fringewort x Pulsatilla vulgaris Pasqueflower x Ranunculus acris Meadow Buttercup x Ranunculus bulbosus Bulbous Buttercup x Reseda lutea Wild Mignonette x x x x Reseda luteola* Weld x x x Rumex acetosa Common Sorel x Salvia pratensis Meadow Clary x Sanguisorba minor Salad Burnet x Saponaria officinalis* Soapwort x x x Scabiosa columbaria Small Scabious x Scrophularia nodosa Common Figwort x Senecio squalidus* Oxford Ragwort x x x Silene vulgaris Bladder Campion x x x x Spergularia rubra Sand Spurrey x Tanacetum vulgare Tansy x Teucrium scorodonia Wood Sage x Thymus polytrichus Wild Thyme x x Thymus serpyllum Breckland Garden x Tragopogon pratensis Goat’s-beard x x x x Trifolium arvense Hare’s-foot Clover x x x x Trifolium campestre Hop Trefoil x x x x x Trifolium dubium Lesser Trefoil x x x Trifolium hybridum* Alsike Clover x x x Trifolium medium Zigzag Clover x x x Trifolium micranthum Slender Trefoil x Trifolium pratense Red Clover x x x Trifolium scabrum Rough Clover x Trifolium striatum Knotted Clover x Trisetum flavescens Yellow Oat-grass x x x Tussilago farfara Colt’s-foot x x x x Vaccinium myrtillus Bilberry x Valerianella carinata* Keeled-fruited Cornsalad x Valerianella locusta Common Cornsalad x Verbascum nigrum Dark Mullein x x x Verbascum thapsus Great Mullein x Veronica agrestis* Green Field-speedwell x Vicia cracca Tufted Vetch x x x Vicia hirsuta Hairy Tare x x x Vicia tetrasperma Smooth Tare x Vulpia bromoides Squirreltail Fescue x Vulpia myuros* Rat’s-tail Fescue x

*introduced species of lower biodiversity value but still characteristic of OMH sites. Species lists from Riding et al. (200 9) (Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land, site identification guide December 2009 ADAS UK Ltd. Sources of information about status: species represented in columns 2–4 – ADAS 2009 as above; other vascular species – status from BSBIs New Atlas CD-ROM, species always introduced in Wales (col 5) or in England (col 6).

Site Reference Client Name