ZONE 4: Visibility from the South to East at distances greater than 1km from the Site
Cauldon Cement Works Site set beyond landform and intervening vegetation
A52 Viewpoint 15: View afforded by transient Users of the A52 (circa 2.8km from the Site).
Cauldon Fuel - Photosheet 8
Heatons . 9 The Square, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire NG12 5JT . www.heatonplanning.co.uk ZONE 5: Visibility from the South to West at distances greater than 1km from the Site
Cauldon Cement Works Site set beyond landform, intervening vegetation & industrial form Waterhouses Cauldon Quarry
Viewpoint 16: View afforded by Users of Dukes Lane and transient Users of PROW ref. Waterhouses 59 (circa 2km from the Site).
Cauldon Cement Works Site set beyond landform, intervening vegetation & industrial form
Cauldon Quarry
Viewpoint 17: View afforded by Users Dukes Lane at Limestone View Farm, along with Users of PROW ref. Waterhouses 61 and 65 (circa 2.1km from the Site).
Cauldon Fuel - Photosheet 9
Heatons . 9 The Square, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire NG12 5JT . www.heatonplanning.co.uk ZONE 5: Visibility from the South to West at distances greater than 1km from the Site
Cauldon Cement Works Site set beyond landform, intervening vegetation & industrial form Cauldon Quarry
Viewpoint 18: View afforded by transient Users of The Casey roadway (circa 2.7km from the Site).
Cauldon Fuel - Photosheet 10
Heatons . 9 The Square, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire NG12 5JT . www.heatonplanning.co.uk ZONE 6: Visibility from the North and North West at distances greater than 1km from the Site
Upper Sections of Cauldon Cement Works The Site
A523
Viewpoint 19: View afforded by residents of Waterhouses (circa 1km from the Site)
Cauldon Quarry
The Site & Cauldon Cement Works - set beyond intervening vegetation
Viewpoint 20: View afforded by Users of the PROW ref. Waterhouses 35 and 99 (circa 1km from the Site).
Cauldon Fuel - Photosheet 11
Heatons . 9 The Square, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire NG12 5JT . www.heatonplanning.co.uk ZONE 6: Visibility from the North and North West at distances greater than 1km from the Site
Cauldon Quarry Cauldon Cement Works Waterhouses
The Site
Viewpoint 21: View afforded by transient Users of Rocester Lane and PROW ref. Waterhouses 35 (circa 1.45km from the Site)
The Site & Cauldon Cement Works - set beyond intervening landform and vegetation
Cauldon Quarry
Viewpoint 22: View afforded by Users of the PROW ref. Waterhouses 118 (circa 1.75m from the Site).
Cauldon Fuel - Photosheet 12
Heatons . 9 The Square, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire NG12 5JT . www.heatonplanning.co.uk ZONE 6: Visibility from the North and North West at distances greater than 1km from the Site
The Site
Cauldon Cement Works
Cauldon Quarry
Viewpoint 25: View afforded by Users of a short section of Slade Lane/PROW ref. Grindon 34 (circa 3.2km from the Site).
The Site - set beyond existing Cauldon Cement Works
Cauldon Cement Works Cauldon Quarry
Viewpoint 24: View afforded by Users of Bentygrange Lane the PROW ref. Waterhouses 34 (circa 2.2km from the Site).
Cauldon Fuel - Photosheet 13
Heatons . 9 The Square, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire NG12 5JT . www.heatonplanning.co.uk ZONE 6: Visibility from the North and North West at distances greater than 1km from the Site
The Site - set beyond existing Cauldon Cement Works
Cauldon Cement Works Cauldon Quarry
Viewpoint 25: View afforded by Users of Bromleyhedge Lane - including neighbouring Residential Properties (circa 2.75km from the Site).
The Site - set beyond existing industrial form
Cauldon Cement Works Cauldon Quarry
Viewpoint 26: View afforded by Users of the Casey roadway, and those residential properties which flank it (circa 3.4km from the Site).
Cauldon Fuel - Photosheet 14
Heatons . 9 The Square, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire NG12 5JT . www.heatonplanning.co.uk ZONE 6: Visibility from the North and North West at distances greater than 1km from the Site
The Site - set beyond existing industrial form
Cauldon Cement Works Cauldon Quarry
Viewpoint 27: View afforded by Users of PROW ref. Ipstones 95 and Visitors to the Peak Wildlife Park - access/entrance (circa 3.7km from the Site).
Cauldon Cement Works The Site - partially screened by intervening vegetation and industrial form
Cauldon Quarry
Viewpoint 28: View afforded by Users of the A523 at Lower Berkhamsytch, Occupants of adjacent Residential Properties, and Users of PROW ref. Ipstones 88 and 101 (circa 4.7km from the Site).
Cauldon Fuel - Photosheet 15
Heatons . 9 The Square, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire NG12 5JT . www.heatonplanning.co.uk ZONE 6: Visibility from the North and North West at distances greater than 1km from the Site
The Site - Partially screened by intervening vegetation & industrial form Cauldon Cement Works
Cauldon Quarry
Viewpoint 29: View afforded by residents of Ford Grange and Users of PROW ref. Onecote 6, 7 and 8 (circa 4.6km from the Site)
Cauldon Fuel - Photosheet 16
Heatons . 9 The Square, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire NG12 5JT . www.heatonplanning.co.uk ZONE 7: Visibility from the North and North East at distances greater than 1km from the Site
Cauldon Cement Works The Site
Viewpoint 30: Snapshot view from Stoney Lane, south west of Calton (circa 1.2km from the Site).
Cauldon Quarry Cauldon Cement Works
The Site - set beyond intervening landform and vegetation, against the backdrop of
Viewpoint 31: View afforded by Users of the PROW ref. Waterhouses 7 (circa 1.6km from the Site).
Cauldon Fuel - Photosheet 17
Heatons . 9 The Square, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire NG12 5JT . www.heatonplanning.co.uk ZONE 7: Visibility from the North and North East at distances greater than 1km from the Site
Cauldon Quarry Cauldon Cement Works
The Site
Viewpoint 32: View afforded by Users of the PROW ref. Waterhouses 7 (circa 1.7km from the Site).
The Site - set beyond intervening vegetation
Cauldon Quarry Cauldon Cement Works
Viewpoint 33: View afforded by Users of Farwell Lane, to the north of Calton (circa 2km from the Site).
Cauldon Fuel - Photosheet 18
Heatons . 9 The Square, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire NG12 5JT . www.heatonplanning.co.uk Viewpoint 34: View afforded by Users of the PROW ref. Waterhouses 99 (circa ???m from the Site).
Cauldon Fuel - Photosheet 1
Heatons . 9 The Square, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire NG12 5JT . www.heatonplanning.co.uk Cauldon Fuel - Photosheet 1
Heatons . 9 The Square, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire NG12 5JT . www.heatonplanning.co.uk APPENDIX B METHODOLOGY
Assessment Approach
1. This assessment makes use of the methodology as set out within the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition published jointly by The Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013, as well as those as set out within the Landscape Character Assessment. Guidance for England and Scotland published jointly by The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002.
2. GLVA 3 defines the definition of what the term 'landscape' means. Paragraph 2.2 states Since the European Landscape Convention (ELC) in 2002 which the UK has signed and ratified, the ELC adopts a definition of landscape that is now being widely used in many different situations and is adopted in this guidance: 'Landscape is an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors' (Council of Europe, 2000). GLVA 3 carries on to state that the inclusive nature of landscape was captured there [GLVA 2] in a paragraph stating that: Landscape is about the relationship between people and place. It provides the setting for our day-to-day lives. The term does not mean just special or designated landscapes and it does not only apply to the countryside. Landscape can mean a small patch of urban wasteland as much as a mountain range, and an urban park as much as an expanse of lowland plain. It results from the way that different components of our environment - both natural (the influences of geology, soils, climate, flora and fauna) and cultural (the historical and current impact of land use, settlement, enclosure and other human interventions) - interact together and are perceived by us. People's perceptions turn land into the concept of landscape. (Swanwick and Land Use Consultants, 2002: 2)
3. The assessment process is intended to provide an objective method of establishing the significance of effect of a proposed development on an areas landscape character and visual amenity. The sensitivity nature of landscape receptors to change, combines with a judgement of the magnitude or nature of effect a particular development is likely to cause, to provide an assessment of the potential significance of effect the proposed development may have on local landscape character and visual amenity.
4. GLVA 3 at paragraph 5.1 defines the assessment of landscape effects as being: An assessment of landscape effects deals with the effects of change and development on landscape as a resource.
5. GLVA 3 at paragraph 6.1 defines the assessment of visual effects as being: An assessment of visual effects deals with the effects of change and development on the views available to people and their visual amenity.
6. This study identifies and evaluates and quantifies the main landscape and visual effects associated with the proposed development are quantified, however the nature of landscape and visual impact assessment requires interpretation by professional judgement. In order to provide a level of consistency to the assessment, the prediction of magnitude and assessment of significance of the residual landscape and visual impacts have been based on pre-defined criteria.
Landscape and Visual Baseline
7. GLVA 3 at paragraph 3.15 states that the initial step in LVIA is to establish the baseline landscape and visual conditions. The information collected will, when reviewed alongside the description of the proposed development, form the basis for the identification and description of the changes that will result in the landscape and visual effects of the proposal: For the landscape baseline the aim is to provide an understanding of the landscape in the area that may be affected - its constituent elements, its character and the way this varies spatially, its geographic extent, its history..., its condition, the way the landscape is experienced, and the value attached to it. For the visual baseline the aim is to establish the area in which the development may be visible, the different groups of people who may experience views of the development, the places where they will be affected and the nature of the views and visual amenity at those points.
Establishing the Landscape Baseline
8. GLVA 3 at paragraph 5.3 states that Baseline studies for assessing landscape effects require a mix of desk study and fieldwork to identify and record the character of the landscape and the elements, features and aesthetic and perceptual factors which contribute to it. They should also deal with the value attached to the landscape.
9. In addition, GLVA 3 at paragraph 5.4 states that In rural landscapes..., Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) is the key tool for understanding the landscape and should be used for baseline studies. There is a well-established and widely used method for LCA, which is set out in current guidance documents. This should be used to identify and describe: The elements that make up the landscape in the study area, including
• physical influences - geology, soils, landform, drainage and water bodies; • land cover, including different types of vegetation and patterns and types of tree cover; • the influence of human activity, including land use and management, the character of settlements and buildings, and pattern and type of fields and enclosure; • the aesthetic and perceptual aspects of the landscape - such as, for example, its scale, complexity, openness, tranquillity or wildness; • the overall character of the landscape in the study area, including any distinctive Landscape Character Types or areas that can be Identified, and the particular combinations of elements and aesthetic and perceptual aspects that make each distinctive, usually by identification as key characteristics of the landscape.
Establishing the Visual Baseline
10. With regard to the Visual Baseline the assessment process concentrates on the publicly accessible areas. To this end a series of viewpoints were selected for use in verifying the potential effects of the proposed development upon the visual amenity of the study area.
11. GVLA 3 at paragraph 6.20 states, the selection of the final viewpoints used for the assessment should take account of a range of factors, including:
• the accessibility to the public; • the potential number and sensitivity of viewers who may be affected; • the viewing direction, distance (i.e. short-, medium- and long-distance views) and elevation; • the nature of the viewing experience (for example static views, views from settlements and views from sequential points along routes); • the view type (for example panoramas, vistas and glimpses); • the potential for cumulative views of the proposed development in conjunction with other developments.
12. Typically, receptors considered to be representative of viewpoints within the study area include:
• Residential receptors; • Recreational/leisure receptors including anglers, walkers, water users and cyclists; and • Road and rail users.
13. GVLA 3 at paragraph 6.24 states that the visual baseline should focus on information that will help to identify significant visual effects.... A baseline report should combine information on:
• the type and relative numbers of people (visual receptors) likely to be affected, making clear the activities they are likely to be involved in; • the location, nature and characteristics of the chosen representative, specific and illustrative viewpoints, with details of the visual receptors likely to be affected at each; • the nature, composition and characteristics of the existing views experienced at these viewpoints, including direction of view; • the visual characteristics of the existing views, for example the nature and extent of the skyline, aspects of visual scale and proportion, especially with respect to any particular horizontal or vertical emphasis, and any key foci; • elements, such as landform, buildings or vegetation, which may interrupt, filter or otherwise influence the views.
14. GLVA 3 at paragraph 6.3 states that Baseline studies for visual effects should establish..., the area in which the development may be visible, the different groups of people who may experience views of the development, the viewpoints where they will be affected and the nature of the views at those points. Where possible it can also be useful to establish the approximate or relative number of different groups of people who will be affected by the changes in views or visual amenity, while at the same time recognising that assessing visual effects is not a quantitative process. In addition, GLVA 3 at paragraph 6.4 also states that These factors are all interrelated and need to be considered in an integrated way rather than as a series of separate steps...
15. GLVA 3 at paragraph 6.6 states that Land that may potentially be visually connected with the development proposal - that is, areas of land from which it may potentially be seen - must be identified and mapped at the outset.... Visibility mapping is an important tool in preparing the visual effects baseline but does not in its own right identify the effects. It can also play an important part in the different stages of the iterative design process. It can, for example, contribute to the early stages of site design and assessment to determine the potential visibility of a site.... It can also be used to help in the consideration of concept layout and design alternatives in response to the potential visibility of different options.
The Assessment Process
16. GLVA 3 at paragraph 4.16 states that the characteristics of projects, and hence the possible landscape and visual effects they may have, are likely to vary throughout the life of the project. The construction, operation, decommissioning and restoration/reinstatement phases of a development are usually characterised by quite different physical elements and activities. A separate, self-contained description of the development at each stage in the life cycle is therefore needed to assist in understanding the scheme and then in prediction of landscape and visual effects.
17. The landscape and visual assessment process consists of a number of stages as set out below: • Identification of the source/aspects of the development likely to give rise to effects during the different stages in the life of the project (construction, operation, decommissioning and restoration phases).
• Identification of components/receptors most likely to be affected by the development (this will vary during the different stages in the life of the project).
• Description of the interaction of the receptors with aspects of the development (this will vary during the different stages in the life of the project).
• Assessment of the Nature of the Landscape and Visual Receptors (Sensitivity) in relation to the identified aspects of the development.
• Assessment of the Nature or Magnitude of Effects in light of both the primary and secondary Mitigation Measures adopted (see below).
• Assessment of the Significance of Residual Effects. Nature or Sensitivity of Landscape Receptors
Nature of Sensitivity of Landscape Receptors
18. Assessment of receptor sensitivity involves an evaluation of the ‘Nature of the Receptor’ (Sensitivity), in respect of the identified aspects of the development likely to give rise to effects. The receptors Sensitivity is considered to be dependent upon the susceptibility to change of the receptor with respect to the permitted or proposed development and on the value attached to either the landscape (landscape assessment) or view (visual assessment).
19. Susceptibility to change can be defined as being the ability of the landscape receptor (whether it be the overall character or quality/condition of a particular landscape type or area, or an individual element and/or feature, or a particular aesthetic and perceptual aspect) to accommodate the proposed development without undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline situation.
20. The Value of a landscape or view can be defined as consisting of a number of factors that help identify how a particular landscape can be valued. This can include, but not limited to:
• It’s quality or condition as a measure of the physical state of the landscape. Scenic quality used to describe landscapes that appeal primarily to the senses (primarily visual). • Rarity or the presence of rare elements or features in the landscape or the presence of a rare Landscape Character Type. • Representativeness and whether the landscape contains a particular character and/or features or elements which are considered particularly important examples. • Planning Designations and Conservation Interests where value attached to particular landscapes are recognised through International, National or Local designations including the presence of features of wildlife, earth science or archaeological, historical or cultural interest which can add to the value of the landscape. • Recreational Value where the physical experience of the landscape is important. • Perceptual Aspects where a landscape may be valued for its perceptual qualities, such as wildness and/or tranquillity. • Physical or Literary Indicators/Associations where landscapes are associated with particular people, such as artists or writers, or events in history that contribute to perceptions of the natural beauty of the area, or the value attached to particular locations/views are recognised, for example through appearances in guidebooks or on tourist maps, or the provision of facilities for their enjoyment such as parking places, sign boards and interpretive material.
21. Criteria used to determine the degree of susceptibility of landscape receptors to change and their perceived value are given below in Tables A-1 and A-2 respectively. NOTE: These scales are generic and therefore capable of being modified by the type of development being assessed, including size, scale and distance.
22. An assessment was made of both susceptibility and value based on a five point textual scale: Very Low, Low, Medium, High and Very High. This information is then combined to arrive at an overall sensitivity of the receptor as a whole which is also expressed as a five-point textual scale Very Low to Very High. See Table A-5 below.
Table A-1: Criteria used to determine the Susceptibility of the Landscape Receptor
Landscape Receptor Susceptibility to Change
Very open, expansive and cohesive landscapes with long views allowing Very High views into and out of the landscape. Landscapes that are uncluttered with natural skylines without man made elements. Landscapes which retain a high degree of intactness, in very good condition and high quality which are not subject to change. Landscapes often associated with rural and/or a historic character and of cultural importance. These types of landscape may be subject to or contain various historic or nature conservation designations
Open cohesive landscapes with medium to long views allowing views into and out of the landscape. Landscapes that are generally uncluttered with mainly natural skylines without man made elements. Landscapes which
retain a degree of intactness, in good condition and quality and which are infrequently subject to change. Landscapes may be associated with some degree of rural and/or a historic character and of cultural importance.
Complex rural landscapes and/or suburban areas with medium to distant scale views – containing both open and enclosed aspects generally intact and in good condition. Settlement and built form are elements of the landscape with few man- made structures such as power lines and telecommunication masts present.
Simple rural landscapes and/or suburban areas with local to medium scale views – containing both open and enclosed aspects somewhat intact and in medium condition. Settlement and built form common elements of the landscape with manmade structures such as power lines and telecommunication masts present.
Dynamic, complicated landscapes in which change frequently occurs and generally in poor condition and no strong vernacular style. Long views are limited and often truncated. Landscapes may have complex skylines and/or dominated by man-made structures and subject to frequent change. These types of landscape are often, although not exclusively associated with industrial and/or urban areas/fringes.
Very Low
Table A-2: Criteria used to determine the Value of the Landscape Receptor
Landscape Receptor Susceptibility to Change
Internationally valued landscapes such as World Heritage Sites, nationally Very High valued landscapes (National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Scenic Areas or other equivalent areas).
Locally valued landscapes, for example local authority landscape designations or landscapes assessed as being of equivalent value (Special
Landscape Areas), or strong presence other designations linked to historic, natural or cultural elements (Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Historic Parks and Gardens, Ancient Semi Natural Woodlands, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings).
Local landscapes that are not nationally or locally designated but are valued as a resource for recreation, outdoor activities and scenic value.
Local landscapes that are not nationally or locally designated, or judged to be of equivalent value, but are nevertheless valued at a community level. Very Low Degraded and industrial landscapes. Landscape dominated by commercial development and communications networks.
Nature or Sensitivity of Visual Receptors
23. As described in the previous section above, the nature or sensitivity of visual receptors is again dependent upon the susceptibility to change of the receptor with respect to the proposed development and on the value attached to the view.
24. These two aspects can include a number of factors such as: a. Location and context of the viewpoint;
b. Expectation, occupation or activity of the receptor;
c. The value placed on the landscape within which the receptor is located
d. The importance of the view (which may be determined with respect to its popularity or numbers of people affected, its appearance in guidebooks, on tourist maps and in the facilities provided for its enjoyment); and
e. Whether the receptor is static or transitory and likely speeds they are likely to be travelling in relation to the latter.
25. Those receptors most susceptible to change include local residents, particularly those dwellings that have been designed to maximise views across the surrounding landscape, such as large gardens, patios, conservatories, picture windows etc. Other highly susceptible receptors include users of outdoor recreational facilities including strategic recreational footpaths and cycleways, Open Access Areas and other Rights of Way, where their attention is likely to be focused on the landscape and/or important landscape features with physical, cultural or historic attributes. Users of viewpoints of importance to the setting or enjoyment of residential environments or located at beauty spots or picnic areas may also be highly susceptible to change.
26. Those receptors less likely to be susceptible to change include pedestrians not focused on the landscape or views and people travelling through the landscape on roads, trains or other transport routes.
27. Those receptors considered to have the least susceptible to change include people engaged in outdoor sports or other activity based recreation, or those focused on work activities.
28. Criteria used to determine the degree of susceptibility of visual receptors to change and their perceived value are given below in Tables A-3 and A-4 respectively. NOTE: These scales are generic and therefore capable of being modified by the type of development being assessed, including size, scale and distance.
Table A-3: Criteria used to determine the Susceptibility of Visual Receptor Groups
Receptors Comments Susceptibility
Residential Buildings
Housing/Isolated Ground Floor/ Upper Containing windows on ground or High dwellings/ Farms Floors/ Gardens upper floors designed to take advantage of specific views, such as living rooms, dining rooms and/or kitchens where people may spend significant periods of waking time. Gardens likely to be used for leisure purposes.
Other Buildings
Schools Classrooms Windowsill heights often limit views Medium out of classrooms
Grounds/ Playing Fields Primarily sport orientated but may Medium have views out towards countryside
Hospitals Wards Windowsill heights often limit views Medium out of wards Grounds Some wards may have windows Medium designed to exploit particular views.
Places of Worship Ground Floor, Upper Unlikely to be particularly sensitive to Medium and Public/ Guest Floors, Gardens/ Grounds off-site views but may include Houses/ Hotels grounds/gardens for outdoor activities and/or enjoyment.
Commercial Premises
Industrial Units Unlikely to be sensitive to off-site Very Low views
Retail Units and Offices Low Unlikely to be overly sensitive to off- site views but may contain aspects where outward looking views are possible.
Transport/ Recreational Routes/ Public Open Space
Footpaths, Bridleways, Commons and Open Rural paths/bridleways heavily Low Access Areas influenced by residential areas and/or major transport routes and/or with limited views used for general recreational access to the open countryside.
Rural paths/bridleways used for Medium general recreational purposes capable of gaining views across open countryside.
Rural paths/bridleways/open access High land used for general recreational purposes capable of gaining elevated views across open countryside or subject to additional levels of designation such as AONBs or NSAs.
Rural paths/bridleways/open access Very High land used for general recreational purposes capable of gaining elevated views across open countryside and within promoted landscapes or subject to additional high levels of designation such as NPs.
Public Open Space- Rivers/ Urban Parks/ Golf Open Space that is primarily used for Low Clubs/ Car Parks/ Beaches etc. sporting activities and subject to intermittent use.
Open Space that is primarily used for Medium sporting activities and subject to continuous daily use.
Public Open Space that may have High views out towards the open countryside and subject to continuous daily use.
Cycleway/ Roads/ National Cycle Routes Roads and/or tracks within a rural High Railway location and promoted as a national route for the enjoyment of the open countryside and to take in panoramic views
Unclassified/ Minor Rural location and relatively slow Medium Roads/ Local Rail traffic speeds, possibly in conjunction Network/ Private Drives with greater use by cyclists or walkers may influence sensitivity to visual impacts.
Unclassified/ Minor Traffic speed and primary use likely to Low Roads/ main Roads/ Trunk limit sensitivity to visual effects. Roads/ Motorways/ High Speed Rail links
Table A-4: Criteria used to determine the Value of Visual Receptor Groups
Visual Receptor/ Nature of View Value
Open and long range views associated with promoted landscapes, public viewpoint associated with heritage assets, coastlines etc. Close range Very High views associated with historical and or townscape settings. Views over designated landscapes and landscapes with international/national cultural
associations.
Open, generally unrestricted long range views over open countryside,
seascapes or open parkland including public open space, open access land and footpaths and/or with local/national cultural associations.
Partially restricted and/or oblique views over open countryside, seascapes
or parkland. Partially restricted or oblique views of open streetscapes,
avenues and boulevards and/or with local cultural associations.
Restricted and/or oblique views over open countryside, seascapes or parkland. Restricted or oblique views of narrow streetscape, truncated views of urban built environments or longer distant views over Industrial/ commercial landscapes communications networks etc. Very Low
Very restricted views over open countryside, seascapes or parkland. Restricted views over very degraded rural landscapes and/or close range views of industrial/ commercial landscapes.
29. As with the Nature of Landscape Receptors described above, an assessment of the Nature or Sensitivity of Visual Receptors was made of both susceptibility and value based on a five point textual scale: Very Low, Low, Medium, High and Very High. This information is then combined to arrive at an overall sensitivity of the receptor as a whole which is also expressed as a five-point textual scale Very Low to Very High. See Table A-5 below.
Table 5 A-5: Landscape and Visual Receptors: Overall Nature of Receptor (Sensitivity)
Value of the Landscape/ Visual Receptor
Very High Medium Low Very High Low
Very Very Very High Medium Medium High High High
High Very High High Medium Medium High
Medium High High Medium Medium Low
Low High Medium Medium Low Low
Very Medium Medium Low Low Very Low
Susceptibility of the the of Susceptibility Visual Landscape/ Receptor. Low
Nature or Magnitude of Change
30. Following an assessment of the nature or sensitivity of the landscape/visual receptor an assessment was made of the nature or magnitude of effects associated with the proposed development. Those elements of the development that may affect landscape character and visual amenity can be defined as occurring during two main stages of the development and can be either associated with direct or indirect effects.
31. Direct and indirect effects on the landscape and visual amenity of an area potentially affected by the development can be defined as comprising:
32. Direct physical changes to the actual fabric of the landscape, including loss or changes to individual elements such as landform, agricultural fields, trees, hedges, ditches, paths etc.
33. Direct or indirect effects caused by the development to the overall character of the landscape and changes to the key characteristics that help define and create the distinctiveness of the local landscape, including aesthetic and/or perceptual aspects.
34. In relation to those elements of the development that may affect landscape character and visual amenity during two main stages of the development occur either:
• During the operational life of the quarry, including site
preparation works and
• Following progressive and/or final restoration.
35. Differing components of the development will cause differing and varying levels of effect during these two stages of the development.
36. Those components of the development most likely to affect landscape character and visual amenity are identified and an assessment made as to likely interactions between the landscape and visual receptors identified and these components.
37. The level of interaction identified enables an assessment to be made as to the nature, or magnitude of effects associated with those aspects of the development as identified.
38. In relation to Magnitude of effects GVLA 3 at paragraph 5.48 states that Each effect on landscape receptors needs to be assessed in terms of its size or scale, the geographical extent of the area influenced, and its duration and reversibility.
39. The assessments in relation to Size/Scale is expressed in terms of Neutral or Very Small or Small or Medium or Large or Very Large; Geographical Extent is expressed in terms of Neutral or Very Small or Small or Medium or Large or Very Large; Duration is expressed as either Short or Medium or Long or Permanent; and Reversibility is expressed as either Fully or Partially or Permanent.
40. These results were then combined to arrive at an evaluation of the overall nature or magnitude of effects on individual receptors or character areas/types. The effects were considered according to whether they were adverse, neutral or beneficial. These effects were again based on a five point textual scale: Very Low, Low, Medium, High and Very High.
41. The criteria for this overall assessment are detailed in Table A-6 below:
Table A-6: Nature of Effects (Magnitude) on Landscape Receptors
Summary of Criteria Effect
The proposed site is very damaging to the landscape in that:
Very High • At considerable variance with the landform, scale and pattern of the Adverse landscape. • It is likely to degrade, diminish, or even destroy the integrity of a range of characteristic features and elements and their setting. • It is substantially damaging to a high quality or highly vulnerable landscape, causing it to change and be considerably diminished in quality. Likely to be in a High sensitive landscape.
• It is unable to be mitigated. • It is in serious conflict with policy in respect to enhancing landscape
character and set out in current or emerging LDP’s. • Very High Adverse • The cumulative operations of other developments results in an
unacceptable loss or detriment to character. • It is adverse to several of the key issues/priorities or strategies for the LCA. The proposed site is damaging to the landscape in that:
• At variance with the landform, scale and pattern of the landscape. • It is likely to degrade or diminish the integrity of a range of characteristic features and elements and their setting. • It is damaging to a high quality or highly vulnerable landscape, causing it to change and be diminished in quality. Likely to be in a High sensitive landscape. • It is unable to be adequately mitigated. • It is in conflict with policy in respect to enhancing landscape character and set out in current or emerging LDP’s. • The cumulative operations of other proposed sites results in a substantial loss or detriment to character. • It is adverse to some of the key issues/priorities or strategies for the LCA.
The site is out of scale with the landscape, or at odds with the local pattern and landform in that:
• Probably not possible to fully mitigate for, that is mitigation will not prevent the scheme from scarring the landscape in the longer term as some features of interest will be partly destroyed or their setting reduced or removed. Likely to be in a High or Medium sensitive landscape.
• In conflict with policy to respect and enhance landscape character across a range of character themes, or current or emerging LDP’s. • The potential cumulative operations of other proposed sites results in a moderate loss or detriment to character. • Adverse to a few (at least 2) of the issues/priorities or strategies for the
LCA. •
The site does not fit the landform and scale of the landscape in that:
• The proposal can probably not be completely mitigated for because of the nature of the proposal itself or the character of the landscape it is Very low in. Likely to be in a High or Medium sensitive landscape. Adverse • In conflict with policy to respect and enhance landscape character across few character themes and set out in current or emerging LDP’s.
• There is a potential of some cumulative impacts of other proposed sites. • At variance with some aspects of the LCA descriptions.
The site does not quite fit the landform and scale of the landscape in that:
• The proposal can almost be completely mitigated for because of the nature of the proposal itself or the character of the landscape it is in. Likely to be in a Medium or Low sensitivity landscape. • In partial conflict with policy to respect and enhance landscape character across few character themes and set out in current or emerging LDP’s. • There is a very slight potential of cumulative operations of other proposed sites. • At variance with some minor aspects of the LCA descriptions.
The proposal is likely to be able to complement and fit the scale, landform and Neutral Effect pattern of the landscape in that: • Mitigation measures are likely to ensure that the scheme will blend in well with surrounding landscape character components. • Will probably maintain existing landscape character with specific planning conditions and in a Medium to Low sensitivity landscape. • Likely to be in a degraded landscape or one with a restoration objective (identified in LCA assessments). • Likely to be an isolated, or small site with no cumulative effect from neighbouring operations.
The proposal will probably fit in the landform, pattern and historical use of the area. Very Low Beneficial • By incorporating measures for mitigation, it will ensure that landscape character is marginally enhanced and improved, such as habitat creation, restoration of previously degraded landscape. Likely to be in a Medium or Low Sensitivity Landscape. • Could partially incorporate policy to enhance landscape character (on restoration) as set out in current or emerging LDP’s. • Likely to be isolated or small site with no likely cumulative effect from neighbouring operations.
The proposal will probably fit well in the landform, pattern and historical use of
the area.
• By incorporating measures for mitigation, it will ensure that landscape character is enhanced and improved, such as habitat creation,
restoration of previously degraded landscape. Likely to be in a Medium or Low Sensitivity Landscape. • Could incorporate policy to enhance landscape character (on
restoration) as set out in current or emerging LDP’s. • Likely to be isolated or relatively small site with no cumulative effect from neighbouring operations.
The proposal will fit well in the landform, pattern and historical use of the area.
• By incorporating measures for mitigation, it will ensure that landscape character is materially enhanced and improved, such as habitat
creation, restoration of previously very degraded landscape. Likely to
be in a Medium Sensitivity Landscape. • Incorporates a wide range of policies to enhance landscape character (on restoration) as set out in current or emerging LDP’s. • Likely to be an isolated or small site with no cumulative effect from neighbouring operations.
The proposal will fit well in the landform, pattern and historical use of the area.
• By incorporating measures for mitigation, it will ensure that landscape High character is materially enhanced and improved, such as habitat Beneficial creation, restoration of previously very degraded landscape. Likely to be in a High Sensitivity Landscape. • Incorporates a wide range of policies to enhance landscape character (on restoration) as set out in current or emerging LDP’s. • Likely to be an isolated or small site with no cumulative effect from neighbouring operations.
Nature of Effects (Magnitude) on Visual Receptors
42. The magnitude of effects in relation to identified visual receptors was determined according to the criteria set out in Table A-7 below.
Table A-7: Nature of Effects (Magnitude) on Visual Receptors: Definitions
Adverse Neutral Beneficial
Very Higt/ Medium/ Very Low/ Neutral Very Low/ Medium/ High Low Minor Low High
Permanent Permanent Permanent No perceived Permanent or Permanent alteration of (or long (or long change in temporary or temporary key elements term) or term) or character or alteration of change in a such that it temporary temporary amenity or minor key element significantly change in a change of changes are element, or and key element minor not perceived causing a permanent detrimentally or permanent element, to be either minor change in affects local or change in less causing a adverse or improvement less wider important minor or beneficial in in local important character or element, very minor nature character or element, amenity. creating negative amenity. noticeably Views are negative alteration in Views are improving open, from effects on character or improved but local close character or amenity. screened character or proximity and amenity. Detrimental and/or are at amenity. detrimentally Detrimental views are oblique Views are affected in a views are screened angles. improved pronounced or partially and/or are at but partially very screened oblique screened pronounced and/or angles and/or manner. viewed as and/or at a viewed as Forms a part of the great part of the significant or wider distance. wider very significant landscape. landscape. element in the landscape.
Mitigation of Landscape and Visual Effects
43. GLVA 3 at paragraph 4.21 states that In accordance with the EIA Regulations, measures proposed to prevent/avoid, reduce and where possible offset or remedy (or compensate for) any significant adverse landscape and visual effects should be described. In practice, such mitigation measures are now generally considered to fall into three categories:
a. Primary measures, developed through the iterative design process, which have become integrated or embedded into the project design; b. Standard construction and operational management practices for avoiding and reducing environmental effects; c. Secondary measures, designed to address any residual adverse effects remaining after primary measures and standard construction practices have been incorporated into the scheme. 44. The scheme as proposed generally incorporates primary measures which have been incorporated as an integral part of design process. Secondary measures include additional landscape enhancement including extensive tree/hedgerow planting/infilling works to be undertaken within adjacent land that seeks to integrate the restoration of the site into the surrounding landscape.
Significance of Residual Effects
45. Following the assessment of the Nature of Effect (Magnitude) an assessment of the Overall Significance of Effects was carried out by combining the level of the Nature of Effect with the assessed values of the Nature of Receptor (Sensitivity) present. This is presented in the form of a matrix table (see Table A-8). The table was used to provide an indication of the level of the Overall Significance of Effects resulting from the development in relation to the localities landscape character or visual amenity. The effects were considered according to whether they were adverse, neutral or beneficial.
Table A-8: Significance of Impacts: Correlation of Nature of Effect with Nature of Landscape or Visual Receptors
NATURE of the Landscape/ Visual Receptor (Sensitivity)
Very High High Medium Low Very Low
Very Severe Major Notable Notable / Moderate High Moderate
High Major Notable Notable / Moderate Slight Moderate
Medium Notable Notable / Moderate Slight Very Adverse Moderate Slight
Low Notable / Moderate Slight Very Minimal Moderate Slight
NATURE OF Effect (magnitude) OF Effect NATURE Very Moderate Slight Very Minimal Negligible Low Slight Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral
Very Moderate Slight Very Minimal Negligible Low Slight
Low Notable Moderate Slight Very Minimal Slight Beneficial Medium Substantial Notable Moderate Slight Very Slight
High Major Substantial Notable Moderate Slight
46. The above matrix is not used as a prescriptive tool and the methodology and analysis of potential effects at any particular location must allow for the exercise of professional judgement. Thus, in some instances a particular parameter may be considered as having a determining effect on the analysis.
47. Where the landscape or visual impact has been classified as notable and above, this is considered to be equivalent to a significant effect as referred to in the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 2011.
Zone of Theoretical Visibility
48. Computer based studies were used to establish the site’s potential visual envelope. These studies used both Ordnance Survey 3D Terrain 5 Digital Terrain Modelling (DTM) data, as well as Getmapping 2m Aerial Photograph Derived Digital Surface Modelling (DSM) data. The former dataset shows in 3D the physical landform without any built structures or vegetation, based on a 10m grid of levels. The latter dataset shows in 3D all topographic features present within the landscape, including individual trees and woodland blocks, buildings, road and railway embankments and cuttings based on a 2m grid of levels. 49. Computer models used specialised software (LSS, McCarthy Taylor Systems Ltd) to generate digital models of the landform to determine the site's Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV), based on mathematically generated vertical angles of view. Both landform only (DTM) and surface modelling (DSM) data was used to ascertain both the landform only ZTV, as well as modelling the surface ZTV based on existing topographic features to highlight those elements that generally obscure views where they intervene between the viewer and the viewed object. The former ZTV therefore shows a maximum effect scenario, with many of the predicted views, particularly low lying distant ones, not likely to be present. The latter ZTV therefore shows an 'actual' zone of visibility likely to be experienced by the surrounding visual receptors.
50. The computer study helps to objectively define the magnitude of visual effects the proposed development might have, by linking potential impact to the vertical angle subtended at the viewpoint by the top and bottom extremities of the object that is viewable, from which a ‘contour’ model is generated. This gives a visual measure of how much of a given vertical field of view is occupied by the object when viewed from different locations. This method automatically takes into account effects of distance from the site (i.e. an object close to the viewer occupies a greater vertical angle [field of view] than a feature further away). Where a zero value is returned, the viewpoint lies outside or on the edge of the Visual Envelope, delineating the areas from which views are not thought to be possible (uncoloured).
51. Figure A.1: A Diagram to Illustrate Vertical Angles
Heightof viewed object VA VA Viewer Distance of 'object' from viwer The effect of distance from the object being viewed has on vertical angle
VA
Heightof viewed object Viewer Intervening Object The effect intervening landform or structures have on vertical angle
52. The following table shows how vertical angles of viewed objects relate to a person’s vertical field of view and the potential for an object to impact on the viewer. This table shows the mathematical relationship between a 12 metre high object, its distance from the viewer and the vertical angle it would subtend compared to the main vertical field of view of the viewer.
Table A-9: Mathematical Table to Show the Vertical Angle a 12 metre High Object Would Visually Subtend at Various Distances
Distance from viewer of Vertical Angle Subtended (Total 12m high object Field of View = @ 90°
10.0 Km 0.07 °
6.8 Km 0.1°
3.5 Km 0.2°
2.3 Km 0.3°
1.0 Km 0.7°
0.7 Km 1.0°
0.5 Km 1.4°
0.2 Km 3.0°
0.1 Km 6.8°
53. Based on experience, photographic studies and the mathematical table, certain 'contour' values were assessed as potentially indicating differences in magnitude of effect. A classification system using six ‘contour’ values was used to relate vertical angles to levels of magnitude. These classifications were used to inform the assessment process to help distinguish possible differences in magnitudes of effect from various locations within the Study Area - those where the angle of view subtended the largest angle being likely to receive the highest magnitudes of effect. Conversely, those where the angle of view subtended the smallest angle being likely to receive the lowest magnitudes of effect.
Cauldon Cement Plant
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B
ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL FACTUAL REPORT
Cauldon Cement Works
Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Heaton Planning Ltd
November 2019
Executive Park, Avalon Way, Anstey, Leicestershire, LE7 7GR
Tel: 0116 234 8000
Email: [email protected]
www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Document Control
Project: Cauldon Cement Works Client: Heaton Planning Ltd Job Number: A112129 File Origin: N:\Projects\Projects A112000 on\A112129 Cauldon Cement Works\REPORTS
Version 1 10th July 2019 Final Ian Stephens Prepared by: Project Ecologist David Goddard MCIEEM Checked By: Senior Ecologist Elizabeth Sanders MCIEEM Verified By: Principal Ecologist
Version: Date: Updated by: Verified by: Description of changes: 2 06/11/19 E. Sanders J. Jackson Update with GCN EDNA and Bat Survey results
WYG Environment Planning Transport Ltd. accept no responsibility or liability for the use which is made of this document other than by the Client for the purpose for which it was originally commissioned and prepared.
Heaton Planning Ltd i October 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Contents
Executive Summary ...... 1 Glossary ...... 2 1.0 Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Background ...... 3 1.2 Site Location ...... 3 1.3 Development Proposals ...... 3 1.4 Purpose of the Report ...... 3 2.0 Methodology ...... 4 2.1 Desk Study ...... 4 2.2 Field Surveys ...... 4 2.3 Limitations ...... 7 3.0 Baseline Conditions ...... 9 3.1 Designated Sites ...... 9 3.2 Habitats ...... 11 3.3 Protected & Notable Species ...... 11 3.4 Importance of Ecological Features...... 16 4.0 Relevant Planning Policy & Legislation ...... 19 4.1 Revised National Planning Policy Framework ...... 19 4.2 Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s Wildlife & Ecosystem Services ...... 20 4.3 Local Biodiversity Action Plan ...... 20 4.4 Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan 2016-2031 ...... 21 4.5 Legislation ...... 23 5.0 Summary ...... 24 5.1 Sites ...... 24 5.2 Habitats ...... 24 5.3 Protected/notable Species ...... 24 6.0 References ...... 25
FIGURES Figure 1 – Site Location Plan Figure 2 – Phase 1 Habitat Plan
Appendix A – Report Conditions Appendix B – Key Legislation Appendix C – Relevant Desk Study Data Appendix D – Target Notes Appendix E – GCN EDNA Results Appendix F – Factual Bat Report
Heaton Planning Ltd ii October 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Executive Summary
Contents Summary
Site Location The ‘site’ is located adjacent to Cauldon Cement Works and is 600m to the east of the village of Cauldon in Staffordshire and is centred at Ordnance Survey National Grid Reference SK 08636 49497.
Proposals The development proposal is for the construction of an alternative fuel storage and feed system for the existing Cauldon Cement Works which lies to the west of Earlsway, adjacent to the site.
Existing Site WYG are not aware of any recent previous ecological surveys having been Information undertaken at the site.
Scope of this The purpose of this Ecological Appraisal is to provide an assessment of the habitats Survey(s) present on site and the likelihood and/or evidence of protected and notable species presence within and immediately adjacent to the site. This report details the results of the ecological appraisal which includes the results from the desk study search (2km search radius from the centre of the site) and ecological survey carried out on the 9th May 2019. Phase 2 surveys for GCN ENDA and roosting/foraging/commuting bats were undertaken during 2019 the results of these are provided in Appendix E and F.
Results The site lies within 2km of the following sites: • Peak District Dales SAC; • Six SSSI’s; and • 29 LWS and Retained BAS. Habitats within the site include: • Scrub; • Scattered and lines of trees; • Species-poor hedgerows (HPI habitat); • Poor semi-improved grassland; • Buildings; • Hardstanding; and • Drystone Walls Habitats within the site are suitable to support: • GCN • Roosting bats (confirmed roost on site) • Foraging/commuting bats • Badger • Birds • Brown hare and hedgehog
Heaton Planning Ltd 1 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Glossary
Badgers Act Protection of Badgers Act 1992 BAS Biodiversity Alert Site BCT Bat Conservation Trust BSI British Standard Institute BTO British Trust for Ornithology CIEEM Chartered Institute of Ecology & Environmental Management CRoW Act Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 DEFRA Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EcIA Ecological Impact Assessment EPS European Protected Species EPSL European Protected Species Licence GCN Great Crested Newt Habitat Regulations Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) HAP Habitat Action Plan Hedgerow Regulations Hedgerow Regulations 1997 HPI Habitat(s) of Principal Importance HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment JNCC Join Nature Conservation Committee LBAP Local Biodiversity Action Plan LNR Local Nature Reserve LPA Local Planning Authority LWS Local Wildlife Site MCIEEM Member of Chartered Institute of Ecology & Environmental Management Natura 2000 site A European site designated for its nature conservation value NERC Act Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 NNR National Nature Reserve NPPF National Planning Policy Framework PEA Preliminary Ecological Appraisal SAC Special Area of Conservation SAP Species Action Plan SPA Special Protection Area SPI Species of Principal Importance SSSI Site(s) of Special Scientific Interest W&CA Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)
Heaton Planning Ltd 2 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background
WYG was commissioned by Heaton Planning Ltd on 30th April 2019 to undertake an Ecological Appraisal of the site known as Cauldon Cement Works. The results of the GCN EDNA and the bat emergence / return surveys are provided as a factual report in Appendix E and F, respectively.
This report has been prepared by WYG Project Ecologist Ian Stephens MSc, BSc (hons) and the conditions pertinent to it are provided in Appendix A.
1.2 Site Location
The ‘site’ is located adjacent to Cauldon Cement Works and is 600m to the east of the village of Cauldon in Staffordshire and is centred at Ordnance Survey National Grid Reference SK 08636 49497 – see Figure 1. The site comprises a collection of agricultural buildings, two pasture fields with hedgerow, drystone wall boundaries along with scattered trees and lines of trees.
The landscape surrounding the site is dominated by the Cauldon Cement works to the west and the active Cauldon Quarry to the south. Land to the north and west is dominated by pasture fields with hedgerow boundaries and small areas of woodland and scrub. Some of the surrounding pasture is designated for its botanical interest.
1.3 Development Proposals
The development proposal is for the construction of an alternative fuel storage and feed system for the existing Cauldon Cement Works which lies to the west of Earlsway, adjacent to the site.
1.4 Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is to complete:
• A desk study to obtain existing information on statutory and non-statutory sites of nature conservation interest and relevant records of protected/notable species within the site and its zone of influence (the site and the surrounding 2km buffer); • An extended Phase 1 habitat survey, involving a walkover of the site to record the habitat types and dominant vegetation, including any invasive species, and a reconnaissance survey for evidence of protected fauna or habitats capable of supporting such species; and, • Phase 2 GCN EDNA and bat emergence / return surveys, with reference to the appropriate best practice guidelines, to determine the presence/likely absence of these species. • An assessment of the potential ecological receptors present on site, identify the constraints they pose to future development and any recommendations for avoidance, mitigation or enhancement measures that are needed (as appropriate).
Note that scientific names are provided at the first mention of each species and common names (where appropriate) are then used throughout the rest of the report for ease of reading.
A summary of the key legislation is also provided in Appendix B.
Heaton Planning Ltd 3 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
2.0 Methodology 2.1 Desk Study
2.1.1 Previous Reports WYG are not aware of any previous ecological surveys having been undertaken at the site.
2.1.2 Local Ecological Records Centre Information was requested from Staffordshire Ecological Record (SER) for information on any nature conservation designations and protected or notable species records within 2km of the site.
The data search covered:
• Statutory designated sites for nature conservation, namely SACs, SPAs, Ramsar sites, SSSIs, NNRs and LNRs; • Non-statutory designated sites for nature conservation, namely LWS; • Legally protected species, such as great crested newts (GCN) Triturus cristatus, badger Meles meles and bats; • Notable habitats and species, such as those listed as Habitats or Species of Principal Importance (HPIs or SPIs); and, • Priority habitats or species within the Staffordshire LBAP.
The data search did not cover:
• Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs); or • Conservation Areas designated for their special architectural and historic interest.
Note that relevant extracts from the desk study are provided in Appendix C, as appropriate.
2.1.3 Online Resources A search for relevant information was also made on MAGIC www.magic.gov.uk - DEFRA’s interactive, web-based database for statutory designations and information on any EPSL applications that have been granted in the local area since 2015.
2.2 Field Surveys
The following methodologies have been used to identify the ecological receptors present on or near the site, which are relevant to the proposed development.
2.2.1 Habitats An extended Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken on the site on 9th May 2019 by WYG Project Ecologist Ian Stephens. The weather conditions were overcast with light rain.
The vegetation and broad habitat types within the site were noted during the survey in accordance with the categories specified for a Phase 1 Vegetation and Habitat Survey (JNCC, 2010). Dominant plant species were recorded for each habitat present using nomenclature according to Stace (2019). The site was also appraised for its suitability to support notable flora, with regard to the Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (CIEEM, 2017).
Heaton Planning Ltd 4 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
2.2.2 Protected & Notable Species The site was inspected for evidence of, and its potential to support, protected or notable species, especially those listed under Schedule 2 of the Habitat Regulations, Schedule 5 of the W&CA, the CRoW Act, those given extra protection under the NERC Act, and species included in the Staffordshire LBAP.
Great Crested Newt The site was appraised for its suitability to support GCN. The assessment was based on Guidance outlined in the Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual (Gent & Gibson, 2003) and the Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook (Langton, Becket & Foster, 2001).
A Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment was carried out on one pond on the site (See Section 3.3.1). The HSI approach provides an objective method for assessing the suitability of a waterbody as habitat for GCN (Oldham et al., 2000). The system provides an index between 0 and 1, with 0 indicating unsuitable habitat and 1 optimal habitat. Ten suitability indices are used to calculate the index score, each representing a factor considered to affect GCN. The results are then compared against a categorical scale to give an overall rating. Therefore the result for each waterbody is a categorised as follows:
• <0.5 = Poor • 0.5 – 0.59 = Below Average • 0.6 – 0.69 = Average • 0.7 – 0.79 = Good • >0.8 = Excellent
Environmental DNA (eDNA) Surveys The eDNA sampling was carried out in accordance with the stringent survey methodologies defined within Natural England’s accepted protocol (Biggs et al., 2014 - WC1067 Appendix 5. Technical advice note for field and laboratory sampling of great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) environmental DNA).
SureScreen analyse the samples following WC1067 (Biggs et al., 2014) which is a document which outlines the analytical and methodological development for improved surveillance of the Great Crested Newt and is supported by DEFRA and Natural England.
Bats
Roosting Bats – Buildings / Structures / Trees Any suitable buildings, structures or trees on site were assessed from the ground for their suitability to support breeding, resting and hibernating bats using survey methods based on the BCT Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (Collins, 2016) – hereafter referred to as the ‘BCT Guidelines’. The following system has therefore been used to categorise the bat roost suitability of any features found:
Table 1 Categories of Bat Roost Suitability (BCT Guidelines)
Suitability Typical Roosting Features
Negligible Negligible habitat feature on site likely to be used by roosting bats.
Heaton Planning Ltd 5 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Suitability Typical Roosting Features
Low A structure with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by individual bats opportunistically. However, these potential roost sites do not provide enough space, shelter, protection, appropriate conditions and/or suitable surrounding habitat to be used on a regular basis or by larger numbers of bats (i.e. unlikely to be suitable for maternity or hibernation). A tree of sufficient size and age to contain potential roost features but with none seen from the ground or features seen with only very limited roosting potential. Moderate A structure or tree with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by bats due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status (with respect to roost type only – the assessments in this table are made irrespective of species conservation status, which is established after presence is confirmed). High A structure or tree with one or more potential roost sites that are obviously suitable for use by larger numbers of bats on a more regular basis & potentially for longer periods of time due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat.
Foraging/commuting Bats The BCT Guidelines use the following criteria to categorise the potential value of habitats and features for use by foraging and commuting bats and these have been used to characterise the value of this site:
Table 2 Categories of Habitat Suitability (BCT Guidelines)
Suitability Typical Foraging & Commuting Features
Negligible Negligible habitat features on site likely to be used by commuting or foraging bats. Low Habitat that could be used by small numbers of commuting bats such as a gappy hedgerow or unvegetated stream, but isolated, i.e. not very well connected to the surrounding landscape by other habitat. Suitable, but isolated habitat that could be used by small numbers of foraging bats such as a lone tree (not in a parkland situation) or a patch of scrub. Moderate Continuous habitat connected to the wider landscape that could be used by bats for commuting such as lines of trees and scrub or linked back gardens. Habitat that is connected to the wider landscape that could be used by bats for foraging such as trees, scrub, grassland or water. High Continuous high-quality habitat that is well connected to the wider landscape that is likely to be used regularly by commuting bats such as river valleys, streams, hedgerows, lines of trees and woodland edge. High-quality habitat that is well connected to the wider landscape that is likely to be used regularly by foraging bats such as broadleaved woodland, tree-lined watercourses and grazed parkland. Site is close to and connected to known roosts.
Heaton Planning Ltd 6 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Reptiles The site was appraised for its suitability to support reptiles. The assessment was based on guidance outlined in the Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual (Gent & Gibson, 2003).
Badgers The site was surveyed for evidence of badger setts or other badger activity such as paths, latrines or signs of foraging. Methodologies used and any setts recorded were classified according to published criteria (Harris, Cresswell & Jefferies, 1989).
Hazel Dormice The site was surveyed for its suitability to support hazel dormice Muscardinus avellanarius. The assessment was based on guidance outlined in Bright, Morris and Mitchell-Jones (2006).
Other Species The site was also appraised for its suitability to support other protected or notable fauna including mammals, amphibians, birds and invertebrates with regard to the Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (CIEEM, 2017) and BS42020:2013 Biodiversity – Code of Practice for Planning and Development (BSI, 2013). Evidence of any current or historical presence of such species was recorded.
2.2.3 Invasive Species The site was searched for evidence of invasive plant species, such as Japanese knotweed Reynoutria japonica (formerly Fallopia japonica), Indian (Himalayan) balsam Impatiens glandulifera, giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum, wall cotoneaster Cotoneaster horizontalis and rhododendron Rhododendron ponticum × Rhododendron maximum. A full list of all invasive plant species is provided in Appendix B.
2.3 Limitations
The optimal period to undertake an extended Phase 1 habitat survey is April-September. The survey was completed in May which is within the optimal survey window. As such this is not considered to be a limitation to the accurate assessment of the habitats and the dominant species of the respective vegetation types were visible and identifiable.
To determine presence or likely absence of protected species usually requires multiple visits at suitable times of the year. As a result, this survey focuses on assessing the potential of the site to support species of note, which are considered to be of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity with reference to those given protection under UK or European wildlife legislation. This report cannot therefore be considered a comprehensive assessment of the ecological interest of the site. However, it does provide an assessment of the ecological interest present on the day the site was visited.
Access to Pond P1, was not available at the time of the survey and as such was not assessed for its suitability to support GCN. EDNA samples were collected from pond P1 and P2 on 3rd July 2019 which is just outside the optimum period to collect GCN EDNA, which is 30th June. However, the weather conditions were such that it is considered that if GCVN were present in the ponds they would have still been present at the time the samples were collected and therefore their DNA present and
Heaton Planning Ltd 7 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
detectable. Therefore the date in which the survey was complete is therefore not considered to be a limitation to the results of the survey.
The results of the Phase 2 surveys are provided in Appendix E and F and the limitations to those surveys are included in the respective report.
The details of this report will remain valid for a period of 18 months (CIEEM 2019) from the date of the survey, after which the validity of this assessment should be reviewed to determine whether further updates are necessary. Note that the recommendations within this report should be reviewed (and reassessed if necessary) should there be any changes to the red line boundary or development proposals which this report was based on.
Heaton Planning Ltd 8 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
3.0 Baseline Conditions 3.1 Designated Sites
The following designated sites of ecological importance have been identified within 2km of the site.
Table 3 Designated Sites Within 2km
Distance & Designation Site Name Summary of features Direction
LWS Middlehills Farm Adjacent to Semi-improved grassland fields. (west of) the north of the site SSSI Cauldon Dales 0.18km E Calcareous grassland. LWS Milk Hill 0.20km W Species rich calcareous grassland. LWS Caldon Dale 0.31km SE Semi-improved calcareous and neutral grassland. LWS Rooksflat (north 0f) 0.52km NE Species-rich meadow. LWS Yew Tree Verges 0.66km W Species-rich grassland and diverse canopy species. Retained BAS Three Stones 0.68km N Section of river lined by mature trees. (south-west of) SSSI & SAC in Hamps & Manifold 0.70km NE Ancient woodland, scrub and Parts Valleys unimproved calcareous grassland. LWS Middlehills Farm 0.70km NE Limestone outcrops with scrub and (east of), Milk Hill meadow saxifrage Saxifrage granulata. LWS Huddale 0.80km SE Semi-improved grassland. LWS Broomyshaw (east 0.92km NW Stream banks with wet flushes. of) Retained BAS Cauldon (west of) 1.2km W Pasture with west flushes. SSSI Rue Hill 1.2km SW Calcareous grassland. LWS Dale Farm (north 1.3km SE Calcicolous community with scrub, of) ruderal and trees. LWS Honeyholes Spoil 1.3km SW Limestone spoil heaps with several rare or uncommon species. LWS Redmoorlee Farm 1.4km NW River, marshy grassland, woodland, (south of) scrub, hedgerows and grassland. LWS Dale Lane (south 1.5km SE Species-rich calcareous and neutral of) grassland. LWS Moorend Strip 1.5km W Unimproved neutral grassland with flushes with wetland species. LWS Lawrence House 1.5km SW Unimproved calcareous grassland.
Heaton Planning Ltd 9 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Distance & Designation Site Name Summary of features Direction
LWS Red House Farm 1.5km SW Lowland calcareous grassland. (south of) LWS Miles Knoll (verges 1.5km SE Diverse road verge. south of) LWS Dale Tor(north- 1.6km Unimproved calcicolous community. west of) LWS Stoneylow Farm 1.6km NW Species-rich neutral grassland. (north-east of) LWS Lawrence House 1.6km SW Calcareous grassland. (west of) LWS Rue Hill 1.6km SE Limestone grassland. LWS Rue hill 1.7km Species rich calcareous grassland. LWS Ribdon Bank 1.7km SW Unimproved calcareous grazing pasture. LWS Wardlow Quarry 1.8km SW Species-rich calcareous grassland and Bund scrub. LWS Manor Farm 1.8km W Species-rich neutral, acid and marshy grassland and scrub. Retained BAS Miles Knoll (west 1.8km SE Rich calcareous community. of) Retained BAS Walkers Barn 1.8km SE Semi-improved neutral grassland. SAC Peak District Dales 2km N The Annex I habitats that are the primary reason for selection of the site are ‘Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) (* important orchid sites) and Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines. The Annex II species that is a primary reason for selection of the site is White-clawed (or Atlantic stream) crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes. LWS Dale Tor 2kmSE Calcareous flora growing on a rocky outcrop.
In addition to the designated sites provided above, the Peak District National Park lies approximately 650m to the north of the site, encompassing the Peak District Dales SAC, Hamps and Manifold Valleys SSSI and Brownend Quarry SSSI.
Brownend Quarry, Cauldon Railway Cutting and Cauldon Low are SSSI’s within 2km of the site designated for their geological features,
Heaton Planning Ltd 10 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
3.2 Habitats
The following habitats have been identified through our assessment, with detailed Target Notes included in Appendix D, as appropriate:
3.2.1 Scattered Scrub Scattered scrub is located on the northern site boundary and beneath trees on the southern site boundary (TN1).
3.2.2 Scattered Trees Scattered trees are located individually within the site and in a small group on the southern site boundary (TN2).
3.2.3 Lines of Trees Lines of immature and semi-mature trees are located towards the south of the site (TN3).
3.2.4 Species-Poor Hedgerows A species poor hedgerow is located on the western boundary of the site (TN4).
3.2.5 Poor Semi-Improved Grassland Two fields located to the north and centre of the site comprise heavily grazed poor semi-improved grassland. Grassland to the south of the site is not grazed but appears to be subject to infrequent mowing and is of a similar quality to the other fields (TN5).
3.2.6 Buildings There are six buildings standing in the southern part of the site (TN6).
3.2.7 Hardstanding Concrete yards are located adjacent to the buildings to the south of the site (TN7).
3.2.8 Drystone Walls Drystone walls form field boundaries in the centre and east of the site (TN8).
3.3 Protected & Notable Species
3.3.1 Great Crested Newts SER returned five records of GCN. All records date from 2012 and the nearest record is located approximately 770m north-east of the site.
The MAGIC database provided one record of an EPSL application in respect of GCN. The licence was dated 2012 and relates to a site located approximately 800m to the north-east of the site.
There are no waterbodies within the site. The nearest waterbody is located approximately 70m to the south-east of the site within the Cauldon Cement Works and is shown as P1 in Figure 1. This pond could not be accessed at the time of the survey and was not assessed for its suitability to support GCN. A pond located 190m to the north of the site (shown as P2 in Figure 1) was assessed for its
Heaton Planning Ltd 11 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
suitability to support GCN and the results of this assessment are provided below. Other ponds, an additional two, shown on OS mapped data to the north of the site were found not to be present or to be dry at the time of the survey and therefore no HSI was undertaken.
Other ponds, an additional four, are shown on OS mapped data to the west of Cauldon Cement Works, over 300m from the site were not assessed. However, the intervening cement works (including active industrial buildings, hardstanding etc.) are considered to be a significant barrier to movement of GCN and from aerial imagery, there appears to be suitable terrestrial habitat (woodland) around these ponds. Consequently it is considered highly unlikely that GCN would migrate between these ponds and the site.
The grassland habitat which dominates the site is generally considered to be sub-optimal for GCN being closely grazed. However the hedgerow on the western boundary and small areas of trees and longer grass potentially provide limited suitable terrestrial habitat. The drystone walls have numerous voids providing potential refugia/hibernacula for GCN should they be present on site.
Photograph 1 Pond P2
Heaton Planning Ltd 12 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Table 4 HSI Assessment
Suitability Index Pond P2
Field location 1.00 Pond area 0.20 Pond drying 0.50 Water quality 0.67 Shade 1.00 Fowl 1.00 Fish 1.00 Ponds 0.55 Terrestrial habitat 0.67 Macrophytes 0.40 SCORE: 0.01 HSI SCORE : 0.63 Pond Suitability : Average
The Natural England Rapid Risk Assessment tool calculates the risk of committing and offence in relation to GCN based on the proximity of a pond supporting breeding GCN and the area of land that will be impacted by a development. Using this method, and on the assumption that GCN are present within Ponds 1 and 2, a result of ‘Offence Likely’ was given (see below).
GCN eDNA samples were taken from ponds P1 and P2 on the 3rd July 2019. The results of the eDNA were returned as negative for GCN EDNA. The full report can be found in Appendix E.
3.3.2 Reptiles SER returned one record of grass snake Natrix helvetica. The location was not provided and may be from beyond 2km of the site. The record was dated 2006.
The grassland habitat within the site is considered sub-optimal for reptiles as the short sward provides little cover from predation. The dry-stone walls and hedgerow provide suitable opportunities for basking/resting and hibernating reptiles.
Due to the absence of recent records, and the limited suitable foraging habitat, it is considered unlikely at reptiles are currently present within the site.
Heaton Planning Ltd 13 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
3.3.3 Bats SER provided seventeen records of bats within 2km of the site. The species comprised pipistrelle bats Pipistrellus pipistrellus and Pipistrellus pygmaeus (11 records), Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus (one record), noctule bat Nyctalus noctula (one record) and unidentified species (four records).
The MAGIC database provided no records of EPSL applications in relation to bats within 2km of the site.
Roosting The buildings within the site are all assessed as having suitability to support roosting bats. Table 5 below provides the suitability rating for each building. The rationale for these assessments is provided in Appendix D (TN6).
Table 5 Building / bat roost suitability
Table Number Bat suitability B1 Low B2 High B3 High (confirmed bat roost) B4 Low B5 High B6 High
An ash Fraxinus excelsior tree to the north-west of the site was assessed to have high suitability to support roosting bats (see Appendix D, TN9). A mature horse chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum to the west of the site was assessed with low suitability to support roosting bats (see Appendix D, TN10).
A suite of bat emergence / return surveys were undertaken at the site in July and August 2019. The results of the surveys can be found in Appendix F.
Foraging/Commuting The hedgerow and trees within the site provide suitable foraging and commuting habitat for bats. In accordance with guidelines (BCT, 2016). Whilst bat roosts have been confirmed as present within building B3 on site, the site is assessed as having moderate suitability for foraging/commuting bats.
The foraging and commuting activity within the site was assessed during the surveys. The results can be found in Appendix F.
3.3.4 Badger SER returned 14 records of badger within 2km of the site.
The grassland within the site is suitable for foraging badger. The hedgerow provides potential habitat for sett creation. However, no evidence for the presence of badgers (mammal paths, snuffle holes, sett entrances, bedding etc.) was recorded during the survey and it is considered highly unlikely that badgers are currently resident within the site.
Heaton Planning Ltd 14 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
3.3.5 Hazel Dormice SER provided no records of hazel dormouse within 2km of the site.
The hedgerow on the western site boundary provides limited suitable habitat for the species. However, the hedgerow is not well connected to other areas of suitable habitat within the wider landscape. Consequently, it is considered highly unlikely that hazel dormouse is present within the site.
3.3.6 Otter & Water Vole SER provided no records of otter Lutra lutra or water vole Arvicola amphibious within 2km of the site.
There are no running waterbodies within or immediately adjacent to the site. Ponds P1 and P2 which are within 200m of the site, are in isolation and away from any running waterbodies. They don’t provide foraging areas or suitable banks for burrows or holt creation and are therefore not considered to be suitable habitat for otter or water vole. Consequently, it is considered highly unlikely that otter or water vole are present within the site.
3.3.7 Birds SER returned 156 records of protected bird species including Kingfisher Alcedo atthis, little ringed plover Charadrius dubius, hen harrier Circus cyaneus, Peregine Falco peregrinus, Hobby Falco Subbuteo, brambling Fringilla montifringilla, red kite Milvus milvus, Osprey Pandion haliaetus, golden plover Pluvialis apricaria, redwing Turdus iliacus, fieldfare Turdus pilans and barn owl Tyto alba.
SER also returned 681 records of LBAP priority bird species, including some protected species listed above.
Of the species for which records were provided, barn owl (W&CA Schedule 1 species), skylark Aluda arvensis, house martin Delichon urbicum, Yellowhammer Emberiza citronella, kestrel Falco tinnunculus, linnet Liniaria cannabina, house sparrow, Passer domesticus, tree sparrow Passer montanus, dunnock Prunella modularis, bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula, tawny owl Strix aluco, starling sturnus vulgaris, redwing, song thrush Turdus philomelos, fieldfare and mistle thrush Turdus viscivorus are considered likely to potentially use the habitats within the site for nesting or for foraging.
3.3.8 Other Mammals SRC returned records of brown hare Lepus europaeus, hedgehog Erinaceous europaeus and pole cat Mustella putorius. The grassland within the site (as currently managed) provides foraging habitat for hedgehog and brown hare and the hedgerow may provide refuge for hedgehog. Consequently, it is considered highly likely that brown hare, hedgehog and pole cat are present within the site.
3.3.9 Invertebrates SER provided 344 records of notable invertebrate species. The species recorded included moths, butterflies, bees, wasps, and beetles.
Given the limited range of habitats present within the site and the lack of botanical diversity, it is considered highly unlikely that the site would support a diverse assemblage or important populations
Heaton Planning Ltd 15 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
of notable invertebrates. Consequently, invertebrates are not considered a constraint to the development.
3.3.10 Notable Plants SER provided records of 70 records of protected or notable plant species within 2km of the site.
No protected or notable plant species were identified during the survey.
As the site is currently managed (heavily grazed), it is considered highly unlikely that protected or notable plant species are present within the site.
3.3.11 Invasive Species SER provided no records of invasive species within 2km of the site and no invasive species were recorded during the site visit.
Given that the site is not close to any centres of population it is considered unlikely that invasive species might be introduced through fly tipping or other means. Consequently, it is unlikely that invasive species are present within the site.
3.4 Importance of Ecological Features
In line with the CIEEM PEA Guidelines, and based on the above baseline information, each ecological feature recorded within the study area is considered to have the following importance, using the Methodology as defined in Section 4 of the CIEEM EcIA Guidelines (2018):
Table 6 Importance of Ecological Features
Feature Importance Rationale
SAC International The Peak District Dales SAC is designated for features of international importance. SSSI National SSSI’s are designated for features considered to be of national importance. LWS and retained BAS County LWS and Retained BAS are designated for features of county importance. Scrub Negligible The scattered scrub within the site does not contribute significantly to the ecological value of the surrounding landscape. Scattered trees Local The scattered trees within the site include a mature horse chestnut which cannot be replaced and it contributes to the habitat connectivity within the local area. TN9 and TN10 are considered suitable to support roosting bats. Lines of trees Local The lines of trees within the site though of limited intrinsic ecological value, contribute to the habitat connectivity of the site to the local area.
Heaton Planning Ltd 16 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Feature Importance Rationale
Species-poor hedgerow Local Hedgerows are a HPI. The hedgerow within the site contributes to the habitat connectivity within the local area. Poor semi-improved Negligible The habitat as currently managed (heavily grassland grazed) has limited ecological value and there are sites supporting more diverse grassland habitats within the immediate vicinity of the site. Buildings Unknown B3 contains a confirmed bat roost and other buildings have suitability for roosting bats. The buildings also have potential to support nesting birds. No bat or nesting bird surveys have been undertaken to date. Walls Local The drystone wall and revetments within the site have potential to support resting wildlife. GCN Local There are records of GCN within 770m of the site and a pond P2 with ‘Average’ suitability for GCN within 190m of the site. The NE risk assessment tool indicates that an ‘Offence is Likely’. eDNA survey returned negative results. It is considered that GCN could be present as they are known to be present within the wider landscape. Reptiles Negligible Considered unlikely to be present within the site due to the absence of recent records and limited suitable habitat. Bats - Roosting Local B3 is confirmed to support roosting bats (droppings present) and two trees TN9 and TN10 are considered suitable to support roosting bats. Nocturnal emergence / return bat surveys confirmed B2 as containing a day roost for common pipistrelle bats. Bats foraging/commuting Local The site is considered to contribute to the potential foraging/commuting resources for bats in the wider landscape and are assessed as having moderate suitability for foraging/commuting bats. Bat activity was assessed during the emergence / return survey which identified the southern and western areas of the site to be the most used. Badger Unknown Considered unlikely to be currently resident within the site. Hazel dormouse Negligible Considered highly unlikely to be present within the site. Otter & water vole Negligible Considered highly unlikely to be present within the site.
Heaton Planning Ltd 17 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Feature Importance Rationale
Birds Unknown Habitats within the site are suitable for nesting/foraging birds. No bird surveys have been carried out. Other mammals Unknown Habitat within the site, in particular the grassland and hedgerow are suitable for foraging brown hare and hedgehog, which were identified in the desk study. No surveys have been carried out. Invertebrates Unknown The site is considered likely to support important populations or a diverse assemblage of protected/notable invertebrates. Similar habitats within the wider area which also have suitability to support invertebrates. Notable plants Negligible The site is considered unlikely to support protected/notable plants. Invasive species Negligible Invasive species are considered unlikely to be present on site. Either: International (incl. European) / National / Regional / County / Local / Negligible Or: Unknown (i.e. further surveys/information needed)
The potential for the proposals to have adverse or beneficial impacts on these features, along with the need for any mitigation or enhancement measures are discussed in detail below.
Heaton Planning Ltd 18 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
4.0 Relevant Planning Policy & Legislation 4.1 Revised National Planning Policy Framework
A revised NPPF was issued on 19th February 2019 (Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government, 2019) and currently supplements government Circular 06/2005, Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005).
Circular 06/2005 states that the presence of protected species is a material consideration in the planning process. Paragraph 170 of the NPPF also states that:
‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment by:
a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan) b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland c) maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where appropriate d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans; and f) remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.
The conservation and enhancement of wildlife is also specifically reference re: development within the National Parks or the Broads.
Paragraph 174 then goes on to confirmed that:
When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:
a) if significant harm to biodiversity 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; b) development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
Heaton Planning Ltd 19 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and d) development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity.
Regarding EcIA’s and HRA’s – any sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on any Natura 2000/habitats site should also be given the same level as protection as the pSPA’s and cSAC’s themselves. In addition, when an application is being determined, Paragraph 177 clarifies that:
“The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where the plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a habitats site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), unless an appropriate assessment has concluded that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the habitats site.”
Paragraph 180 is also relevant as;
Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should:…
c) limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.
4.2 Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s Wildlife & Ecosystem Services
Biodiversity 2020 (DEFRA, 2011) replaces the previous UK Biodiversity Action Plan and sets national targets to be achieved. The intent of Biodiversity 2020, however, is much broader than the protection and enhancement of less common species, and is meant to embrace the wider countryside as a whole.
The priority species and habitats considered under Biodiversity 2020 are the SPI & HPI detailed under NERC Act (see Appendix B for further details).
4.3 Local Biodiversity Action Plan
Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs) identify habitat and species conservation priorities at a local level (typically County by County) and are usually drawn up by a consortium of local Government organisations and conservation charities. Although they are no-longer managed at a national level many are still reviewed and updated at a local level.
The Staffordshire LBAP is the relevant document for this site and it contains the following Habitat & Species Action Plans:
Heaton Planning Ltd 20 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Table 6 LBAP SAPs
Species Action Plans
Brown hare Noctule bat Otter Pipistrelle bat Water vole Barn owl Farmland seed eating birds Grey partridge Perdix perdix Lapwing Vanellus vanellus Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus Skylark Snipe Gallinago gallinago Woodlark Lullula arborea Atlantic salmon Salmo salar Grass snake Great crested newt Natterjack toad Bufo calamita Bog-bush cricket Metrioptera brachyptera Ground nesting solitary bees & wasps Small pearl-bordered fritillary Boloria selene White-faced darter Leucorrihinia dubia White-clawed crayfish Dyers greenweed Genista tinctoria Hybrid bilberry Vaccinium x intermedium Floating water-plantain Luronium natans Grass wrack pondweed Potamogeton compressus Native black poplar Poplus nigra Pink meadow cap Hygrocybe calyptraeformis
Table 7 LBAP HAPs
Habitats Action Plans
Lowland wood pasture and parkland Native woodland Wet woodland Ancient/diverse hedgerows Arable field margins Lowland acid grassland Lowland calcareous grassland Lowland heath Lowland wet grassland Unimproved neutral grassland Inland saltmarsh Mosses Ponds, lakes and canals Reedbeds Rivers and streams
It should be noted that the existence of a SAP or HAP does not always infer an elevated level importance for those features. These plans may be designed to encourage an increase in these habitats/species, rather than to protect a county-scarce feature (for example).
4.4 Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan 2016-2031
The site falls within the jurisdiction of Staffordshire Moorlands District Council. The Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan 2016-2031 was submitted for examination in June 2018.
Heaton Planning Ltd 21 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
The Core Strategy Development Plan was adopted in March 2014. Policy NE1 – Biodiversity and Geological Resources relates to ecology.
NE1 - Biodiversity and Geological Resources The biodiversity and geological resources of the District and neighbouring areas will be conserved and enhanced by positive management and strict control of development by:
1. Resisting any proposed development that could have an adverse effect on the integrity of a European site alone or in combination with other plans or projects unless it can be demonstrated that the legislative provisions to protect such sites can be fully met.
2. Conserving and enhancing any Sites of Special Scientific Interest. The Council will not permit any development proposal which would directly or indirectly (either individually or in combination with other developments) have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest.
3. Conserving, and enhancing regional and locally designated sites. The Council will not permit any development proposal which would directly or indirectly result in significant harm to geological and biodiversity conservation interests including ancient woodland, unless it can be demonstrated that: there is no appropriate alternative site available; and all statutory and regulatory requirements relating to any such proposal have been satisfied; and appropriate conservation and mitigation measures are provided; or if it is demonstrated that this is not possible the need for, and benefit of, the development is demonstrated to clearly outweigh the need to safeguard the intrinsic nature conservation value of the site and compensatory measures are implemented.
4. Supporting opportunities to improve site management and increase public access to wildlife sites including supporting the objectives of the Staffordshire County Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan.
5. Ensuring development where appropriate produces a net gain in biodiversity, and ensuring that any unavoidable impacts are appropriately mitigated for.
6. Ensuring development promotes the appropriate maintenance, enhancement, restoration and/or re-creation of biodiversity through its proposed nature, scale, location and design. The Staffordshire Moorlands Biodiversity Opportunity Map, in conjunction with the Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan, will be used to guide biodiversity enhancement measures to be included in development proposals as appropriate to the nature and scale of development proposed and other environmental interest, in particular supporting opportunities to increase grassland and heathland habitats including supporting targets in the UK and Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan.
7. Protecting and enhancing habitats and species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity as identified in legislation, and recognising and implementing appropriate measures, including landscape-scale conservation management, to take account of the fact that the distribution of habitats and species will be affected by climate change.
Heaton Planning Ltd 22 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
8. Recognising the value of the natural environment for sport and leisure activities and the need to manage such activities to ensure there is no conflict.
9. Ensuring the provision and protection of green infrastructure networks in line with Policy C3.
4.5 Legislation
Full details of the UK legislation and offences which are relevant to the ecological receptors identified are included in Appendix B. However, based on the findings of our assessment, it is considered that the proposals will need to consider the following legal provisions:
• Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 – relating to the potential for effects on EPS e.g. bats; • Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) – relating effects on nesting birds i.e. to intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built; • The NERC Act 2006 relating to species listed in accordance with the requirements of Section 40, e.g. hedgehogs; and, • Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 – relating to construction works and provisions that must be made to prevent offences under the Act.
Heaton Planning Ltd 23 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
5.0 Summary 5.1 Sites
The site lies within 2km of the following sites:
• Peak District Dales SAC • Three SSSI’s • 29 LWS and Retained BAS
5.2 Habitats
Habitats within the site include:
• Scrub • Scattered and lines of trees • Species poor hedgerows (HPI habitat) • Poor semi-improved grassland • Buildings • Hardstanding • Drystone Walls
5.3 Protected/notable Species
Habitats within the site are suitable to support:
• Roosting bats (confirmed roost on site) • GCN • Foraging / commuting bats • Badger • Birds • Brown hare • Hedgehog
Heaton Planning Ltd 24 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
6.0 References • Bright, P.W., Morris, P.A. and Mitchell-Jones, A., (2006), Dormouse Conservation Handbook, 2nd Edition, English Nature: Peterborough. • BSI Group, (2013), BS 42020 – a code of practice for biodiversity in planning and development, [online] Available at https://www.bsigroup.com/LocalFiles/en- GB/biodiversity/BS-42020-Smart-Guide.pdf, Accessed May 2019. • CIEEM, (2017), Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, 2nd Edition, CIEEM: Winchester. • CIEEM, (2018), Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment, CIEEM: Winchester. • CIEEM, (2019), Advice note: On the lifespan of Ecological reports & Surveys, CIEEM: Winchester. • Collins, J. (ed.), (2016), Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines, 3rd Edition, The Bat Conservation Trust: London. • DEFRA, (2011), Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services, [online] Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d ata/file/69446/pb13583-biodiversity-strategy-2020-111111.pdf, Accessed May 2019. • Eaton, M., Aebischer, N., Brown, A., Hearn, R. Lock, L. Musgrove, A., Noble, D. Stroud, D. and Gregory, R. (2015) Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British birds, 108:708-746. • Gent, T. & Gibson, S. (2003). Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual. JNCC, Peterborough. • Harris, S., Cresswell, P. and Jeffries, D., (1989), Surveying badgers. An occasional publication of the mammal society – No. 9., Mammal Society: London. • JNCC, (2010), Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A Technique for Environmental Audit, JNCC: Peterborough. • Langton, T.E.S., Beckett, C.L. and Foster, J.P., (2001), Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook, Froglife: Halesworth. • Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government, (2019), National Planning Policy Framework, [online] Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d ata/file/779764/NPPF_Feb_2019_web.pdf, Accessed May 2019. • ODPM, (2005), Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System, [online] Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d ata/file/7692/147570.pdf, Accessed May 2019. • Oldham R.S., Keeble J., Swan M.J.S. and Jeffcote M., (2000), Evaluating the Suitability of Habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus), Herpetological Journal, 10 (4), 143- 155. • Stace, C., (2019), New Flora of the British Isles, 4th Edition, C&M Floristics Middlewood Green, Suffolk.
Please note that the legislation which is relevant to this report is not included in the list above, but details are included in Appendix B below.
Heaton Planning Ltd 25 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Site Location Plan Figure 2 – Phase 1 Habitat Plan
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Rev Date Notes A 07/06/19 Initial map production
Legend
Site boundary
P Pond
P2
P1
0 50 100 200 Metres F
Site Location Plan
Cauldon Quarry Heaton Planning
Scale at A3: Project No: Drawing No: Revision: 1:8,000 A112129 Figure 1 A
Drawn by: Drawn date: Approved by: Ben Blowers 07/06/2019 Ian Stephens
Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown copyright and database right 2017. © Northern Ireland Environment Agency. Open Government Data reproduced contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 Other Credits: Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2018 G:\GIS Southampton\A112129_CauldonQuarry\MXD\Figure1_SiteLocationV2_070619.mxd Rev Date Notes D D A 07/06/19 Initial map production D D D D Legend TN5 Site boundary
SI Poor semi-improved grassland !( TN9 Buildings
Hardstanding
Hedge with trees - native species-poor
Fence
Wall
SI !( D Scattered scrub
TN8 !( Scattered tree
Target note
TN4 TN1
!(
!( TN10 B1 B4 !( !( !( !(TN3!( !( !( 0 5 10 20 Metres F !( SI !( TN5 !( B2 !(TN3 !( !( !( Phase 1 Habitat Plan !( D !( DSI B6 D B3 Cauldon Quarry D Heaton Planning D TN2 DSI !( !( !( Scale at A3: Project No: Drawing No: Revision: !( B5 !( TN3 1:700 A112129 Figure 2 A !( Drawn by: Drawn date: Approved by: !( Ben Blowers 07/06/2019 Ian Stephens
Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown copyright and database right 2017. © Northern Ireland Environment Agency. Open Government Data reproduced contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 Other Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community \\SOUTHAMPTON14\new-data\Ecology\GIS\GIS Southampton\A112129_CauldonQuarry\MXD\Figure2_Phase1_050619.mxd Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Appendix A – Report Conditions
This Report has been prepared using reasonable skill and care for the sole benefit of Heaton Planning Ltd (“the Client”) for the proposed uses stated in the report by WYG Environment Planning Transport Limited (“WYG”). WYG exclude all liability for any other uses and to any other party. The report must not be relied on or reproduced in whole or in part by any other party without the copyright holder’s permission.
No liability is accepted or warranty given for; unconfirmed data, third party documents and information supplied to WYG or for the performance, reliability, standing etc of any products, services, organisations or companies referred to in this report. WYG does not purport to provide specialist legal, tax or accounting advice.
The report refers, within the limitations stated, to the environment of the site in the context of the surrounding area at the time of the inspections'. Environmental conditions can vary and no warranty is given as to the possibility of changes in the environment of the site and surrounding area at differing times. No investigative method can eliminate the possibility of obtaining partially imprecise, incomplete or not fully representative information. Any monitoring or survey work undertaken as part of the commission will have been subject to limitations, including for example timescale, seasonal and weather-related conditions. Actual environmental conditions are typically more complex and variable than the investigative, predictive and modelling approaches indicate in practice, and the output of such approaches cannot be relied upon as a comprehensive or accurate indicator of future conditions. The “shelf life” of the Report will be determined by a number of factors including; its original purpose, the Client’s instructions, passage of time, advances in technology and techniques, changes in legislation etc. and therefore may require future re-assessment.
The whole of the report must be read as other sections of the report may contain information which puts into context the findings in any executive summary.
The performance of environmental protection measures and of buildings and other structures in relation to acoustics, vibration, noise mitigation and other environmental issues is influenced to a large extent by the degree to which the relevant environmental considerations are incorporated into the final design and specifications and the quality of workmanship and compliance with the specifications on site during construction. WYG accept no liability for issues with performance arising from such factors.
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Appendix B – Key Legislation
Bern Convention
The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (the Bern Convention) was adopted in Bern, Switzerland in 1979, and was ratified in 1982. Its aims are to protect wild plants and animals and their habitats listed in Appendices 1 and 2 of the Convention, and regulate the exploitation of species listed in Appendix 3. The regulation imposes legal obligations on participating countries to protect over 500 plant species and more than 1000 animals. To meet its obligations imposed by the Convention, the European Community adopted the EC Birds Directive (1979) and the EC Habitats Directive (1992 – see below). Since the Lisbon Treaty, in force since 1st December 2009, European legislation has been adopted by the European Union.
Bonn Convention
The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals or ‘Bonn Convention’ was adopted in Bonn, Germany in 1979 and came into force in 1985. Participating states agree to work together to preserve migratory species and their habitats by providing strict protection to species listed in Appendix I of the Convention. It also establishes agreements for the conservation and management of migratory species listed in Appendix II. In the UK, the requirements of the convention are implemented via the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (as amended), Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW).
Habitats Directive
The Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Fora, or the ‘Habitats Directive’, is a European Union directive adopted in 1992 in response to the Bern Convention. Its aims are to protect approximately 220 habitats and 1,000 species listed in its several Annexes. In the UK, the Habitats Directive is transposed into national law via the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) in England and Wales, and via the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended) in Northern Ireland.
Birds Directive
The EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (791409/EEC) or ‘Birds Directive’ was introduced to achieve favourable conservation status of all wild bird species across their distribution range. In this context, the most important provision is the identification and classification of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for rare or vulnerable species listed in Annex 1 of the Directive, as well as for all regularly occurring migratory species, paying particular attention to the protection of wetlands of international importance.
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended)
Regulations place a duty on the Secretary of State to propose a list of sites which are important for either habitats or species (listed in Annexes I or II of the Habitats Directive respectively) to the European Commission. These sites, if ratified by the European Commission, are then designated as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) within six years. Public bodies must also help preserve, maintain and re-establish habitats for wild birds. The 2018 amendments mainly related to the impact of the People Over Wind decision and some implications arising for neighbourhood plan development and a range of other planning tools including Local Development Orders and Permission in Principle – see here for full details: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/1307/note/made The Regulations make it an offence to deliberately capture, kill, disturb or trade in the animals listed in Schedule 2, or pick, uproot, destroy, or trade in the plants listed in Schedule 5 - see below: Schedule 2 – European Protected Species of Schedule 5 – European Protected Species Animals of Plants Horseshoe bats Rhinolophidae - all species Shore dock Rumex rupestris Common bats Vespertilionidae - all species Killarney fern Trichomanes speciosum Large Blue Butterfly Maculinea arion Early gentian Gentianella anglica Wild cat Felis sylvestris Lady’s-slipper Cypripedium calceolus Dolphins, porpoises and whales Cetacea – all sp. Creeping marsh-wort Apium repens Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius Slender naiad Najas flexilis Pool frog Rana lessonae Fen orchid Liparis loeselii Sand lizard Lacerta agilis Floating-leaved water plantain Luronium natans Fisher’s estuarine moth Gortyna borelii lunata Yellow marsh saxifrage Saxifraga hirculus Great crested newt Triturus cristatus Otter Lutra lutra Lesser whirlpool ram’s-horn snail Anisus vorticulus Smooth snake Coronella austriaca Sturgeon Acipenser sturio Natterjack toad Epidalea calamita Marine turtles Caretta caretta, Chelonia mydas, Lepidochelys kempii, Eretmochelys imbricata, Dermochelys coriacea Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)
This is the principal mechanism for the legislative protection of wildlife in the UK. This legislation is the chief means by which the ‘Bern Convention’ and the Birds Directive are implemented in the UK. Since it was first introduced, the Act has been amended several times. The Act makes it an offence to (with exception to species listed in Schedule 2) intentionally: • kill, injure, or take any wild bird; • take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use; or • take or destroy an egg of any wild bird.
Or to intentionally do the following to a wild bird listed in Schedule 1: • disturbs any wild bird while it is building a nest or is in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young; or • disturbs dependent young of such a bird.
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
In addition, the Act makes it an offence (subject to exceptions) to: • intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild animal listed on Schedule 5; • interfere with places used for shelter or protection, or intentionally disturbing animals occupying such places; and • The Act also prohibits certain methods of killing, injuring, or taking wild animals.
Finally, the Act also makes it an offence (subject to exceptions) to: • intentionally pick, uproot or destroy any wild plant listed in Schedule 8, or any seed or spore attached to any such wild plant; • unless an authorised person, intentionally uproot any wild plant not included in Schedule 8; or • sell, offer or expose for sale, or possess (for the purposes of trade), any live or dead wild plant included in Schedule 8, or any part of, or anything derived from, such a plant.
Following all amendments to the Act, Schedule 5 ‘Animals which are Protected’ contains a total of 154 species of animal, including several mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. Schedule 8 ‘Plants which are Protected’ of the Act, contains 185 species, including higher plants, bryophytes and fungi and lichens. A comprehensive and up-to-date list of these species can be obtained from the JNCC website. Part 14 of the Act makes unlawful to plant or otherwise cause to grow in the wild any plant which is listed in Part II of Schedule 9. It is recommended that plant material of these species is disposed of as bio-hazardous waste, and these plants should not be used in planting schemes. Schedule 1 - Birds which are protected by special penalties Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta Osprey Pandion haliaetus Bee-eater Merops apiaster Owl, Barn Tyto alba Bittern Botaurus stellaris Owl, Snowy Nyctea scandiaca Bittern, Little Ixobrychus minutus Peregrine Falco peregrinus Bluethroat Luscinia svecica Petrel, Leach’s Oceanodroma leucorhoa Brambling Fringilla montifringilla Phalarope, Red-necked Phalaropus lobatus Bunting, Cirl Emberiza cirlus Plover, Kentish Charadrius alexandrinus Bunting, Lapland Calcarius lapponicus Plover, Little Ringed Charadrius dubius Bunting, Snow Plectrophenax nivalis Quail, Common Coturnix coturnix Buzzard, Honey Pernis apivorus Redstart, Black Phoenicurus ochruros Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus Redwing Turdus iliacus Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax Rosefinch, Scarlet Carpodacus erythrinus Corncrake Crex crex Ruff Philomachus pugnax Crake, Spotted Porzana porzana Sandpiper, Green Tringa ochropus Crossbills (all species) Loxia Sandpiper, Purple Calidris maritima Curlew, Stone Burhinus oedicnemus Sandpiper, Wood Tringa glareola Divers (all species) Gavia Scaup Aythya marila Dotterel Charadrius morinellus Scoter, Common Melanitta nigra Duck, Long-tailed Clangula hyemalis Scoter, Velvet Melanitta fusca Eagle, Golden Aquila chrysaetos Serin Serinus serinus Eagle, White-tailed Haliaetus albicilla Shorelark Eremophila alpestris Falcon, Gyr Falco rusticolus Shrike, Red-backed Lanius collurio Fieldfare Turdus pilaris Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia Firecrest Regulus ignicapillus Stilt, Black-winged Himantopus himantopus Garganey Anas querquedula Stint, Temminck’s Calidris temminckii
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Godwit, Black-tailed Limosa limosa Swan, Bewick’s Cygnus bewickii Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Swan, Whooper Cygnus cygnus Grebe, Black-necked Podiceps nigricollis Tern, Black Chlidonias niger Grebe, Slavonian Podiceps auritus Tern, Little Sterna albifrons Greenshank Tringa nebularia Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii Gull, Little Larus minutus Tit, Bearded Panurus biarmicus Gull, Mediterranean Larus melanocephalus Tit, Crested Parus cristatus Harriers (all species) Circus Tree-creeper, Short-toed Certhia brachydactyla Heron, Purple Ardea purpurea Warbler, Cetti’s Cettia cetti Hobby Falco subbuteo Warbler, Dartford Sylvia undata Hoopoe Upupa epops Warbler, Marsh Acrocephalus palustris Kingfisher Alcedo atthis Warbler, Savi’s Locustella luscinioides Kite, Red Milvus milvus Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Merlin Falco columbarius Woodlark Lullula arborea Oriole, Golden Oriolus oriolus Wryneck Jynx torquilla Animal (Vertebrate) Species Listed in Schedule 5 (full legal protection at all times) Horseshoe Bats (all Rhinolophidae Newt – Great Crested Triturus cristatus species) Typical Bats (all Vespertilionidae Snake – Smooth Coronella austriaca species) Dolphin – Bottle-nosed Tursiops truncatus (tursio) Toad, Natterjack Epidalea calamita Dolphin – Common Delphinus delphis Turtles – All Species Cheloniidae & Dermochelyidae Dormouse – Hazel Muscardinus avellanarius Basking Shark Cetorhinus maximus Pine Marten Martes martes Burbot Lota lota Porpoise – Harbour Phocaena phocaena Goby – Giant Gobius cobitis Otter – Eurasian Lutra lutra Goby – Couch’s Gobius couchii Squirrel – Red Sciurus vulgaris Seahorse – Short- Hippocampus snouted1 hippocampus Walrus Odobenus rosmarus Seahorse – Spiny Hippocampus guttulatus Water Vole Arvicola amphibia Sturgeon Acipenser sturio Whales – All Species Cetacea Vendace Coregonus albula Wildcat Felis sylvestris Whitefish Coregonus lavaretus Lizard – Sand Lacerta agilis Animal (Vertebrate) Species Protected under Section 9 (1) part: Killing and Injuring & Section 9 (5) Sale Adder Vipera berus Slow-worm Anguis fragilis Lizard – Viviparous Zootoca vivipara Snake – Grass Natrix helvetica (natrix) Animals (Vertebrate) Species Protected under Section 9 (5) Sale only Frog – common Rana temporaria Newt – Smooth Lissotriton vulgaris Newt – Palmate Lissotriton helvetica Toad – Common Bufo bufo Animals (Vertebrate) Species Protected under Section 9 (1) (4)(a): Killing, Injuring &Taking and Damage / Destruction of place of shelter / protection only Allis Shad Alosa alosa Shark – Angel Squatina squatina Twaite Shad Alosa fallax Butterflies & Moths – Full Protection under Schedule 52 at all times High brown fritillary Argynnis adippe Fisher’s Estuarine Moth Gortyna borelii Large Blue Maculinea arion Barberry Carpet Pareulype berberata
1 Both sea horse species are protected in England only. 2 Viper’s Bugloss Moth Hadena irregularis was removed from Schedule 5 in 1996 as it is believed to be extinct.
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Heath Fritillary Mellicta athalea Black-veined Moth Siona lineata Marsh Fritillary Eurodryas aurinia Sussex Emerald Thalera fimbrialis Swallowtail Papilio machaon britannicus Essex Emerald Thetidia smaragdaris Large Copper Lycaena dispar Fiery Clearwing Bembecia chrysidiformis Reddish-buff Moth Acosmetia caliginosa New-Forest Burnet Zygaena viciae Butterflies – Protected under Section 9 (5) Sale Only Purple Emperor Apatura iris Adonis Blue Lysandra bellargus Northern Brown Argus Aricia artaxerxes Chalkhill Blue Lysandra coridon Pearl-bordered Fritillary Boloria euphrosyne Glanville Fritillary Melitaea cinxia Chequered Skipper Carterocephalus palaemon Large Tortoiseshell Nymphalis polychloros Large Heath Coenonympha tullia Silver-studded Blue Plebejus argus Small Blue Cupido minimus Black Hairstreak Strymonidia pruni Mountain Ringlet Erebia epiphron White-letter Hairstreak Strymonidia w-album Duke of Burgundy Hamearis lucina Brown Hairstreak Thecla betulae Silver-spotted Skipper Hesperia comma Lulworth Skipper Thymelicus acteon Wood White Leptidea sinapis Other Invertebrates – Full Protection under Schedule 5 at all times Rainbow Leaf-beetle Chrysolina cerealis Tadpole Shrimp Triops cancriformis Spangled Diving-beetle Graphopterus zonatus Trembling Sea-mat Victorella pavida Lesser Silver Water- Hydrochara caraboides De Folin’s Lagoon Snail Caecum armoricum beetle Moccas Beetle Hypebaeus flavipes Sandbowl Snail Catinella arenaria Violet Click-beetle Limoniscus violaceus Freshwater Pearl Mussel Margaritifera margaritifera Bembridge Beetle Parcymus aeneus Glutinous Snail Myxas glutinosa New Forest Cicada Cicadetta montana Lagoon Snail Paludinella littorina Wart-Biter Decticus verrucivorus Lagoon Sea Slug Tenellia adspersa Mole-Cricket Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa Northern Hatchet-shell Thyasira gouldi Field-Cricket Gryllus campestris Tentacled Lagoon-worm Alkmaria romijni Norfolk Hawker Aeshna isosceles Lagoon Sand-worm Armandia cirrhosa Dragonfly Southern Damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale Medicinal Leech Hirudo medicinalis Fen Raft Spider Dolomedes fimbriatus Marine Hydroid Clavopsella navis Ladybird Spider Eresus niger (cinaberinus) Ivell’s Sea Anemone Edwardsia ivelli Fairy Shrimp Chirocephalus diaphanus Starlet Sea Anemone Nematosella vectensis Lagoon Sand Shrimp Gammarus insensibilis Atlantic Stream (White- Austropotamobius clawed) Crayfish pallipes Other Invertebrates Protected under Section 9 (1) Possession & 9 (2) (5) Sale only Stag Beetle Lucanus cervus Roman Snail3 Helix pomatia Fan Mussel Atrina fragilis Pink Sea-fan Eunicella verrucosa Other Invertebrates Protected under Section 9 (4) (a) Damage / Destruction of Place of Shelter / Protection only Mire Pill Beetle Curimopsis nigrita Vascular Plant Species - Full Protection under Schedule 8 at all times (previous Scientific name in brackets) Adder’s-tongue Least Ophioglossum lusitanicum Lily – Snowdon Gagea serotina (Lloydia serotina) Alison- Small Alyssum alyssoides Marsh-mallow – Rough Malva setigera (Althaea hirsuta)
3 England only
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Broomrape – Bedstraw Orobanche caryophyllacea Milk-parsley – Cambridge Selinum carvifolia Broomrape – Oxtongue Orobanche picridis Mudwort – Welsh Limosella aquatica Broomrape – Thistle Orobanche reticulata4 Naiad – Holly-leaved Najas marina Cabbage – Lundy Coincya wrightii Orache – Stalked Atriplex pedunculata (Rhynchosinapis wrightii) (Halimione pedunculata) Calamint – Wood Clinopodium menthifolium Orchid – Early Spider Ophrys sphegodes (Calamintha sylvatica) Catchfly – Alpine Silene suecica (Lychnis Orchid – Ghost Epipogium aphyllum alpina) Centaury – Slender Centaurium tenuiflorum Orchid – Lapland Marsh Dactylorhiza lapponica Cinquefoil – Rock Potentilla rupestris Orchid – Late Spider Ophrys fuciflora Clary – Meadow Salvia pratensis Orchid – Lizard Himantoglossum hircinum Club-rush – Triangular Schoenoplectus triqueter Orchid – Military Orchis militaris (Scirpus triqueter) Colt’s-foot – Purple Homogyne alpina Orchid – Monkey Orchis simia Cotoneaster – Wild Cotoneaster cambricus (C. Pear – Plymouth Pyrus cordata integerrimus) Cotton-grass – Slender Eriophorum gracile Pennycress – Perfoliate Microthlaspi perfoliatum (Thlaspi perfoliatum) Cow-wheat – Field Melampyrum arvense Pennyroyal Mentha pulegium Crocus – Sand Romulus columnae Pigmyweed Crassula aquatica Cudweed – Broad- Filago pyramidata Pine - Ground Ajuga chamaepitys leaved Cudweed – Jersey Gnaphalium luteoalbum Pink – Cheddar Dianthus gratianopolitanus Cudweed – Red-tipped Filago lutescens Pink – Childing Petrorhagia nanteuilii Cut-grass Leersia oryzoides Ragwort – Fen Jacobaea paludosa (Senecio paludosa) Deptford Pink Dianthus armeria Ramping-fumitory – Fumaria reuteri (F. Martin’s martinii) Diapensia Diapensia lapponica Rampion – Spiked Phyteuma spicata Eryngo – Field Eryngium campestre Restharrow – Small Ononis reclinata Fern – Dickie’s-bladder Cystopteris dickieana Rock-cress – Alpine Arabis alpina Fleabane – Alpine Erigeron borealis Rock-cress – Bristol Arabis scabra Fleabane – Small Pulicaria vulgaris Sandwort – Norwegian Arenaria norvegica5 Galingale – Brown Cyperus fuscus Sandwort – Teesdale Minuartia stricta Gentian – Alpine Gentiana nivalis Saxifrage – Drooping Saxifraga cernua Gentian - Dune Gentianella amarella subsp. Saxifrage – Tufted Saxifraga cespitosa occidentalis (Gentianella uliginosa) Gentian – Fringed Gentianopsis ciliata Solomon’s-seal – Polygonatum (Gentianella ciliata) Whorled verticillatum Gentian - Spring Gentiana verna Sow-thistle – Alpine Cicerbita alpina Germander – Cut- Teucrium botrys Spearwort – Adder’s- Ranunculus leaved tongue ophioglossifolius Germander – Water Teucrium scordium Speedwell – Fingered Veronica triphyllos Gladiolus – Wild Gladiolus illyricus Speedwell – Spiked Veronica spicata6 Goosefoot – Stinking Chenopodium vulvaria Spike-rush – Dwarf Eleocharis parvula
4 The Weeds Act 1959 does not apply to thistles Cirsium & Carduus species supporting this broomrape. 5 All subspecies occurring in the UK 6 Both subspecies: spicata & hybrida
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Grass-poly Lythrum hyssopifolia South-stack Fleawort Tephroseris integrifolia ssp. maritima Hare’s-ear – Sickle- Bupleurum falcatum Star-of-Bethlehem – Gagea bohemica leaved Early Hare’s-ear – Small Bupleurum baldense Starfruit Damasonium alisma Hawk’s-beard – Crepis foetida Strapwort Corrigiola littoralis Stinking Hawkweed – Northroe Hieracium northroense Violet – Fen Viola persicifolia Hawkweed – Shetland Hieracium zetlandicum Viper’s-grass Scorzonera humilis Hawkweed – Weak- Hieracium attenuatifolium Water-plantain – Ribbon- Alisma gramineum leaved leaved Heath – Blue Phyllodoce caerulea Wood-sedge – Starved Carex depauperata Helleborine – Red Cephalanthera rubra Woodsia – Alpine Woodsia alpina Horsetail – Branched Equisetum ramosissimum Woodsia – Oblong Woodsia ilvensis Hound’s-tongue – Cynoglossum germanicum Wormwood – Field Artemisia campestris Green Knawel – Perennial Scleranthus perennis7 Woundwort - Downy Stachys germanica Knot-grass – Sea Polygonum maritimum Woundwort – Limestone Stachys alpina Leek – Round-headed Allium sphaerocephalon Yellow-rattle – Greater Rhinanthus angustifolius Lettuce – Least Lactuca saligna Vascular Plant Species – Partial Protection under Section 13 (2) Protection from commercial exploitation and sale Bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bryophytes – Full Protection under Schedule 8 at all times Anamodon – Long- Anomodon langifolius Flamingo Moss Desmatodon cernuus leaved Blackwort Southbya nigrella Frostwort Gymnomitrion apiculatum Crystalwort – Lizard Riccia bifurca Glaucous Beard Moss Barbula glauca Earwort – Marsh Jamesoniella undulifolia Green Shield Moss Buxbaumia viridis Feathermoss – Polar Hygrohypnum polare Hair Silk Moss Plagiothecium piliferum Flapwort – Norfolk Leiocolea rutheana Knothole Moss Zygodon forsteri Grimmia – Blunt-leaved Grimmia unicolor Large Yellow Feather Scorpidium turgescens Moss Petalwort Petalophyllum ralfsii Millimetre Moss Micromitrium tenerum Lindenberg’s Leafy- Adelanthus lindenbergianus Multi-fruited River Moss Cryphaea lamyana Liverwort Feather-moss Slender Drepanocladus vernicosus Nowell’s Limestone Moss Zygodon gracilis Green Alpine Copper-Moss Mielichoferia meilicoferia Rigid Apple Moss Bartramia stricta Baltic Bog-Moss Sphagnum balticum Round-leaved feather Rhynchostegium Moss rotundifolium Blue Dew-Moss Saelania glaucescens Schleicher’s Thread Moss Bryum schleicheri Blunt-leaved bristle- Orthotrichum obtusifolium Triangular Pygmy Moss Acaulon triquetrum Moss Bright-Green Cave- Cyclodictyon laetevirens Turpswort Geocalyx graveolens Moss Cordate Beard Moss Barbula cordata Vaucher’s Feather Moss Hypnum vaucheri Cornish Path Moss Ditrichum cornubicum Western Rustwort Marsupella profunda Derbyshire Feather Thamnobryum angustifolium Moss
7 Includes both subspecies: perennis & prostratus
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Stoneworts – Full Protection under Schedule 8 at all times Bearded Stonewort Chara canescens Foxtail Stonewort Lamprothamnium papullosum Lichens – Full Protection under Schedule 8 at all times New Forest Beech Enterographa elaborata Forked Hair Lichen Bryoria furcellata Lichen Snow Caloplaca Caloplaca nivalis Golden Hair Lichen Teloschistes flavicans Tree Catapyrenium Catapyrenium psoromoides Orange-fruited Elm Caloplaca luteoalba Lichen Laurer’s Catillaria Catillaria laurei River Jelly Lichen Collema dichotomum Convoluted Cladonia Cladonia convoluta Starry Breck Lichen Buellia asterella Upright Mountain Cladonia stricta Caledonia Pannaria Pannaria ignobilis Cladonia Goblin Lights Catolechia wahlenbergii New Forest Parmelia Parmelia minarum Elm Gyalecta Gyalecta ulmi Oil Stain Parmentaria Parmentaria chilensis Tarn Lecanora Lecanora archariana Southern Grey Physcia Physcia tribacioides Copper Lecidea Lecidea inops Ragged Pseudo- Pseudocyphellaria cyphellaria lacerata Arctic Kidney Lichen Nephroma arcticum Rusty Alpine Psora Psora rubiformis Ciliate Strap Lichen Heterodermia leucomelos Rock Nail Calicium corynellum Coralloid Rosette Heterodermia propagulifera Serpentine Selanopsora Selanopsora liparina Lichen Ear-lobed Dog Lichen Peltigera lepidophora Sulphur Tresses Alectoria ochroleuca Lichens – Partial Protection under Section 13 (2) Commercial Exploitation and Sale Only Tree Lungwort Lobaria pulmonaria Fungi – Full Protection under Schedule 8 at all times Royal Bolete Boletus regius Oak Polypore Buglossosporus pulvinus Hedgehog Fungus Hericium erinaceum Sandy Stilt Ball Battaria phalloides Invasive plant species listed in Schedule 9 Australian swamp Crassula helmsii Japanese rose Rosa rugosa stonecrop or New Zealand pygmyweed Californian red seaweed Pikea californica Japanese seaweed Sargassum muticum Curly waterweed Lagarosiphon major Laver seaweeds (except Porphyra spp native species) Duck potato Sagittaria latifolia Parrot’s-feather Myriophyllum aquaticum Entire-leaved Cotoneaster integrifolius Perfoliate alexanders Smyrnium perfoliatum cotoneaster False Virginia creeper Parthenocissus inserta Pontic rhododendron Rhododendron ponticum Fanwort or Carolina Cabomba caroliniana Purple dewplant Disphyma crassifolium water-shield Few-flowered garlic Allium paradoxum Red algae Grateloupia luxurians Floating pennywort Hydrocotyle ranunculoides Rhododendron Rhododendron ponticum × Rhododendron maximum Floating water primrose Ludwigia peploides Small-leaved cotoneaster Cotoneaster microphyllus Giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum Three-cornered garlic Allium triquetrum Giant kelp Macrocystis spp. Variegated yellow Lamiastrum galeobdolon archangel subsp. argentatum Giant knotweed Fallopia sachalinensis Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia Giant rhubarb Gunnera tinctoria Wakame Undaria pinnatifida Giant salvinia Salvinia molesta Wall cotoneaster Cotoneaster horizontalis Green seafingers Codium fragile Water fern Azolla filiculoides
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Himalayan cotoneaster Cotoneaster simonsii Water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes Hollyberry cotoneaster Cotoneaster bullatus Water lettuce Pistia stratiotes Hooked asparagus Asparagopsis armata Water primrose Ludwigia grandiflora seaweed Hottentot fig Carpobrotus edulis Water primrose Ludwigia uruguayensis Hybrid knotweed Fallopia japonica × Fallopia Waterweeds Elodea spp. sachalinensis Indian (Himalayan) Impatiens glandulifera Yellow azalea Rhododendron luteum balsam Japanese knotweed Reynoutria japonica Protection of Badgers Act 1992
The main legislation protecting badgers in England and Wales is the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (the 1992 Act). Under the 1992 Act it is an offence to: wilfully kill, injure, take or attempt to kill, injure or take a badger; dig for a badger; interfere with a badger sett by, damaging a sett or any part thereof, destroying a sett, obstructing access to a sett, causing a dog to enter a sett or disturbing a badger while occupying a sett. The 1992 Act defines a badger sett as: “any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use by a badger”
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006
Section 41 (S41) of this Act requires the Secretary of State to publish a list (in consultation with Natural England) of Habitats and Species which are of Principal Importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. The S41 list is used to guide decision-makers such as public bodies including local and regional authorities, in implementing their duty under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in England, when carrying out their normal (e.g. planning) functions. The S41 list includes 65 Habitats of Principal Importance and 1,150 Species of Principal Importance.
Hedgerow Regulations 1997
The Hedgerow Regulations were made under Section 97 of the Environment Act 1995 and came into force in 1997. They introduced new arrangements for local planning authorities in England and Wales to protect important hedgerows in the countryside, by controlling their removal through a system of notification. Important hedgerows are defined by complex assessment criteria, which draw on biodiversity features, historical context and the landscape value of the hedgerow.
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Birds of Conservation Concern
This is a review of the status of all birds occurring regularly in the United Kingdom. It is regularly updated and is prepared by leading bird conservation organisations, including the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). The latest report was produced in 2015 (Eaton et al, 2015) and identified 67 red list species, 96 amber species, and 81 green species. The criteria are complex, but generally: • Red list species are those that have shown a decline of the breeding population, non- breeding population or breeding range of more than 50% in the last 25 years. • Amber list species are those that have shown a decline of the breeding population, non- breeding population or breeding range of between 25% and 50% in the last 25 years. Species that have a UK breeding population of less than 300 or a non-breeding population of less than 900 individuals are also included, together with those whose 50% of the population is localised in 10 sites or fewer and those whose 20% of the European population is found in the UK. • Green list species are all regularly occurring species that do not qualify under any of the red or amber criteria are green listed
Global IUCN Red List
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Threatened Species was devised to provide a list of those species that are most at risk of becoming extinct globally. It provides taxonomic, conservation status and distribution information about threatened taxa around the globe. The system catalogues threatened species into groups of varying levels of threat, which are: Extinct (EX), Extinct in the Wild (EW), Critically Endangered (CE), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened (NT), Least Concern (LC), Data Deficient (DD), Not Evaluated (NE). Criteria for designation into each of the categories is complex, and consider several principles.
Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP)
Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAP) identify habitat and species conservation priorities at a local level (typically at the County level), and are usually drawn up by a consortium of local Government organisations and conservation charities. Some LBAP’s may also include Habitat Action Plans (HAP) and/or Species Action Plans (SAP), which are used to guide and inform the local decision making process.
Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996
This Act offers protects a form of protection to all wild species of mammals, irrespective of other legislation, and focussed on animal welfare, rather than conservation. Unless covered by one of the exceptions, a person is guilty of an offence if he mutilates, kicks, beats, nails or otherwise impales, stabs, burns, stones, crushes, drowns, drags or asphyxiates any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering. It’s application is typically restricted to preventing deliberate harm to wildlife (in general) during construction works etc.
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Appendix C – Relevant Desk Study Data
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Appendix D – Target Notes
Target Description Photograph Note TN1 Scattered scrub – A few individual hawthorn Crataegus monogyna shrubs stand on the northern site boundary along with an apple Malus sp.. On the southern boundary adjacent to Building 3, there are a few elder Sambucus nigra shrubs set beneath a group of three trees located to the south of building B3. The scrub has limited potential to support nesting/foraging birds and foraging/commuting bats. TN2 Scattered trees – A group of three semi- mature sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus stand to the south of Building 2 with a fourth specimen to the west of Building 1. A single mature horse chestnut and a semi-mature sycamore stand to the west of Building 1. To the north-east of the site there are two ash trees one of which is hollow and appears to be dying. Two trees were assessed as having suitability for roosting bats (see TN9 & TN10 below).
The trees have potential to support nesting and foraging birds and foraging/commuting bats.
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Target Description Photograph Note
TN3 Lines of trees – On the south-eastern and south-western boundaries of the site there are lines of immature sycamore trees. To the south-west of the site is a line of five semi-mature lime trees Tilia sp. The lines of trees have limited potential to support nesting/foraging birds and foraging/commuting bats.
TN4 Species-poor hedgerow – The western site boundary is formed by a species-poor hedgerow. Hawthorn is the dominant species. Elder occurs rarely. The hedgerow has potential to support nesting/foraging birds and foraging/commuting bats.
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Target Description Photograph Note TN5 Poor semi-improved grassland – The two grass fields which dominate the north and centre of the site were heavily sheep grazed at the time of the survey. Small areas of longer grass at the edges of the fields contained Cock’s foot Dactylis glomerate and meadow grasses Poa sp. The sward supported a restricted assemblage of common forbs including dandelion Taraxacum agg., red clover Trifolium pratense, creeping thistle Cirsium arvense, broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius, common ragwort Senecio jacobaea, daisy Bellis perennis, greater plantain Plantago major, creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens and cut- leaved crane’s-bill Geranium dissectum. Around the buildings to the south of the site there are areas of grass which appear to be infrequently maintained with dandelion and dock being the dominant forbs. The grassland offers potential habitat for foraging mammals (badger and hedgehog). TN6 Buildings – There are six buildings within the site. All buildings have potential to See photographs below support nesting birds including
protected/notable species. Descriptions of each building are provided below along with the assessed suitability to support roosting bats: Building 1 – A large cow shed of mid- Building 1 20th C. construction. The walls are of block construction with a pitched corrugated asbestos roof and cladding at the top of the gables. A single-storey annex stands on the south-west corner of the building. The annex is also of block construction with a single pitch corrugated panel roof. There is no sarking within the main section of the building which is open to the roof with the roof supported by concrete roof beams. The interior is illuminated by skylights. The interior of the annex has plasterboard sarking and louvred windows, which may provide suitable access points.
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Target Description Photograph Note No evidence (e.g. droppings) of roosting bats was found during the survey. The building is not of a construction likely to be used regularly or by large numbers of roosting bats. However there are numerous gaps around the corrugated panelling that may provide occasional roosting opportunities for individual bats. Building 1 is assessed as having low suitability for roosting
Building 2 is a complex single-storey Building 2 building with sections of pre and post 1900 construction. The older parts of the buildings are of stone and brick construction with pitched slate roofs. An annex on the south-west corner of the building is of 20th C. construction. The walls are of rendered brick with a flat concrete roof. To the east there is a stone walled section of the building with a single pitched metal panel roof. There are numerous opportunities for bats to enter the building via broken windows,
open doorways, slipped and damaged slates, missing mortar etc. The interiors of the building are illuminated by open doorways and windows with the exception of a part of building used for housing chickens at the time of the survey. The interiors of all sections are open to the rafters with no sarking present. The roof is supported by wooden rafters. There are gaps between the rafters and the slates and cavities within the stonework of the interior walls which may provide roosting opportunities for crevice dwelling bat species. Due to the complexity of the building and the numerous potential roosting features present, Building 2 is assessed as having high suitability for roosting bats.
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Target Description Photograph Note
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Target Description Photograph Note Building 3 - A single-storey storage Building 3 building of block construction and single pitch corrugated metal roof. There were no significant gaps around the wooden door on the northern elevation. Neither were there significant gaps around the junction of the roof and wall. On the southern elevation there is an open window providing direct flight access to bats. The interior of the building is partially lit by skylights. The roof is supported by wooden rafters. At the time of the survey
there were a number of corrugated metal panels being stored within the building. Bat droppings (approximately twenty), were present on some of these panels and on a wooden frame which supported them. Some of the droppings were disintegrating, while others were entire. No fresh (from the 2019 bat active season) droppings were identified and it is likely the droppings present were from the previous, 2018, active season or older. Building 3 is therefore assessed as a confirmed bat roost.
Building 4 – A cow shed, open on two Building 4 sides with a wooden frame and metal pane roof and walls. Some gaps around the framework are present that may provide occasional roosting locations for individual crevice dwelling bat species.
Building 4 is assessed as having low suitability for roosting bats.
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Target Description Photograph Note
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Target Description Photograph Note Building 5 – The structure is built into a bank on the southern boundary of the site. The front of the building is open with the walls formed by concrete rendered (sides) and stone (rear) revetments. The pitched roof is of corrugated metal panels supported on a metal framework. There are gaps within the stone work at the back of the building which may potentially support roosting bats. The revetment which extends outside of the building to the east and west is in a poor state of repair with displaced stonework providing numerous cavities which may extend some way back into the bank and therefore also be suitable for roosting bats. Building 5 is assessed as having high suitability for roosting bats.
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Target Description Photograph Note Building 6 – The structure is of unknown function. The walls and flat roof are of concrete and the structure is partially set back into the bank on the southern site boundary. There are no doors or windows. There are gaps between the concrete roof and wall panels on the north and south elevations which appear to provide access into the interior. The interior of the structure is likely to be dark and to have a stable temperature. Building 6 is therefore assessed as having high suitability for roosting bats and may also be suitable for hibernating.
TN7 Hardstanding – Concrete hardstanding No photograph? occurs within the site in the form of access tracks and yards around the buildings in the southern part of the site. TN8 Drystone walls – Sections of intact drystone walls form field boundaries to the centre and east of the site. Mortared wall form revetments on the southern site boundary. Gaps within the walls provide potential resting places for amphibians, reptiles and small mammal (potentially including bats).
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Target Description Photograph Note TN9 An ash tree towards the north-east of the site has a woodpecker hole in one limb which offers access to a potential cavity within. The tree is assessed as having high suitability for roosting bats.
TN10 A large horse chestnut located to the west of Building 1 was not seen to have specific features suitable for roosting bats (holes, splits, lifting bark etc.) However, the tree could not be fully assessed due to its size and foliage cover. This tree is assessed as having low suitability for roosting bats due to its age and the potential for features to be present.
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Appendix E – GCN EDNA Results
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Folio No: E6006 Report No: Order No: 4594/19-130 Client: WYG Contact: Victoria Thomas Contact Details: [email protected] Date: 22/07/2019
TECHNICAL REPORT
ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DNA IN POND WATER FOR THE DETECTION OF GREAT CRESTED NEWTS
Date sample received at Laboratory: 05/07/2019 Date Reported: 22/07/2019 Matters Affecting Results:
RESULTS Lab Sample Site Name O/S Reference SIC DC IC Result Positive No. Replicates
2938 Cauldon - Pass Pass Pass Negative 0 Cement A112129 P2
4471 Cauldon - Pass Pass Pass Negative 0 Cement A112129 P1
SUMMARY
When Great Crested Newts (GCN); Triturus cristatus inhabit a pond, they deposit traces of their DNA in the water as evidence of their presence. By sampling the water, we can analyse these small environmental DNA (eDNA) traces to confirm GCN habitation, or establish GCN absence.
The water samples detailed below were submitted for eDNA analysis to the protocol stated in DEFRA WC1067 (Latest Amendments). Details on the sample submission form were used as the unique sample identity.
RESULTS INTERPRETATION
Forensic Scientists and Consultant Engineers SureScreen Scientifics Division Ltd, Morley Retreat, Church Lane, Morley, Derbyshire, DE7 6DE UK Tel: +44 (0)1332 292003 Email: [email protected] Company Registration No. 08950940 Page 1 of 3 Lab Sample No.- When a kit is made it is given a unique sample number. When the pond samples have been taken and the kit has been received back in to the laboratory, this sample number is tracked throughout the laboratory.
Site Name- Information on the pond.
O/S Reference – Location/co-ordinates of pond.
SIC- Sample Integrity Check. Refers to quality of packaging, absence of tube leakage, suitability of sample (not too much mud or weed etc.) and absence of any factors that could potentially lead to results errors. Inspection upon receipt of sample at the laboratory. To check if the Sample is of adequate integrity when received. Pass or Fail.
DC- Degradation Check. Analysis of the spiked DNA marker to see if there has been degradation of the kit since made in the laboratory to sampling to analysis. Pass or Fail.
IC- Inhibition Check- PCR inhibitors can cause false results. Inhibitors are analysed to check the quality of the result. Every effort is made to clean the sample pre-analysis however some inhibitors cannot be extracted. An unacceptable inhibition check will cause an indeterminate sample and must be sampled again.
Result- NEGATIVE means that GCN eDNA was not detected or is below the threshold detection level and the test result should be considered as no evidence of GCN presence. POSITIVE means that GCN eDNA was found at or above the threshold level and the presence of GCN at this location at the time of sampling or in the recent past is confirmed. Positive or Negative.
Positive Replicates- To generate the results all of the tubes from each pond are combined to produce one eDNA extract. Then twelve separate analyses are undertaken. If one or more of these analyses are positive the pond is declared positive for the presence of GCN. It may be assumed that small fractions of positive analyses suggest low level presence but this cannot currently be used for population studies. In accordance with Natural England protocol, even a score of 1/12 is declared positive.
METHODOLOGY
The laboratory testing adheres to strict guidelines laid down in WC1067 Analytical and Methodological Development for Improved Surveillance of The Great Crested Newt, Version 1.1
The analysis is conducted in two phases. The sample first goes through an extraction process where all six tubes are pooled together to acquire as much eDNA as possible. The pooled sample is then tested via real time PCR (also called q-PCR). This process amplifies select part of DNA allowing it to be detected and measured in ‘real time’ as the analytical process develops. qPCR combines PCR amplification and detection into a single step. This eliminates the need to detect products using gel electrophoresis. With qPCR, fluorescent dyes specific to the target sequence are used to label PCR products during thermal cycling. The accumulation of fluorescent signals during the exponential phase of the reaction is measured for fast and objective data analysis. The point at which amplification begins (the Ct value) is an indicator of the quality of the sample. True positive controls, negatives and blanks as well as spiked synthetic DNA are included in every analysis and these have to be correct before any result is declared so they act as additional quality control measures.
The primers used in this process are specific to a part of mitochondrial DNA only found in GCN ensuring no DNA from other species present in the water is amplified. The unique sequence appropriate for GCN analysis is quoted in DEFRA WC 1067 and means there should be no detection of closely related species. We have tested our system exhaustively to ensure this is the case in our laboratory. We can offer eDNA analysis for most other species including other newts.
Analysis of eDNA requires scrupulous attention to detail to prevent risk of contamination. Kits are manufactured by SureScreen Scientifics to strict quality procedures in a separate building and with separate staff, adopting best practice from WC1067 and
Forensic Scientists and Consultant Engineers SureScreen Scientifics Division Ltd, Morley Retreat, Church Lane, Morley, Derbyshire, DE7 6DE UK Tel: +44 (0)1332 292003 Email: [email protected] Company Registration No. 08950940 Page 2 of 3 WC1067 Appendix 5. Kits contain a ‘spiked’ DNA marker used as a quality control tracer (SureScreen patent pending) to ensure any DNA contained in the sampled water has not deteriorated in transit. Stages of the DNA analysis are also conducted in different buildings at our premises for added security.
SureScreen Scientifics Ltd also participate in Natural England’s proficiency testing scheme and we also carry out inter-laboratory checks on accuracy of results as part of our quality procedures.
Reported by: Chris Troth Approved by: Yaroslav Terentyev
End Of Report
Forensic Scientists and Consultant Engineers SureScreen Scientifics Division Ltd, Morley Retreat, Church Lane, Morley, Derbyshire, DE7 6DE UK Tel: +44 (0)1332 292003 Email: [email protected] Company Registration No. 08950940 Page 3 of 3 Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal Factual Report
Appendix F – Factual Bat Report
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129
Cauldon Cement Works
Bat Report
Heaton Planning Ltd
November 2019
Executive Park, Avalon Way, Anstey, Leicestershire, LE7 7GR
Tel: 0116 234 8000
Email: [email protected]
www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands Cauldon Cement Works: Factual Bat Survey Report
Document Control
Project: Cauldon Cement Works Client: Heaton Planning Ltd Job Number: A112129 File Origin: \\lds-dc-vm-002\Group Ecology\Projects\Projects A112000 on\A112129 Cauldon Cement Works\REPORTS
Issue 1 November 2019 Final
Elizabeth Sanders MCIEEM Prepared by: Principal Ecologist David Goddard MCIEEM Checked By: Senior Ecologist
Jonathan Jackson CEnv MCIEEM Verified By: Principal Ecologist
Rev: Date: Updated by: Verified by: Description of changes:
WYG Environment Planning Transport Ltd. accept no responsibility or liability for the use which is made of this document other than by the Client for the purpose for which it was originally commissioned and prepared.
Heaton Planning Ltd i November 2019 A108169 Cauldon Cement Works: Factual Bat Survey Report
Contents
Executive Summary ...... 1 Glossary ...... 2 1.0 Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Background ...... 3 1.2 Site Location ...... 3 1.3 Development Proposals ...... 3 1.4 Previous reports ...... 3 1.5 Purpose of the Report ...... 4 2.0 Methodology ...... 5 2.1 Emergence / Return Surveys ...... 5 2.2 Static Detector Installation and Internal Inspection ...... 6 2.3 Limitations ...... 6 3.0 Survey results ...... 7 3.1 Survey of Buildings B6 ...... 7 3.2 Surveys of B1 to B5...... 7 3.3 Surveys of Tree TN9 ...... 8 3.4 Static Detector Data ...... 8 3.5 Summary ...... 9 4.0 References ...... 10
FIGURES Figure 1 – Site Location Plan Figures 2a – 2d – Bat Survey Results
Appendix A – Report Conditions
Heaton Planning Ltd ii November 2019 A108169 Cauldon Cement Works: Factual Bat Survey Report
Executive Summary
Contents Summary
Site Location The site is located adjacent to Cauldon Cement Works which is 600 m to the east of the village of Cauldon in Staffordshire and is centred at Ordnance Survey National Grid Reference SK 08636 49497.
Existing Site WYG undertook an Ecological Appraisal at the site in May 2019, which Information identified the buildings on site to have low and high bat roost suitability and as such recommended nocturnal emergence and dawn return bat surveys.
Scope of this The scope of the surveys was to complete nocturnal emergence / re-entry Survey(s) surveys to determine the presence / likely absence of roosting bats within buildings and one tree on site.
Results The results found that: • Building B2 supported a roost of three common pipistrelle bats. • No other bat roosts were found. • B3 is considered to be an infrequently used day roost or a transitional roost and was not in use during 2019. • The bat activity recorded during the emergence / re-entry surveys indicated that the southern and western vegetated areas of the site were the most used by the bats for commuting and foraging.
Heaton Planning Ltd 1 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Factual Bat Survey Report
Glossary
BCT Bat Conservation Trust CEnv Chartered Environmentalist CIEEM Chartered Institute of Ecology & Environmental Management DEFRA Department for Food and Rural Affairs EA Ecological Appraisal EPS European Protected Species EPSL European Protected Species Licence GradCIEEM Graduate Member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology & Environmental Management LERC Local Ecological Record Centre LWS Local Wildlife Site MCIEEM Member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology & Environmental Management NE Natural England SER Staffordshire Ecological Record
Heaton Planning Ltd 2 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Factual Bat Survey Report
1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background
On 9th May 2019, WYG undertook an Ecological Appraisal (EA) (WYG, 2019) of the site referred to as Cauldon Cement Works. During the EA, the buildings and trees within the site were assessed for their suitability to support roosting bats. The site was also assessed for foraging and commuting bats suitability. The assessment were completed using survey methods based on the BCT Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (Collins, 2016) hereafter referred to as the ‘BCT Guidelines’.
Following the results on the EA, WYG was commissioned by Heaton Planning in July 2019 to undertake nocturnal emergence / dawn re-entry surveys of the six buildings and one tree. This information was required to inform the baseline section of an Ecology Chapter of an Environmental Statement for the development proposals.
This report has been prepared by WYG’s Principal Ecologist Elizabeth Sanders MCIEEM.
1.2 Site Location
The site is located adjacent to Cauldon Cement Works which is 600 m to the east of the village of Cauldon in Staffordshire and is centred at Ordnance Survey National Grid Reference SK 08636 49497. This is shown in Figure 1. The site comprises a collection of agricultural buildings, two pasture fields with hedgerow, drystone wall boundaries along with scattered trees and lines of trees.
The landscape surrounding the site is dominated by the Cauldon Cement works to the west and the active Cauldon Quarry to the south. Land to the north and east is dominated by pasture fields with hedgerow boundaries and small areas of woodland and scrub. Part of the surrounding pasture off- site, to the immediate north-west of the site is designated for its botanical interest, Middlehills Farm Local Wildlife Site (LWS) (WYG, 2019).
1.3 Development Proposals
The development proposal is for the demolition of all existing buildings on site and the clearance of a small area of habitat along the southern boundary of the site to allow the construction of a new fuel storage and feed system to power the adjacent existing Cauldon Cement Works.
1.4 Previous reports
WYG undertook an Ecological Appraisal in May 2019 (WYG, 2019). No other ecological reports were known to be present at the time of surveys or writing this report.
As part of the EA conducted by WYG in May 2019, information was requested from Staffordshire Ecological Record (SER) including historical records of bat species within 2km of the site. A search for relevant information was also made using MAGIC. This is DEFRA’s interactive, web-based database for statutory designations and information on any EPSL applications that have been granted in the local area since 2015.
SER returned 17 records of bats within 2 km of the site, these comprised:
Heaton Planning Ltd 3 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Factual Bat Survey Report
• 11 records of common and soprano pipistrelle species Pipistrellus pipistrellus and Pipistrellus pygmaeus; • One record of a brown long eared bat; • One record of noctule Nyctalus noctule; and • Four records of unidentified bat species.
The MAGIC database provided no records of granted EPSL applications within 2 km of the site.
There were six buildings and two trees within the site which were assessed during the EA as having the following bat roost suitability:
• B1: Low Suitability; • B2: High Suitability; • B3: Confirmed Bat Roost due to the presence of droppings; • B4: Low Suitability; • B5: High Suitability; • B6: High Suitability; • TN9: High Suitability; and • TN10: Low Suitability (no surveys required).
The site was assessed as having moderate suitability to support foraging and commuting bats.
1.5 Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is to:
• Give the results from bat surveys of the buildings and Tree TN9 identified in the EA as having the potential to support roosting bats that will likely be removed under the development proposal; and • Describe the bat foraging and commuting activity incidentally recorded during nocturnal surveys.
Note that scientific names are provided at the first mention of each species and common names (where appropriate) are then used throughout the rest of the report for ease of reading.
Heaton Planning Ltd 4 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Factual Bat Survey Report
2.0 Methodology 2.1 Emergence / Return Surveys
All surveys were completed in accordance with the BCT Guidelines (Collins, 2016).
The optimum survey period for nocturnal emergence and dawn re-entry surveys is typically between May and August, primarily to increase the likelihood of detecting a maternity roost as these are considered to be of highest conservation value. However, nocturnal emergence surveys in April and September can also identify important roosts such as pre-maternity roosts, mating sites, and those roosts of a more transient nature.
Nocturnal emergence surveys commenced approximately 15 minutes prior to sunset and concluded ninety minutes after sunset. Dawn re-entry surveys commenced approximately ninety minutes prior to sunrise and continued until 15 minutes after sunrise.
All surveys were conducted using hand held Elekon Batlogger ‘M’ detectors. The recordings were then analysed using Elekon Batscanner software to facilitate the identification of all bat species recorded.
Surveys were undertaken by the following personnel:
• Principal Ecologist Elizabeth Sanders (ES) MCIEEM Natural England Class 2 bat licence number 2015-10986-CLS-CLS • Consultant Ecologist Roy Allen (RA) GradCIEEM Natural England Class 2 bat licence number 2019-40484-CLS-CLS • Senior Ecologist David Goddard (DG) MCIEEM • Field Ecologist Sophie Lunn (SL) • Field Ecologist Thomas Cumberland (TC) • Field Ecologist Chris Rhodes (CR) • Field Ecologist Andrew Crone (AC) • Field Ecologist Abi Campbell (ACa) • Field Ecologist Mike Brown (MB)
All emergence / return surveys were undertaken in suitable weather conditions conducive for bat activity, whereby temperatures were above a minimum of 10°C at sunset and surveys were not conducted in strong wind, heavy or persistent rainfall. The surveyors were positioned so that all potential access points for bats were visible during the survey.
Table 1 provides a summary of the survey times and weather conditions. No rain was recorded during any of the surveys.
Table 1 Weather Conditions During Dusk Emergence / Dawn Return Surveys
Date of Surveyors Sunset Start Finish Temp Temp Wind Cloud Survey / start end speed (%) Sunrise (°C) (°C) (Beaufort) 22.07.19 ES, RA, SL, 21:18 21:00 22:50 22 22 2-3 30% TC
Heaton Planning Ltd 5 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Factual Bat Survey Report
Date of Surveyors Sunset Start Finish Temp Temp Wind Cloud Survey / start end speed (%) Sunrise (°C) (°C) (Beaufort) 23.07.19 ES, RA, SL, 05:09 03:05 05:25 15 15 2-3 0% TC
06.08.19 RA, DG, 05:32 03:47 05:47 15 16 2-3 30 – CR, AC, 100% Aca, MB
19.08.19 DG, TC, 20:27 20:12 22:27 17 12 2-3 45% RA, SL, CR
2.2 Static Detector Installation and Internal Inspection
An Anabat express static detector was placed out at the end of October for eight consecutive days by Elizabeth Sanders to provide additional information on the usage of building B3 by bats.
The static detector was deployed on 30th October 2019 when weather conditions were largely forecast to be dry and mild (above 8˚C at sunset) and during the time when bats are likely to be using transitional roosts. The static detector was collected in on the 7th November 2019 following a period of persistent rainfall.
During the static detector installation and recovery, an internal inspection of B3 was also completed to record any roosting bats or evidence of roosting bats.
2.3 Limitations
The surveys were completed with the assistance of bat detectors. All survey techniques are subject to bias, and the bat detector surveys may under record species with weak echolocation calls, such as brown long-eared bats Plecotus auritus. However, these biases were considered when interpreting the results (it is also noted that Batloggers are very effective at picking up quiet calls from brown long-eared bats). Some bat calls are variable and extremely similar between species. Where identification to species level was not possible (for example in the Myotis bat group), bats were identified to family level (e.g. Myotis sp.).
As light levels drop after dusk, the visibility of features decrease over time. Conversely for dawn surveys, light levels are worst at the start of the survey, with visibility of features improving approaching sunrise. To mitigate for this limitation, surveyors were positioned appropriately to ensure that any bats flying over or around each building would be recorded and therefore emergence or re-entries would also be identified. Based on the species assemblage recorded and their usual emergence / re-entry times, it is considered that visibility after dusk and pre-dawn was not a significant constraint to the finding of the surveys.
The details of this report will remain valid for a period of 18 months (CIEEM 2019) from the date of the survey (April 2021), after which the validity of this assessment should be reviewed to determine whether further updates are necessary.
Heaton Planning Ltd 6 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Factual Bat Survey Report
3.0 Survey results
The results of the surveys are provided in Figures 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d.
3.1 Survey of Buildings B6
On 22nd July 2019, Elizabeth Sanders inspected Building B6 following discussions with Heaton Planning related to the usage of the building as a water storage tank. During the inspection, Building B6 was found to be full of water and as such had no potential to support roosting bats. Building B6 was therefore not surveyed further and demolition of Building B6 would have no impact on bats.
Photograph 1: Showing B6 and Water Level (Red Line)
3.2 Surveys of B1 to B5
3.2.1 Survey 1 – 22nd July 2019 (dusk) The first bat recorded was a soprano pipistrelle which was at 21:07 (11 minutes before sunset), this bat was heard and not seen. At 02:48 a common pipistrelle emerged from the eastern elevation of Building B2 and flew away to the east. The last bat recorded on site was a noctule which was at 22:58 (1 hour 40 minutes after sunset). This bat was also heard but not seen. One common pipistrelle bat emerge from B2 during the survey. No bats emerged from any of the other buildings during the survey.
Bat foraging / commuting was recorded around the eastern and southern site boundaries during the survey.
3.2.2 Survey 2 – 23rd July 2019 (dawn) On the 23.07.2019 survey the first bat recorded was a noctule which was at 03:02 (2 hours and 7 minutes before sunrise), this bat was not seen. The last bat recorded on site was a common pipistrelle which was at 04:29 (40 minutes before sunrise). No bats were seen to return to the buildings which were surveyed.
Heaton Planning Ltd 7 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Factual Bat Survey Report
3.2.3 Survey 3 – 6th August 2019 (dawn) On the 06.08.2019 the first bat recorded was a Leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri which was at 03:18 (2 hours and 16 minutes before sunrise). The last bat recorded on site was a common pipistrelle which was at 05:07 (27 minutes before sunrise).
At 04:52 (41 minutes before sunrise) a common pipistrelle entered the eastern elevation of B2. At 05:04 a further two common pipistrelle bats were observed entering the building. confirming that this building is being used by a low population <5 common pipistrelle bats for day roosting.
3.2.4 Survey 4 – 19th August 2019 (dusk) The first bat recorded was a common pipistrelle which was heard but not seen at 20:53 (26 minutes after sunset). The last bat recorded on site was a common pipistrelle which was at 22:31 (2 hours 4 minutes after sunset).
At 20:53 (26 minutes after sunset) a common pipistrelle emerged from the eastern elevation of Building B2, then at 22:04 (1 hour and 37 minutes after sunset) a common pipistrelle flew back into the eastern elevation of Building B2 and didn’t emerge again.
Bat activity during this survey was identified along the eastern and southern boundaries of the site with occasional bats commuting across the site. Subsequent sound analysis from these surveys identified Myotis sp., brown long-eared bat and one serotine Eptesicus serotinus pass during the surveys. A summary of the bat species identified during the survey is provided in Table 2.
3.3 Surveys of Tree TN9
3.3.1 Survey 1 and 2 – 6th August and 19th August 2019 (dusk) No bats were recorded emerging from Tree TN9 on either of the two dusk survey occasions.
During both surveys, common pipistrelle and noctules were recorded commuting and foraging around the lines of trees and adjacent hedgerow and grassland along the southern edge of the site. Occasional passes by Myotis species were also recorded during surveys.
3.3.2 23rd July 2019 (dawn) No bats were seen returning to roosts during the survey. Common pipistrelle bats were seen foraging around the tree and along the eastern site boundary during the survey with noctule bats also recorded but not seen.
3.4 Static Detector Data
During installation and collection, the floor of B3 was covered in leaf litter with no evidence of roosting bats identified e.g. droppings or feeding remains. The entire floor inside the building was free of leaves and was wet, indicating that the roof allows the ingress of water. Analysis of the detector found that no bat calls were recorded.
The condition of B3 allows the ingress of water and wind (leaves were blown away between the two visits). This indicates that this B3 would only provide a suitable roost location during dry conditions and as such is unlikely to be used on a regular basis.
Heaton Planning Ltd 8 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Factual Bat Survey Report
The findings of the emergence / return survey and the static survey therefore support the findings of the daytime assessment undertaken during the ecological appraisal (WYG, 2019). B3 is therefore considered to be an infrequently used day roost, likely to be used by the pipistrelle bats. These may be the same pipistrelle bats as those recorded using B2, which use the two buildings interchangeably.
3.5 Summary
Building B2 was found to support a day roost of three common pipistrelle bats.
The following buildings and one tree were not found to support roosting bats:
• Building B1; • Building B3, droppings present; • Building B4; • Building B5; • Building B6; and • Tree TN9.
Heaton Planning Ltd 9 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Factual Bat Survey Report
4.0 References • Collins, J. (ed.), (2016), Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines, 3rd ed., The Bat Conservation Trust, London. • CIEEM, (2019), Advice note: On the lifespan of Ecological reports & Surveys, CIEEM: Winchester. • WYG, (2019), Cauldon Cement Works: Ecological Appraisal, report on behalf of Heaton Planning Ltd., Project No. A112129.
Heaton Planning Ltd 10 November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Factual Bat Survey Report
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Site Location Plan Figures 2a – 2d – Bat Survey Results
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Rev Date Notes A 07/06/19 Initial map production
Legend
Site boundary
P Pond
P2
P1
0 50 100 200 Metres F
Site Location Plan
Cauldon Quarry Heaton Planning
Scale at A3: Project No: Drawing No: Revision: 1:8,000 A112129 Figure 1 A
Drawn by: Drawn date: Approved by: Ben Blowers 07/06/2019 Ian Stephens
Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown copyright and database right 2017. © Northern Ireland Environment Agency. Open Government Data reproduced contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 Other Credits: Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2018 G:\GIS Southampton\A112129_CauldonQuarry\MXD\Figure1_SiteLocationV2_070619.mxd Rev Date Notes D D A 11/10/19 Initial map production D D D D Legend
Site boundary
Bat roost !( SI Poor semi-improved grassland
Buildings
Hardstanding
Hedge with trees - native species-poor
Fence
SI !( Wall
D Scattered scrub
!( Scattered tree # Common pipistrelle emergence # Common pipistrelle foraging activity
(!S Surveyor location
(!S
!(
!( B1 B4 !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 0 5 10 20 Metres F !( SI !( !( B2 (!S !(
!( # !( (!S !( # Bat Survey Results
!( D 22/07/19 Dusk
!( DSI # B6 D B3 Cauldon Quarry # D Heaton Planning D DSI # !( !( !( Scale at A3: Project No: Drawing No: Revision: !( B5 !( 1:700 A112129 Figure 2a A
# !( Drawn by: Drawn date: Approved by: # !( Ben Blowers 11/10/2019 Elizabeth Sanders
Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown copyright and database right 2017. © Northern Ireland Environment Agency.
S Open Government Data reproduced contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 (! # Other Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community G:\GIS Southampton\A112129_CauldonQuarry\MXD\Bats\Figure2a_BatSurveyResults220719_111019.mxd Rev Date Notes D D A 11/10/19 Initial map production D D D # D Legend
Site boundary
(!S Bat roost !( SI Poor semi-improved grassland
Buildings
Hardstanding
Hedge with trees - native species-poor
Fence
SI !( Wall
D Scattered scrub
!( Scattered tree # Common pipistrelle foraging activity # Noctule foraging activity
(!S Surveyor location
!(
!( B1 B4 !( !( !( !( !( !( !( (!S 0 5 10 20 Metres F !( # SI !( (!S !( B2 !( !(
!( # !( # Bat Survey Results !( (!S D 23/07/19 Dawn # !( DSI B6 D B3 Cauldon Quarry D Heaton Planning D DSI !( !( !( Scale at A3: Project No: Drawing No: Revision: !( B5 !( 1:700 A112129 Figure 2b A !( Drawn by: Drawn date: Approved by:
!( Ben Blowers 11/10/2019 Elizabeth Sanders # Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown copyright and database right 2017. © Northern Ireland Environment Agency. Open Government Data reproduced contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 Other Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community G:\GIS Southampton\A112129_CauldonQuarry\MXD\Bats\Figure2b_BatSurveyResults230719_111019.mxd Rev Date Notes D D A 11/10/19 Initial map production D D D D # Legend Site boundary
Bat roost !( (!S SI Poor semi-improved grassland # Buildings
Hardstanding
Hedge with trees - native species-poor
Fence
SI !( Wall
D Scattered scrub
!( Scattered tree # Common pipistrelle return # Common pipistrelle foraging activity
(!S Surveyor location
!(
!( B1 B4 !( !( !(!( !( !( !( (!S 0 5 10 20 Metres F !( SI !( !( B2 (!S
!( # !( !( # # (!S Bat Survey Results !( # !( D 06/08/19 Dawn !( DSI B6 D B3 (!S Cauldon Quarry D Heaton Planning # D DSI !( !( !( Scale at A3: Project No: Drawing No: Revision:
!( B5 !( 1:700 A112129 Figure 2c A # !( # Drawn by: Drawn date: Approved by:
!( # Ben Blowers 11/10/2019 Elizabeth Sanders
Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown copyright and database right 2017. © Northern Ireland Environment Agency. # Open Government Data reproduced contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 (!S Other Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community G:\GIS Southampton\A112129_CauldonQuarry\MXD\Bats\Figure2c_BatSurveyResults060819_111019.mxd Rev Date Notes D D A 11/10/19 Initial map production D D D
D # Legend
Site boundary
Bat roost S (! !( SI Poor semi-improved grassland
Buildings
Hardstanding
# Hedge with trees - native species-poor #
Fence
SI !( Wall
D Scattered scrub
!( Scattered tree # Common pipistrelle emergence # Common pipistrelle foraging activity # Noctule foraging activity
(!S Surveyor location
!(
#
!( B1 B4 !( !( !(!( !( !( !( (!S 0 5 10 20 Metres F !( SI
!( #!( B2 # !( !(
!( # !( Bat Survey Results !( D S
# (! S 19/08/19 Dusk
!( DSI (! # B6 D B3 # Cauldon Quarry D Heaton Planning D DSI !( !( Scale at A3: Project No: Drawing No: Revision: # !( B5 1:700 A112129 Figure 2d A # !( !( !( Drawn by: Drawn date: Approved by: # !( Ben Blowers 11/10/2019 Elizabeth Sanders
# Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown copyright and database right 2017. © Northern Ireland Environment Agency.
Open Government Data reproduced contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 (!S # Other Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community G:\GIS Southampton\A112129_CauldonQuarry\MXD\Bats\Figure2d_BatSurveyResults190819_111019.mxd Cauldon Cement Works: Factual Bat Survey Report
Appendix A – Report Conditions
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129 Cauldon Cement Works: Factual Bat Survey Report
REPORT CONDITIONS
This Report has been prepared using reasonable skill and care for the sole benefit of Heaton Planning Ltd (“the Client”) for the proposed uses stated in the report by WYG Environment Planning Transport Limited (“WYG”). WYG exclude all liability for any other uses and to any other party. The report must not be relied on or reproduced in whole or in part by any other party without the copyright holder’s permission.
No liability is accepted or warranty given for; unconfirmed data, third party documents and information supplied to WYG or for the performance, reliability, standing etc of any products, services, organisations or companies referred to in this report. WYG does not purport to provide specialist legal, tax or accounting advice.
The report refers, within the limitations stated, to the environment of the site in the context of the surrounding area at the time of the inspections'. Environmental conditions can vary and no warranty is given as to the possibility of changes in the environment of the site and surrounding area at differing times. No investigative method can eliminate the possibility of obtaining partially imprecise, incomplete or not fully representative information. Any monitoring or survey work undertaken as part of the commission will have been subject to limitations, including for example timescale, seasonal and weather-related conditions. Actual environmental conditions are typically more complex and variable than the investigative, predictive and modelling approaches indicate in practice, and the output of such approaches cannot be relied upon as a comprehensive or accurate indicator of future conditions. The “shelf life” of the Report will be determined by a number of factors including; its original purpose, the Client’s instructions, passage of time, advances in technology and techniques, changes in legislation etc. and therefore may require future re-assessment.
The whole of the report must be read as other sections of the report may contain information which puts into context the findings in any executive summary.
The performance of environmental protection measures and of buildings and other structures in relation to acoustics, vibration, noise mitigation and other environmental issues is influenced to a large extent by the degree to which the relevant environmental considerations are incorporated into the final design and specifications and the quality of workmanship and compliance with the specifications on site during construction. WYG accept no liability for issues with performance arising from such factor
Heaton Planning Ltd November 2019 A112129
WYG Environment Planning Transport Limited. Registered in England & Wales Number: 3050297 Registered Office: Arndale Court, Headingley, Leeds, LS6 2UJ
Cauldon Cement Plant
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C
CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT
AJA
andrew josephs associates
consultancy | project management | expert witness
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility Staffordshire
Cultural Heritage Assessment
August 2019
E:mail [email protected] ● Telephone 07990 571908 16 South Terrace, Sowerby, Thirsk, YO7 1RH
Andrew Josephs Ltd. Registered Office, Antrobus House, 18 College St, Petersfield, GU31 4AD. Registration no. 4547366
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
CONTENTS 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Scope of this Report 1.2 Desk-Based Research 1.3 Field-Based Research 1.4 Consultations and Scoping 1.5 Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance 1.6 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria 2 Baseline Conditions 10 2.1 Designated Heritage Assets 2.2 Archaeological and Historical Background 2.3 Historic Landscape 2.4 Site Visit 2.5 Visit to Designated Assets 3. Impacts and Mitigation 18 3.1 Direct Impacts 3.2 Mitigation of Direct Impacts 3.3 Indirect Impacts 4. Assessment of Effects 21 5. Summary and Conclusions 23 5.1 Scope of Work and Results 5.2 Direct Effects upon Heritage and Archaeology 5.3 Mitigation of Direct Effects 5.4 Indirect Effects 5.5 Conclusion Figures (after page 26) Photographs (after page 38)
2 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
1. Introduction
1.1 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT
1.1.1 Description of the proposed development This report, commissioned by Heaton Planning on behalf of Lafarge Cauldon Limited, presents the findings of a cultural heritage assessment for the proposed development of a fuel storage facility at Cauldon Cement Works, Cauldon Low, Staffordshire (Figure 1). The centre of the Proposed Development Area (PDA) is at approximately SK 08628 49468. The description of the proposed development is set out in detail elsewhere in the Planning and Environmental Statements. The proposed layout is shown on Figure 2; elevations on Figure 3. The PDA extends to approximately 2.08 hectares of grassland and farmbuildings. 1.1.2 Scope of cultural heritage Cultural heritage is represented by a wide range of features that result from past human use of the landscape. These include historic structures, many still in use, above ground and buried archaeological monuments and remains of all periods, artefacts of anthropological origin and evidence that can help reconstruct past human environments. In its broadest form cultural heritage is represented by the landscape and townscape itself.
The assessment considers both direct and indirect effects upon cultural heritage. Indirect effects can occur as a result of significant changes to the setting of a landscape or asset, whether permanent or temporary. This is particularly relevant to designated cultural heritage assets, such as Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Registered Parks and Gardens.
1.2 DESK-BASED RESEARCH In order to assess the effects of the potential scheme, existing cultural heritage information within and up to 2km from the PDA was examined. A variety of sources were consulted including the Staffordshire Historic Environment Record, the Historic England Archive, maps and readily available local history materials. The work was undertaken by Andrew Josephs and Ian Meadows of AJA. All work has been undertaken in accordance with Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment (Chartered Institute for Archaeologists 2008, revised 2012).
1.3 FIELD-BASED RESEARCH A site visit to the PDA and its environs was undertaken in July 2019 to assess the state of the PDA and whether any aspects of archaeological and heritage interest could be identified. A photographic record of the current state and use of the land was taken. Visits were made to designated cultural heritage receptors near the PDA to assess indirect effects, in particular to scheduled monuments and listed buildings in the 2km study area.
3 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
1.4 CONSULTATIONS and SCOPING Consultations were held with Shane Kelleher, County Archaeologist, Staffordshire County Council, to discuss an outline scope of work and potential mitigation, should consent be granted.
1.5 RELEVANT LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE The importance of cultural heritage is clearly recognised at both national and local levels. Certain features that are deemed to be of particular importance are given legal protection through the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (Scheduled Monuments), the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) and the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 (Hedgerows of Historic Importance). 1.5.1 National Policy and Guidance In accordance with The Town and Country (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 the significance of an effect should be identified as part of this assessment. This is achieved using a combination of the following published guidance and professional judgement. National Planning Policy Framework, updated 2019. Department for Communities and Local Government. Planning Practice Guidance: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk Historic England1 2008. Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment. London. Historic England 2017. The Setting of Heritage Assets: GPA3. Historic England guidance.
1.5.2 National Planning Policy Framework National planning policy on how cultural heritage should be assessed is given in the National Planning Policy Framework, updated in 2019. This covers all aspects of heritage and the historic environment, including listed buildings, conservation areas, registered parks and gardens, battlefields and archaeology.
Of particular relevance to this application are:
189. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require
1 Historic England includes its former name English Heritage 4 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019 developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. 190. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.
Considering potential impacts
193. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance
194. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of:
a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional;
b) assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional
195. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to (or total loss of significance of) a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:
a) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and c) conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and d) the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.
196. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.
197. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss
and the significance of the heritage asset. 5
andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
198. Local planning authorities should not permit the loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred.
199. Local planning authorities should require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.
1.5.3 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment was published in April 2014 as a companion to the NPPF, replacing previous Circulars and other supplementary guidance. In respect of heritage decision-making, the PPG stresses the importance of determining applications on the basis of significance, and explains how the tests of harm and impact within the NPPF are to be interpreted.
In particular, the PPG includes the following in relation to the evaluation of significance and harm:
“Heritage assets may be affected by direct physical change or by change in their setting. Being able to properly assess the nature, extent and importance of the significance of a heritage asset, and the contribution of its setting, is very important to understanding the potential impact and acceptability of development proposals.
Whether a proposal causes substantial harm will be a judgment for the decision taker, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the policy in the National Planning Policy Framework. In general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases. For example, in determining whether works to a listed building constitute substantial harm, an important consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key element of its special architectural or historic interest. It is the degree of harm to the asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development that is to be assessed. The harm may arise from works to the asset or from development within its setting.
While the impact of total destruction is obvious, partial destruction is likely to have a considerable impact but, depending on the circumstances, it may still be less than substantial harm or conceivably not harmful at all, for example, when removing later inappropriate additions to historic buildings which harm their significance. Similarly, works that are moderate or minor in scale are likely to cause less than substantial harm or no harm at all. However, even minor works have the potential to cause substantial harm.”
1.5.4 Historic England: The Setting of Heritage Assets (GPA3) This Good Practice Advice Note, published in 2017, observes that amongst the Government’s planning objectives for the historic environment is that conservation decisions are based on the nature, extent and level of a heritage asset’s significance and are investigated to a proportionate degree. Historic England recommends the following broad approach to
6 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019 assessment, undertaken as a series of steps that apply proportionately to complex or more straightforward cases:
• Step 1: identify which heritage assets and their settings are affected; • Step 2: assess whether, how and to what degree these settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s); • Step 3: assess the effects of the proposed development, whether beneficial or harmful, on that significance; • Step 4: explore the way to maximise enhancement and avoid or minimise harm; • Step 5: make and document the decision and monitor outcomes.
These steps have been followed in the assessment below.
1.5.5 Regional Research Agenda and Themes The Archaeological Research Framework for the West Midlands, including Staffordshire, was published in 20112. The book represents an attempt by the region's archaeologists to draw the archaeological landscapes together to produce a research framework and agenda for their future management. The conclusions are based on a comprehensive evaluation of the archaeological resource and have allowed new research directions to be followed and gaps in knowledge to be targeted.
1.6 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA In accordance with the EIA Regulations the significance of an impact or effect should be identified. This is achieved using a combination of published guidance and professional judgement.
Four criteria have been considered in evaluating the significance of the residual effects of the proposed development, taking into account any proposed mitigation measures.
1.6.1 Type of Impact Impacts may be positive, beneficial, negative, adverse, neutral (i.e. no discernible effect) or none. They may be permanent or temporary, of long, medium or short duration, direct or indirect. They may also be cumulative or combined with other effects occurring in the vicinity.
Direct impacts have a physical effect upon an archaeological site, structure or cultural heritage asset. This may lead to the partial or total destruction of that asset.
Indirect impacts of development upon scheduled monuments, listed buildings, parks and gardens and other designated features of the cultural heritage landscape are more difficult to assess. Consideration should include the context (or setting) of a cultural heritage asset (or place) and how we should assess its significance. Contextual relationships may be visual, but can also be, for example, functional or intellectual.
2 Watt, S (ed), 2011. The Archaeology of the West Midlands: A Framework for Research. Oxbow Books.
7 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
1.6.2 Likelihood of the impact occurring An assessment is made as to the likelihood of the identified impact occurring. Probability is considered as certain, likely, unlikely or not known.
1.6.3 Sensitivity Three categories of sensitivity are identified: high, medium and low. These are expanded upon in Table 1, below.
Table 1 Definitions of sensitivity
Sensitivity Definition
High Sites and settings of national importance. Scheduled Monuments. Registered Battlefields. Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings and Registered Historic Parks and Gardens. Sites may also be discovered as a result of new research that are also of national importance and are candidates for scheduling.
Medium Sites and settings of regional importance. Archaeological sites and features that are not considered sufficiently important or well-preserved to be protected as Scheduled Monuments. Grade II Listed Buildings and Grade II Registered Historic Parks and Gardens. Conservation Areas.
Low Archaeological sites and structures, and other components of the historic environment that contribute to the local landscape. Locally designated assets.
1.6.4 Magnitude The magnitude of change to a cultural heritage asset or landscape is considered in terms of its vulnerability, its current condition and the nature of the impact upon it. With respect to sub- surface archaeology, there may be a degree of uncertainty of the magnitude of change, and where this is the case it is noted. Magnitude is assessed as high, medium, slight or none and the criteria used in this assessment are set out in Table 2, below.
Table 2 Criteria for Assessing Magnitude of Change
Magnitude of Change Description of Change
High Complete destruction of a well-preserved archaeological site, historic structure or element of the cultural heritage landscape
Change to the setting of a cultural heritage asset such that our ability to understand the resource and its historical context is permanently changed
Medium Destruction of an archaeological site or other cultural heritage asset already in degraded condition
Change to the setting of a cultural heritage asset such that our ability to understand the resource and its historical context is partly or temporarily changed
8 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
Slight Destruction of an archaeological site or other cultural heritage asset already in highly degraded condition
Change to the setting of a cultural heritage asset such that our ability to understand the resource and its historical context is slightly or temporarily changed
None No physical effect upon an archaeological site or other asset of the cultural heritage landscape
No discernible effect upon the setting of a cultural heritage asset, or our ability to understand the resource and its historical context
1.6.5 Assessing significance The four criteria are considered together to reach a conclusion upon the significance of residual effects taking into account any mitigation measures. In accordance with the EIA Regulations these are quantified as significant, not significant or neutral (i.e. no change to the existing situation). They may be beneficial or adverse. In some cases it may not be possible to quantify the significance of an effect, for example due to a gap in information, and this is noted.
Table 3 presents a matrix of the inter-relationship of sensitivity with magnitude.
Table 3 Inter-relationship of sensitivity with magnitude
Magnitude High Medium Slight None
Sensitivity High Significant Significant Not significant Neutral Medium Significant Not significant Not significant Neutral Low Not significant Not significant Not significant Neutral
9 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
2. Baseline Conditions
2.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS 2.1.1 Scope of Assessment After analysis of topography based upon a Zone of Theoretic Visibility (ZTV), the scope of the proposed development and the screening effects of existing development, a study area of up to 2km from the PDA was considered an appropriate distance to assess potential effects upon the setting of designated heritage assets. No designated assets of cultural heritage importance lie within the boundary of the PDA. A site visit was carried out in July 2019 to assess potential visual linkage and possible effects upon setting. 2.1.2 Designated Assets within 2km In accordance with The Setting of Heritage Assets (Step 1), the following heritage assets, or groups of assets, were identified for initial assessment: all scheduled monuments, Grade I and II* structures within 2km and Grade II assets within 1km. Locations of assets overlain onto the ZTV are shown on Figure 4. Five scheduled monuments lie within 2km of the PDA boundary. These are summarised in Table 4. One Grade II* building is situated within 2km, described in Table 5. There are no Grade I buildings within 2km. Seventeen Grade II structures are situated within 1km, summarised in Table 6.
Table 4 Scheduled Monuments within 2km of PDA
Ref on Monument Description Figure 4 no.
1 1009606 Lamber Low bowl barrow. Located on the crest of a knife-edge ridge it survives as a slightly oval mound of stone and soil up to 1.2m high with maximum dimensions of 15.5m by 13m. Subjected to antiquarian investigation that found a rectangular cist constructed of limestone and sandstone slabs containing a contracted adult inhumation and the leg bone of a large dog.
2 1009404 Bowl barrow on Milk Hill. Located at the north-west end of a ridge crest on Milk Hill, it survives as an oval earthen mound up to 1.3m high with maximum dimensions of 19.5m by 12m.Despite minor surface disturbance to two small areas of the monument the bowl barrow survives well. It is a rare survival in Staffordshire of an unexcavated example of this class of monument and will contain undisturbed archaeological deposits within the mound and upon the old land surface.
3 1008966 Stonesteads bowl barrow. The monument includes a bowl barrow located at the western edge of a broad shelf 300m north of Waterhouses. It survives as a slightly oval earth and stone mound up to 0.6m high with maximum dimensions of 12m by 11.5m. Limited antiquarian investigation at the barrow's centre located a pavement of thin, flat stones upon which lay a contracted adult inhumation with flint artefacts, a boar's tusk knife and a bone ring adjacent. Burnt bones indicating a cremation were
10 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
also found.
4 1008965 Cart Low bowl barrow. Located on the crest of a hilltop at the southern end of a ridge 800m north of Calton. It survives as an oval earthen mound up to 1.1m high with maximum dimensions of 28m by 23m. Medieval ploughing aligned north - south across the mound has created three lynchets, two of which truncate the eastern and western edges of the barrow whilst the third runs slightly east of centre. The monument is not known to have been excavated.
5 1013397 Ribden Low bowl barrow. Located on the summit of Ribden Hill it survives as a slightly mutilated oval earthen mound up to 1.8m high with maximum dimensions of 31m by 27m. Limited antiquarian investigation of the barrow's centre located a large flat capstone over a drywalled cist. This cist contained a contracted inhumation, a flint knife and two barbed and tanged arrowheads.
Table 5 Grade II* Listed Building within 2km of PDA
Ref on Listed Figure 4 Building No. Description Leehouse Farmhouse and Attached Garden Wall and Troughs. Grade II* 6 1192627 Farmhouse dated 1751. Coursed and squared limestone rubble with sandstone ashlar dressings and rusticated quoins of unequal length; plain tile roof with coped verges; brick integral end stack. L-shaped Plan. Attached garden wall with ashlar coping encloses a front garden, attached to the east side are a stone mounting block and 2 stone troughs.
Table 6 Grade II Listed Buildings within 1km of PDA
Ref on Listed Description Figure 4 Building No.
1037832 Milepost dated 1834. Cast iron.
1037833 Cowhouse approximately 10 yards west of Leehouse Farmhouse
1037861 Thomas Harvey memorial at Church of St. Mary and St. Lawrence. Chest tomb.
1037862 Yew Tree Inn. Early C19 with later additions.
7 1037863 Cowhouse approximately 30 yards north-east of Shaw's Farmhouse. C18.
1192471 Lych Gate Cottage. C18 with later alterations.
1192509 Church Farmhouse. Former farmhouse. C18.
1374733 Brook House. Farmhouse. Early C19
1374736 Cottage approximately - 30 yards south of Lytch Gate cottage
8 1374738 Shaw’s Farmhouse. C17, remodelled mid-C18.
1374739 Stony Rock. House. Early C19.
1192625 Ye Olde Crown Hotel. Inn. C18 with later alterations.
1192491 Memorial. Triple chest tomb at Church of St. Mary and St. Lawrence. Probably C18.
1037860 Church of St. Mary and St. Lawrence Chapel-of-ease. 1781-4, the chancel incorporating some earlier, probably C14, material.
1374737 Church Farmhouse and attached cowhouse. Farmhouse, agricultural worker's cottage and cowhouse. C18.
11 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
1286578 Orchard Farmhouse and attached former cowhouse C17 with later extensions.
1374759 The Old Beams Restaurant. House now restaurant. Mid-C18.
2.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The Staffordshire HER was consulted and the help of Suzy Blake is gratefully acknowledged. A total of 126 ‘monument’ entries are recorded within 1km of the PDA boundary. Locations are shown on Figures 5 and 6.
2.2.1 Post-medieval and medieval The majority of the records (approximately 60%) are post-medieval and structural. Buildings, and in particular relating to agriculture, account for 40 entries. Industrial records of quarrying (22) and lime kilns (11) comprise another significant element.
A further large group of entries (27) related to field systems and evidence for medieval and post medieval ridge and furrow cultivation. Many of the areas of ridge and furrow and the field systems were identified from aerial photographs and in some instances the earthworks recorded in the middle of the twentieth century have subsequently been levelled by more recent agricultural activity. The distribution of these agricultural features is quite widespread across the study area although they are particularly concentrated in the area between Cauldon and the A523. There are two types of ridge and furrow present: a wide ridge and a narrow ridge type. The latter is suggested as post-medieval in date and in some instances it was possible to see the narrow system overlie the wider system of cultivation (53240).
A parish marker stone (559803) is present at Rue Hill. It is inscribed C 13 and F 13 and marks the boundary between the parishes of Cotton and Farley.
2.2.2 Roman and prehistoric archaeology These are summarised in Table 7 below.
There are two entries for Roman material: a secondary burial inserted into a Bronze Age barrow (00288) and a small group of pottery, including a crucible, the precise provenance of which is very unclear (01849). It is clear there will have been Roman activity in the area, however no obvious settlement focus is known within the study area.
Pre-medieval archaeology is dominated by prehistoric sites, in particular the remains of Bronze Age burials (barrows).
3 Staffs HER reference number 12 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
Table 7 Roman and prehistoric archaeology within 1km of PDA
Monument NGR Site name Description Date ID SK 00147* 0840 Stonesteads A bowl barrow subjected to limited Bronze Age 5052 bowl barrow, excavation in mid C19th when a Waterhouses crouched burial with boards tusk and flints was recorded. SM 1008966 00283 0780 Round barrow, The site of a round barrow from which Bronze Age 4880 Cauldon Low human remains were recovered in 1857 along with a flint knife. The barrow has since been destroyed by quarrying. 00284 0799 Far Low round The site of a barrow excavated by Bronze Age 4879 barrow, Carrington in mid c19. It contained a Waterhouses number of burials including one in a rock cut grave with skeleton arranged on ribs of a large animal. Urns and flints also recovered. Site now lost to quarrying. 00285 0796 Possible The possible site of a barrow suggested Bronze Age 4851 round barrow, by field name evidence (Big Low) and Cauldon Low recovery of cinerary urns form the site. quarry A scatter of flints including arrowheads have also been recovered from this area. 00286 080 Round barrow, One of three round barrows recorded at Bronze Age 484 Cauldon Low Cauldon in the C19. They had all been destroyed by quarrying by the late C19. 00287 081 Round barrow, One of three barrows at Cauldon Bronze Age 486 Cauldon excavated by Carrington in mid C19. A cinerary urn and burnt bone recovered but site destroyed by late C19. 00288 0819 Round barrow, One of 3 barrow excavated by Bronze Age/Roman 4871 Cauldon Carrington in mid C19. Record a rock cut grave with skeleton and a possible RB vessel. Barrow destroyed by quarrying by late C19. 00289 0820 Round Barrow A round barrow from which human Bronze Age 4872 near Cauldon bones, charcoal and flint are recorded Low from excavation, thought to be one of three barrows excavated by Carrington. Now destroyed by quarrying. 00301* 0874 Lamber Low A damaged earthwork of a barrow now Bronze Age 5085 bowl barrow crossed by a hedgerow and stone wall. The central cist may have been excavated in 1849 and found to contain contracted skeleton accompanied by a flint spearhead and a polished flint implement. SM 1009606 00303 0855 Barrow, A probable barrow recorded to have Bronze Age 5055 Waterhouses been investigated in the mid C19 when remains of a female skeleton were recorded. The site/survival of the barrow are now uncertain. 00304 085 Find spot A socketed and looped axe recorded as Bronze Age 505 Waterhouses from Waterhouses parish 00307* 0929 Bowl barrow, The earthwork of a probable barrow Bronze Age 4967 Milk Hill, which may have been excavated in the Waterhouses C19. SM 1009404 13 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
01849 08 Roman Roman pottery and a crucible recorded Roman 49 pottery, as being found in the area in 1961 Cauldon Low 01933 095 Stone Axe, A polished axe head found in 1954 Neolithic-Middle 499 Stoneyrock, Bronze Age Waterhouses 01956 084 Stone object, Stone found at Cauldon now thought 485 Cauldon not to be prehistoric just natural 01957 0842 Axe hammer A perforated stone axe-hammer found Neolithic/Bronze 4851 Cauldon in 1864 Age 02739 078 Axe-hammer, An axe-hammer found in the Cauldon Neolithic/Bronze 494 Waterhouses area exact location uncertain Age 03509 0836 Flint working A scatter of worked flints, core, chips Prehistoric 4782 site, Rue Hill, and some calcined. Farley 03765 08 Flint Scatter A small scatter of prehistoric flints Prehistoric 48 Cauldon Low including knife or spear point 03768 086 Occupation Numerous flint finds, pottery and Prehistoric/Neolithic 478 site, Rue hill polished stone axes indicating the location of a prehistoric probably Neolithic settlement * Scheduled Monuments
The largest group of barrows (00283-00289) lie within the area already quarried as Cauldon Low Quarry and were mostly lost before the end of the nineteenth century. Some of the barrows were examined by Samuel Carrington, a village schoolmaster (1798-1870) from Wetton and well-known barrow excavator, who was actively opening barrows from 1845. In a volume of papers that includes information of his work it records he examined 135 cairns between spring 1845 and autumn 1852 and between 1848 and 1858 a further 100, it is possible some of the examples within this study area may have been explored by him.
The details of the barrows now lost within the quarry suggests there were at least two groups (although the HER does qualify their locations as uncertain): one group of two (00285 & 00286) and one of three (00287-00289) as well as two, apparently, isolated examples.
Unfortunately, apart from Crow Low (excavated in 1868). none of the others is marked on the early Ordnance Survey maps.
The remaining four tumuli include a further example (00303) excavated in the nineteenth century for which again the precise location is uncertain. There are three extant barrows (00147, 00301 & 00307). All are isolated but placed at local high spots where their location would have been highly visible overlooking the valley of the River Hamps. All three of these barrows are protected as Scheduled Ancient Monuments.
Other prehistoric activity from the study area is reflected by the recovery of isolated finds, for example a axe-hammer found in 1864 (01957) and a further example (02739). The precise location is not certain and it is likely they were recovered in association with the local quarrying.
To the north of the study area a bronze socketed axe head (00304) was recorded in the 1908 Victoria County History volume, but the circumstances of it recovery are not described. A further stone axe was recovered from Stoneyrock in 1954 (01933) and is described as having a damaged surface.
More evidence for prehistoric settlement is known from the area of Rue Hill (03768) identified from fieldwork in the 1980s and 1990s comprising numerous flints, pottery and a 14 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019 polished stone axe. The flints included scrapers, leaf shaped arrowheads and a wide range of other tools as well as sherds of pottery. Based on this a Neolithic date is likely and it is probably related to settlement.
2.2.3 Previous Archaeological Work A total of 13 events are recorded in the Staffordshire HER. These include non-intrusive surveys (e.g. EST 1441), some associated with Countryside Stewardship Scheme applications (EST 746 & EST 756).
A further group are intrusive trial trench evaluations (EST 3054, EST 3055, EST 1860) ahead of expansion of quarrying. Each investigation has produced negative results, with only already mapped features and natural fissures being revealed.
2.3 HISTORIC LANDSCAPE The readily available historic maps for the PDA and its environs were consulted and they portray an agricultural landscape that has changed little through the 19th and 20th centuries, with many of the boundaries still present today. Staffordshire Historic landscape Characterisation is shown on Figure 7. The PDA is shown on Ordnance Survey mapping as small fields or closes around and to the north of a farmstead (Figures 8 -10), latterly marked as Hurst Farm. The layout of the farmstead shows construction, extension and demolition, as is typical of farms. This is discussed further in Section 2.4. The drystone wall boundaries of the PDA and the broader study area are predominantly of post-medieval date as they enclose and overlie the medieval strip cultivation system seen on early aerial photographs. This is particularly the case for the strips of enclosed land adjacent to the village of Cauldon where a series of long narrow fields are present to the south of the village. The more elevated ground (now dominated by the Cauldon Low Quarry) is occupied by a system of fields predominantly composed of larger rectilinear land parcels indicative of formal and systematic enclosure of late 18th and early 19th century date. The most dynamic changes in the landscape is the development of the various quarries in the study area and the numerous ‘old quarries’ that are marked. Even by the end of the 19th century there were numerous ‘old quarries’ that had been abandoned. Some plantations of woodland are also identified scattered across the study area.
2.4 SITE VISIT A site visit was undertaken in July 2019 to examine the current state of the PDA. The PDA is bounded by stone walls of different height and construction to the east that define a green lane (Photographs 1 and 2). These lie immediately outside the PDA boundary. To the west is Earlsway and to the north agricultural land separated by a remnant hedge and wire fence (Photograph 3). A single stone wall (Photograph 4) crosses the centre of the PDA in an east-west direction. This wall is shown on the OS 1st edition (Figure 8) and appears to be a sub-division of a larger field that took place at or subsequent to enclosure. 15 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
The southern part of the PDA is occupied by a complex of farmbuildings in varying states of repair, known previously as Hurst Farm. Predominantly of 20th century date, within the complex are elements of earlier, stone buildings. Substantially modified for modern agricultural use, including enlarging and blocking openings, reroofing and amendments to fenestration, they are nevertheless the remnants of a late 18th century farmstead, as depicted on the OS 1st edition. The farmhouse itself was demolished before 1970. Examples of the historic elements are shown on Photographs 5-10). On the eastern boundary of the PDA sits a stone of local red sandstone (Photographs 11 and 12). It is not marked on the any OS map nor recorded within the HER. Normally such stones are interpreted as a boundary marker, but it is not clear which boundary the stone could sit on. Elsewhere, random stones in pastoral landscapes have been interpreted as scratching posts for cattle45. A clue as to function could however be shown on the 1924 OS map (Figure 9). The green lane to the east of the PDA is marked as broadening out at this point. It is not shown as such on earlier or later maps, suggesting a temporary realignment of the wall. The stone could therefore represent a gate post or stone marking one side of an opening to the field. There are no earthworks evident in the field.
2.5 VISIT TO DESIGNATED ASSETS 2.5.1 Assets in Waterhouses and Cauldon The site visit confirmed the desk-based assessment and findings of the ZTV (as summarised in Section 2.1). Listed buildings in Waterhouses and Cauldon have no or highly filtered views to the PDA due to topography, intervening development (including the current plant site) and vegetation. This is illustrated on Photographs 13-15 that show the view from the two settlements towards the PDA. Two scheduled monuments to the north of Waterhouses have long distant views, within which the proposed development would be absorbed within the existing industrial back drop (Photograph 16). The site visit focused upon the scheduled barrow on Milk Hill and two listed buildings to the south-west of the PDA. 2.5.2 Milk Hill scheduled barrow Described in the Schedule as ‘an oval earthen mound up to 1.3m high with maximum dimensions of 19.5m by 12m. Despite minor surface disturbance to two small areas of the monument the bowl barrow survives well’. It sits on private land (and therefore not accessed), but close to a public footpath. Photograph 17 shows the barrow from the footpath. It is situated on northern end of a ridge extending north-west from the crest of Milk Hill overlooking the valley of the River Hamps to the north. Views to the PDA are middle distance and clear, being only partially obstructed by a hawthorn hedge. The current cement works are prominent in the view and the proposed
4 O’Riordain, PO 2014. Antiquities of the Irish Countryside. 5 Ochota, MA 2018. Hidden Histories: A spotters’s guide to the British Landscape 16 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019 development, whilst being substantial in its own right, would largely be absorbed into the backdrop of the current works (Photograph 18). 2.5.3 Shaw’s Farmhouse This Grade II uninhabited former farmhouse is mid-18th century in architectural style, although supposedly with earlier origins. Built of coursed sandstone with protruding ashlar quoins under a plain tile roof, it has a later rear extension and brick stacks. Currently surrounded by mature trees and not considered safe to access. Views of the farmhouse are shown on Photograph 19 and 20. The view from its curtilage to the PDA is shown on Photograph 21. 2.5.4 Cowhouse approximately 30 yards north east of Shaw's Farmhouse A cowhouse, contemporary to Shaw’s Farmhouse and of similar construction. The cowhouse was recently restored and brought into economical use by Lafarge as a meeting room and offices. The eastern elevation of the cowhouse is shown on Photograph 22. The view from it towards the PDA is shown on Photograph 23.
17 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
3. Impacts and Mitigation
3.1 DIRECT IMPACTS The layout of the proposed development has been designed to preserve the peripheral stone walls outside the development’s boundary fence. Two heritage assets would be removed: the remnants of Hurst Farmstead and a wall crossing the centre of the PDA (and a former gatepost). These are assessed as of local heritage interest. Impacts upon archaeology are not known, but based upon other investigations in the study area carried out in advance of development that resulted in no archaeological deposits being encountered, it is considered that the potential for archaeology is low.
3.2 MITIGATION OF DIRECT IMPACTS In accordance with planning policy, loss of archaeology and cultural heritage needs to be offset by a programme of mitigation. Should planning consent be forthcoming, two strands of mitigation are proposed. 3.2.1 Recording of the pre-20th century farmbuildings to Historic England Level 2 A Level 2 survey would be undertaken, described as: ‘… a descriptive record…. Both the exterior and interior of the building will be seen, described and photographed. The examination of the building will produce an analysis of its development and use and the record will include the conclusions reached, but it will not discuss in detail the evidence on which this analysis is based. A plan and sometimes other drawings may be made but the drawn record will normally not be comprehensive and may be tailored to the scope of a wider project.’ An archaeologist will monitor the demolition of the buildings and record any evidence of earlier phases of construction. 3.2.2 Archaeological trenching Machine-cut archaeological trenches would be excavated in advance of construction to evaluate the archaeological potential of the PDA. This would comprise a 2.5% sample of the pastureland of the PDA (approximately 1.4ha), equivalent to 9 trenches at 20m length, equally spaced across the fields. An indicative layout is shown on Figure 11. Should archaeology be identified, further mitigation may be required prior to development. The decision would be taken in consultation with the County Archaeological Officer. 3.2.3 Written Scheme of Investigation A Written Scheme of Investigation for the above mitigation has been approved by Staffordshire County Archaeological Officer and would be implemented, prior to development commencing. Its implementation would be ensured under a planning condition.
18 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
3.3 INDIRECT IMPACTS 3.3.1 Introduction Indirect impacts are those that do not physically affect a cultural heritage asset or landscape, but that alter the context or setting. Such impacts can be difficult to define and should take into account a number of factors including: The type of asset or landscape The nature and scale of the development Working methodology Temporality Topography Visibility, screening and physical separation Proximity The critical views of, and from the asset or landscape Accessibility, interpretation and public appreciation As described in Section 1.5.4 Historic England’s GPA3, The Setting of Heritage Assets, recommends a broad approach to assessment of setting, undertaken as a series of steps that apply proportionately to complex or more straightforward cases.
Setting is defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as:
"The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of the asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral."
GPA3 states that:
“The setting itself is not designated. Every heritage asset, whether designated or not has a setting. Its importance, and therefore the degree of protection it is offered in planning decisions, depends entirely on the contribution it makes to the significance of the heritage asset or its appreciation.”
3.3.2 Step 1: Identify which heritage assets and their settings are affected Based upon desk-based and field assessment the settings of one scheduled monument and 2 grade II listed buildings would be affected, to some extent by the proposed development. These are considered further in Step 2 below. 3.3.3 Step 2: Assess the degree to which these settings and views make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s) or allow significance to be appreciated Milk Hill scheduled barrow Although prominent in the view from the barrow, and at about 600m distance, the proposed development would be absorbed into the backdrop of the existing and substantial cement works. Cumulatively, it would therefore not be a significant increased detraction from the existing setting and it would have no effect upon appreciation of the significance of the monument that is very much contained on its ridge, off the crest of Milk Hill, overlooking the River Hamps to the north.
19 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
Shaw’s Farmhouse and Cowhouse These two Grade II buildings are situated approximately 50m and 80m respectively south west of the PDA boundary. They are considered here together as a group. The proposed development will be prominent above the skyline and only partly filtered by peripheral and existing trees. However, the current setting is completely dominated by the cement works, and whilst the proposed development will extend the built development mass eastwards, at a lower height, it is not considered that it would be a significant detriment to their setting. There would be no effect upon the inter-relationship of the two buildings. 3.3.4 Step 3: Assess the effects of the proposed development, whether beneficial or harmful, on the significance or on the ability to appreciate it The visual effects of the development upon both the scheduled monument and listed buildings would be detrimental, simply due to the scale of the proposed fuel storage facility. However, as noted above, this needs to be considered within the context of a long-standing industrial facility of over 50 years, the massing of which is substantially greater and more imposing than that proposed. It is considered that there would no effect upon the context of the assets or our ability to appreciate them. 3.3.5 Step 4: Explore ways to maximise enhancement and avoid or minimise harm Additional tree or hedge planting along the southern and south-western boundary is proposed help reduce the impact of the massing upon views from Shaw’s Farmhouse and Cowhouse. 3.3.6 Step 5: Make and document the decision and monitor outcomes The effects are assessed under the EIA regulations and documented in Section 4 of this report.
20 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
4. Assessment of Effects
In accordance with the EIA Regulations the significance of an effect should be identified. This is achieved using guidance and methodology set out in Section 1.5, above. The sensitivity and magnitude of these impacts is quantified based upon the criteria set out in Section 1.6. The results of the evaluation of significance are drawn together in Table 9, below, together with the rationale behind the evaluation.
21 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
Type of Probability Sensitivity Magnitude of Effect of Effect Effect Significance Rationale Occurring Direct effects upon statutorily designated assets None Certain High/Medium None Neutral There will be no adverse direct effects upon statutorily designated of the historic environment heritage assets.
Indirect effects upon setting of scheduled Negative Certain High Slight Not significant The significant views from the barrow are to the north over the barrow on Milk Hill Hamps valley. The proposed development would be prominent in Permanent the view from the barrow at about 600m distance. The impact is reduced as the proposed development would be absorbed into the backdrop of the existing and substantial cement works. Cumulatively, it would therefore not be a significant increased detraction from the existing setting that is already degraded. There are no effects upon the contextual setting.
Indirect effects upon setting of Shaw’s Negative Certain Medium Slight Not significant The proposed development will be prominent above the skyline and Farmhouse and cowhouse, Grade II listed only partly filtered by peripheral and existing trees. However, the buildings Permanent current setting is completely dominated by the cement works (an industrial facility has been here for over 50 years), and whilst the proposed development will extend the built development mass eastwards, it is not considered that it would be a significant detriment to their setting. Additional tree or hedge planting along the southern and south-western boundary is proposed help reduce the impact of the massing upon views from Shaw’s Farmhouse and Cowhouse. There would be no effect upon the inter-relationship of the two buildings.
Direct effects upon heritage assets Negative Certain Low Slight Not significant The demolition of the remnants of an 18th century farmstead – already highly modified in the 20th century – will be offset by the Permanent recording of the structures and examination of their foundations.
Effects upon buried archaeology within PDA Negative Not known Not known Not known Not known The PDA lies within an area of low archaeological potential, based upon the evidence in the Staffs HER and past archaeological Permanent evaluations carried out in advance of development. A WSI has been approved by the County Archaeological Officer and this would be implemented should consent be granted.
22 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
5. Summary and Conclusions
5.1 SCOPE OF WORK AND RESULTS This report presents the findings of a cultural heritage assessment for the proposed development of a fuel storage facility at Cauldon Cement Works, Staffordshire. It considers both direct and indirect effects upon cultural heritage. Direct effects are those that physically affect a cultural heritage asset. Indirect effects can occur as a result of significant changes to the setting of a cultural heritage landscape or asset, whether permanent or temporary. This is particularly relevant to designated assets of national importance, such as Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Registered Parks and Gardens. The scope of the project was discussed with the Staffordshire County Archaeologist. It was agreed that an initial desk -based assessment was required, so that the effects upon heritage could be carefully considered in the planning application.
5.2 DIRECT EFFECTS UPON HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY Impacts upon archaeology are not known, but based upon other investigations in the general area carried out in advance of development that resulted in no archaeological deposits being encountered, it is considered that the potential for archaeology is low. The layout of the proposed development has been designed to preserve peripheral stone walls outside the development’s boundary fence. Two known heritage assets would be removed: the remnants of Hurst Farmstead – probably of late 18th century origins but highly modified - and a stone wall crossing the centre of the PDA. Both are assessed as of local heritage interest.
5.3 MITIGATION OF DIRECT EFFECTS In accordance with planning policy, loss of archaeology and cultural heritage needs to be offset by a programme of mitigation. Should planning consent be forthcoming, two strands of mitigation are proposed: 1. A Level 2 (predominantly photographic) survey of the pre-20th century farmbuildings followed by monitoring of the demolition of the buildings to record any evidence of earlier phases of construction. 2. Archaeological trenching excavated in advance of construction to evaluate the archaeological potential of the PDA. Should archaeology be identified, further mitigation may be required prior to development. The decision would be taken in consultation with the County Archaeological Officer. A Written Scheme of Investigation for the above mitigation has been approved by Staffordshire County Archaeological Officer and would be implemented, prior to development commencing. Its implementation would be ensured under a planning condition. 23 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
5.4 INDIRECT EFFECTS The potential indirect effects of the proposed development have been assessed based upon desk-based assessment, field survey and visits to surrounding assets of cultural heritage importance, following the 5 step criteria set out in Historic England’s GPA3, The Setting of Heritage Assets. After analysis of topography using Zone of Theoretical Visibility modelling (ZTV), refined through consideration of the screening effects of development and vegetation, a study area of up to 2km from the PDA was considered an appropriate distance to assess potential effects upon the setting of scheduled monuments, Grade I and II* structures. Grade II assets within 1km were identified. No designated assets of cultural heritage importance lie within the boundary of the PDA. Within 2km of the PDA boundary are situated five scheduled monuments and one Grade II* building. There are no Grade I buildings within 2km. Seventeen Grade II structures are situated within 1km. After field survey it was concluded that the settings of one scheduled monument and 2 grade II listed buildings would be affected to some extent by the proposed development. 5.4.1 Milk Hill scheduled barrow Although prominent in the view from the barrow, and at about 600m distance, the proposed development would be absorbed into the backdrop of the existing and substantial cement works. Cumulatively, it would therefore not be a significant increased detraction from the existing setting and it would have no effect upon appreciation of the significance of the monument that is very much contained on its ridge, off the crest of Milk Hill, overlooking the River Hamps to the north. 5.4.2 Shaw’s Farmhouse and Cowhouse These two Grade II buildings are situated approximately 50m and 80m respectively south west of the PDA boundary. The proposed development will be prominent above the skyline and only partly filtered by peripheral and existing trees. Additional tree or hedge planting along the southern and south-western boundary is proposed help reduce the impact of the massing upon views from Shaw’s Farmhouse and Cowhouse. However, the current setting is completely dominated by the cement works, and whilst the proposed development will extend the built development mass eastwards, at a lower height, it is not considered that it would be a significant detriment to their setting. There would be no effect upon the inter-relationship of the two buildings.
5.5 CONCLUSION The visual effects of the development upon both the scheduled monument and listed buildings would be detrimental, simply due to the scale of the proposed fuel storage facility. However, this needs to be considered within the context of a long-standing industrial facility of over 50 years, the massing of which is substantially greater and more imposing than that proposed. It is considered that there would no effect upon our ability to appreciate the assets or their context. Assessed under the EIA Regulations, it is concluded that the overall effects upon the setting of designated assets are not significant.
24 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
The demolition of the remnants of a late 18th century farmstead – already highly modified in the 20th century – will be offset by the recording of the structures and examination of their foundations. Potential for archaeology is considered to be low, but will be tested before development commences and, if necessary, further mitigation will be implemented.
Having regard to the baseline conditions and the assessment carried out against professional guidance, the proposed development accords with national cultural heritage policy.
25 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
Figures
26 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
Figure 1 Location Plan © Crown copyright. All rights reserved Licence number 100018890 27 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
Figure 2 Layout 28 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
Figure 3 Elevations 29 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
Milk Hill SM
Shaw’s House Cowhouse
Figure 4 Designated Assets within 2km on ZTV Numbers 1-8 refer to Tables 4-6 © Crown copyright. All rights reserved Licence number 100018890
30 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
Figure 5 Staffordshire Historic Environment Record for 1km radius of PDA © Crown copyright./Staffs CC HER 31 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
PDA
Figure 6 Staffordshire Historic Environment Record, 250m radius of PDA © Crown copyright./Staffs CC HER 32 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy
Cauldon Cement Works Fuel Storage Facility. Cultural Heritage Assessment. August 2019
Figure 7 Staffordshire HLC © Crown copyright./Staffs CC HER
33 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy