Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey
Prepared on behalf of
Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
Final Report
18 July 2019
P19/34-1C
Ecological Planning & Research Ltd The Barn, Micheldever Station, Winchester, Hampshire SO21 3AR Tel: 01962 794720 Fax: 01962 794721 email: [email protected] www.epr.uk.com
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey
Report Release Sheet
Draft/Final: Final Report
Issue Number: P19/34-1C
Date: 18 July 2019
Client: Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Whiteknights Campus Reading RG6 6BW
Main Author(s): Helen Demopoulos BSc (Hons) MRes MCIEEM
Contributors/Surveyors: Helen Demopoulos BSc (Hons) MRes MCIEEM
Report Prepared for Issue by:
………………………………… Helen Demopoulos BSc (Hons) MRes MCIEEM
Report Approved for Issue by:
………………………………… Alison Hogan BSc (Hons) MSc MCIEEM
Ecological Planning & Research Ltd The Barn, Micheldever Station, Winchester, Hampshire SO21 3AR Tel: 01962 794720 Fax: 01962 794721 email: [email protected] www.epr.uk.com
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. NATURE AND EXTENT OF PREDICTED BIOPHYSICAL CHANGES ...... 5 3. RESULTS OF ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL ...... 6 4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 15 5. REFERENCES ...... 16
MAPS Map 1 Site Location and Designations Map 2 Policy Sites within 2 km of the Proposals including Local Wildlife Sites Map 3 Protected & Notable species records from TVERC - Flowering Plants Map 4 Habitats and Features Map 5 Results of Building Inspections for Bats
APPENDICES Appendix 1 Phase III Building Scheme – Outline Car Park Layout 23.10.17, Drawing no. 17031_T_A201 revision L Appendix 2 Summary of Relevant Legislation and Policy Appendix 3 Assessment Methodology Appendix 4 Photographs relating to Ecological Appraisal Appendix 5 Photographs from Bat Building Assessment
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey
Executive Summary
Ecological Planning & Research Ltd (EPR) was commissioned to carry out an Ecological Appraisal and building survey for bats of Erlegh House (formerly the Science and Technology Centre) and immediately surrounding area, at Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading. This is to inform an application for a change of use of the building from B1(b) Use (research and development) to D1 Use (clinical care) and additional car parking spaces.
Erlegh House is situated on the eastern side of Whiteknights Campus. The Site itself (denoted by the red line on the maps) is at the edge of parkland habitat with planted trees, grassland managed as wildflower meadow, amenity grassland and university buildings.
The proposals will result in a change of use of Erlegh House building. As the renovations are internal only, and the potential bat interest is external only, it is concluded to be very unlikely that the works will disturb bat roosts or bats.
The proposals will also result in removal of a small area of poor semi-improved grassland currently managed as wildflower meadow, and replacement with tarmac for parking.
Mitigation and ecological enhancement measures include installation of Swift boxes in suitable places on Erlegh House building, incorporation of Hedgehog hibernation boxes within sheltered areas and creation of an area of wildlflower meadow to replace that which will be lost to parking.
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey
1. INTRODUCTION
Brief
1.1 Ecological Planning & Research Limited (EPR) was commissioned by Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust through Barton Willmore to carry out an Ecological Appraisal of Erlegh House and the immediately surrounding area situated at Whiteknights Campus in Reading. The Site is centred on Grid reference SU 74007185. An Ecological Appraisal is required for a change of use application from B1(b) Use (research and development) to D1 Use (clinical care), for the building to be renovated for use by Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust as a treatment facility and for some of the surrounding grounds to be turned into car parking spaces.
Background 1.2 A draft plan of the proposed works 17031_T-A201, Revision L is included in Appendix 1. If there are further revisions of the proposed plan, this document will need to be revisited.
1.3 Erlegh House will be renovated internally, keeping the external structure intact, and several of the outlying buildings will be demolished. The Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust requires more car parking spaces; the proposals therefore also include an increase in car parking at Erlegh House. Landscaping planting will be provided around the new parking spaces as per the Planting Scheme (17031_T_A202).
The Study Area 1.4 The area within the red line on Map 1 indicates the study area, referred to as the Site within this document. It is situated in the centre of Reading in the south east area of Whiteknights Campus of Reading University.
National Character Area 115: Thames Valley 1.5 Whiteknights Campus is located within the Thames Valley Character Area (NCA). NCAs are areas that share similar landscape characteristics, and which follow natural lines in the landscape rather than administrative boundaries. The information contained within NCAs supports planning of conservation initiatives at a landscape scale and includes a description of the natural and cultural features that shape the landscape and a broad analysis of each area’s characteristics and ecosystem services.
1.6 The Thames Valley NCA is mainly low-lying, with the River Thames as the central feature through a diverse landscape of fragmented agricultural land, historic parks and commons, woodlands, reservoirs, mineral workings and urban and suburban settlements. The Thames Valley is dominated by the Thames and its tributaries, part of the Grand Union Canal and the reservoirs which form the South-West London Waterbodies Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site. These provide essential water supply services for London and the surrounding area, as well as being important for wildlife.
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey P19/34-1C Final Report – 18 July 2019
1
1.7 Although the landscape of the NCA is densely populated and developed, there are pockets of woodland, open grassland, parkland and wetland with a variety of habitats supporting important populations of many species such as wildfowl and invertebrates such as Stag Beetle Lucanus cervus.
1.8 Within each Natural Area profile, there are associated Statements of Environmental Opportunity (SEO). Specific environmental opportunities relevant to the Site could include (see Statement of Environmental Opportunity SEO 4: ‘Protect and manage the area’s historic parklands, wood pastures, ancient woodland, commons, orchards and distinctive ancient pollards, and restore and increase woodland for carbon sequestration, noise and pollution reduction, wood fuel and protection from soil erosion, while also enhancing biodiversity, sense of place and history’:
Restoring and sustainably managing the area’s historic parkland and wood pasture.
Conserving characteristic ancient trees in hedgerows, fields, historic parklands and areas of wood pasture.
Restoring, expanding and sustainably managing woodlands, including ancient woodland, for the prevention of soil erosion, carbon sequestration and storage, recreation, enhancing biodiversity and landscape and providing a local source of wood fuel.
Geology 1.9 With reference to the British Geological Survey website www.bgs.ac.uk, and the 1:50,000 scale geology maps, the bedrock geology of the Site is of London Clay formation with clay, silt and sand. The Sedimentary Bedrock formed approximately 48 to 56 million years ago in the Palaeogene period. These sedimentary rocks are marine in origin and are detrital, comprising coarse to fine grained slurries of debris from the continental shelf flowing into a deep sea environment, forming graded beds.
1.10 The superficial deposits over the Site are described as Boyn Hill Gravel Member – Sand and Gravel. Superficial Deposits formed up to 2 million years ago in the Quaternary Period. The local environment was previously dominated by rivers. These deposits are fluvial in origin and are detrital, ranging from coarse to fine-grained and form beds and lenses of deposits reflecting the channels, floodplains and levees of a river.
1.11 No superficial deposits are recorded next to Whiteknights Lake.
Soils 1.12 With reference to the Soil Survey of England and Wales (http://landis.org.uk/soilscapes), the soils within the Site are classified as ‘Soilscape 22’ – loamy soils with naturally high groundwater. The soils tend to have a natural low fertility.
Hydrology
1.13 With reference to the Environment Agency’s flood maps for planning website, the building and surrounds are all within ‘Flood Zone 1’ which means there is a very low probability of flooding from river or sea (less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of flooding). No flood risk assessment is therefore needed.
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey P19/34-1C Final Report – 18 July 2019
2
Landscape History 1.14 Whiteknights Campus was originally part of the Whiteknights Estate, in existence since at least the 12th Century. The main habitat type within the estate appears to have been parkland with trees, with reference to maps dating back to 1877 (see the National Library of Scotland website, which hosts digitised copies of old maps http://maps.nls.uk). The earliest published Ordnance Survey map of the area, a 6” map published in 1883, shows Whiteknights Campus as parkland with scattered trees.
1.15 The University of Reading acquired the Whiteknights Estate in 1947 and most of the buildings were built between 1950 and 2000. The Erlegh House building appears to have been built sometime after 1960.
Brief Description of Site and Surroundings
1.16 The wider Whiteknights Campus comprises mainly Wood pasture and Parkland Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority Habitat, and Deciduous Woodland (listed on the Priority Habitat Inventory).
1.17 The red-line area of the Site mainly comprises the Erlegh House building, which is surrounded by hard standing or paving. The remainder of the red-line area comprises unmown grassland managed as wildflower meadow habitat, some close-mown areas, parking areas and scattered trees. There is a large parking area at the south-eastern side of the Site, and a thick hedgerow along the southern boundary with a public footpath on the other side of this.
Scope
1.18 The purpose of this Ecological Appraisal is to obtain and present information on potential ecological constraints and opportunities resulting from the Proposals. Advice on further actions to address constraints and maximise opportunities to enable the proposals to proceed in accordance with nature conservation legislation and policy is also provided. Please note that the results of an Ecological Appraisal are not equivalent to a full Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) and so potentially significant ecological effects arising from a Proposal may not be fully understood at the time of reporting on an Ecological Appraisal.
1.19 EPR’s approach takes account of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s (CIEEM) advice in Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland (September 2018).
1.20 An ecological appraisal comprises two main elements: 1) A desktop review of the ecological and policy context; and 2) a field survey of the development site and, where possible, any other areas likely to be affected.
1.21 The following articles of nature conservation legislation and planning policy are of relevance to the Proposals, and have been considered as part of this appraisal:
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017; The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended);
The Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000;
The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006;
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey P19/34-1C Final Report – 18 July 2019
3
The Protection of Badgers Act 1992; and
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF),(2018).
1.22 Wokingham Borough Council is the relevant planning authority. Core Strategy Policies of potential relevance to the proposals include:
CP1 – Sustainable Development; and
CP7 – Biodiversity.
Policies from the WBC Managing Development Delivery Document (Local Plan), adopted 2014, of potential relevance include:
Policy CC03: Green Infrastructure, Trees and Landscaping;
Policy TB14: Whiteknights Campus;
Policy TB23: Biodiversity and Development.
1.23 In addition to the above, biodiversity objectives detailed in the following documents have been considered:
Biodiversity 2020: A Strategy for England’s Wildlife and Ecosystem Services; The 25 Year Environment Plan;
The University of Reading’s Biodiversity Strategy.
1.24 Further information on the above is provided in Appendix 2.
Methods and Constraints
1.25 This Ecological Appraisal has drawn on information collected through a desktop study and a field visit carried out by Helen Demopoulos of EPR on 1 July 2019. The Building inspection for bats was carried out by Joshua Sowden and Anna Showan of EPR on 1 July 2019. The methodologies used have been described in more detail in Appendix 3.
1.26 It was possible to view the majority of the outside of the building with the naked eye and using binoculars, however smaller sections of the very tops of the roofs were not visible from the ground, possibly obscuring suitable roosting features from view. One of the four main loft voids was not fully accessible for survey, Loft D (Map 5), due to active use by patients at the time of survey. However, it was noted that the ceilings of the top floor of this part of the building were very high so the loft void may be small or not present at all.
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey P19/34-1C Final Report – 18 July 2019
4
2. NATURE AND EXTENT OF PREDICTED BIOPHYSICAL CHANGES
Predicted Biophysical Changes 2.1 Certain activities associated with the preparation, construction and operation of the Proposal are likely to generate biophysical changes. These changes, and the Zone of Influence (ZoI) over which they are likely to occur, are summarised in Table 2.1 below.
Table 2.1: Summary of predicted changes and Zone of Influence
Predicted Change Zone of Influence Preliminary Activities Vegetation clearance for site compounds Site Construction Phase Turf stripping for car parking Site Soil removal for car parking Site Lighting changes? Site Set up and subsequent removal of site compound; Site storage areas for turf Operational Phase Loss of small areas of grassland Site Decommissioning Phase Recycling of material and re-use and disposal Site and surrounding area
2.2 The Zones of Influence for each of these predicted changes are considered to be within the Site or in the immediately surrounding area.
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey P19/34-1C Final Report – 18 July 2019
5
3. RESULTS OF ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL
Introduction
3.1 The findings of the Ecological Appraisal are set out below, including:
The potential for important ecological features to be present within the ZoI that could be affected by the Proposals;
Potentially significant impacts (both positive and negative) that could occur as a result of the predicted biophysical changes described in Section 2, in the absence of impact avoidance and mitigation measures;
A broad overview, where possible, of the measures that are likely to be required to avoid, mitigate and as a last resort compensate for significant negative effects on important ecological features;
Opportunities to deliver net gains in biodiversity in accordance with the aspirations of National and local planning and biodiversity policy, including Section 15 of the NPPF; and
Recommendations for further survey necessary to inform assessment and design of the above, compliance with policy, legislation and/or ongoing management of the site.
Ecological Context 3.2 Whiteknights Campus is located in Reading, approximately 2 km south of the River Thames. The area where Site is, marked by the red line boundary on Maps 1 and 2, is on the eastern side of Whiteknights campus. The landscape to the east of the Site is suburban, and to the west and north is Whiteknights Lake and parkland with scattered planted trees and buildings. To the south of the Site are University buildings and the Harris Garden, a small botanic garden.
3.3 Data from the Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre (TVERC) was obtained and the relevant species data is discussed below.
Designated Sites
3.4 Map 1 shows the nature conservation designations up to 5 km from the site of the Proposals.
Statutory Designated Sites 3.5 The closest statutory designated sites are High Wood and Maiden Erlegh Woods Local Nature Reserves (LNRs), both just over 1 km to the north-east and south-east respectively. Parts of both of these LNRs have been included on the Ancient Woodland inventory. Neither of these are likely to be affected by the proposals.
3.6 Other LNRs exist within 5 km of the site; these are predominantly designated on account of their woodlands apart from Ali’s Pond LNR which is an urban fringe LNR with a high level of biodiversity.
3.7 Lodge Wood and Sandford Mill SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) is approximately 4 km to the east of the Site and designated for its populations of Loddon Lily and Summer Snowflake plants. This SSSI is very unlikely to be affected by the proposals.
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey P19/34-1C Final Report – 18 July 2019
6
Non-Statutory Designated Sites 3.8 Whiteknights Park Local Wildlife Site (LWS), part of the Whiteknights Campus, surrounds the Site on 3 sides at a distance of approximately 200 m from the nearest part (see Map 2). The habitat of the LWS is contiguous with that of the Site. The LWS encompasses Whiteknights lake, which is large and eutrophic, and a mosaic of landscaped trees within mown grassland and some mixed secondary woodland. It is also noted for its ornithological interest.
3.9 High Wood and Maiden Erlegh Woods are Local Wildlife Sites as well as being LNRs.
3.10 The proposals are unlikely to adversely affect Whiteknights Park LWS or any of the other Local Wildlife Sites within the vicinity of the Site.
Habitats 3.11 Relevant protected and notable species from the TVERC data search are discussed below. Data of flowering plants is presented on Map 3. It is worth noting that there are a large number of records for Whiteknights Campus, due to its situation as part of Reading University, and the number of habitat types, particularly the trees and large lake, that can support a high biodiversity. The distribution of broad habitat types and features noted during the field visit are presented on Map 4, with Target Notes (TN) and are described further below.
Amenity Grassland
3.12 Parts of the Site are very close mown and have been marked as Amenity grassland on Map 4. TN 1: Within the Rye-grass Lolium perenne are common species such as Daisy Bellis perennis, Yarrow Achillea millefolium, Ribwort Plantain Plantago lanceolata and Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. Closer to the tree belt is Herb-robert Geranium robertianum and Cow Parsley Anthriscus sylvestris.
3.13 TN 3: This area contains similar species to TN1, with Bird’s-foot Trefoil Lotus corniculatus and Dove’s-foot Cranesbill Geranium mole.
3.14 TN 5: Common species as above, such as Rye-grass, Yarrow, Daisy, plus Lesser Trefoil Trifolium dubium, Common Cat’s-ear Hypochoeris radicata, and Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens.
3.15 TN 8: This area is north-east of the main building and on the western side of the footpath. It is mown short and comprises mainly Rye-grass together with common species previously recorded in TN 5.
3.16 TN 9: This is situated between the main Erlegh House building and the road in the north eastern area of the Site. It contains common species such as Daisy, Yarrow, Common Cat’s-ear, Dove’s-foot Crane’s-bill, Self-heal Prunella vulgaris, and Lesser Trefoil.
3.17 TN 10: This is improved grassland and is situated in the south western corner of the Site. Species recorded include Yarrow, Daisy, Bird’s-foot Trefoil, Lesser Trefoil and Field Bindweed Convolvulus arvensis.
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey P19/34-1C Final Report – 18 July 2019
7
Evaluation 3.18 Due to their management the areas of close-mown amenity grassland have a limited floral diversity and do not currently support any of the plant species marked on Map 3.
Poor Semi–Improved Grassland – Managed as Wildflower Meadow 3.19 TN 4: This area of long grassland, managed as a wildflower meadow, contains some of the common species listed above such as Yarrow and Bird’s-foot trefoil, and Field Bindweed. In addition, TN 4 contains species that are indicative of semi-improved calcareous grassland such as such as Black Knapweed Centaurea nigra, Smaller Cat’s-tail Phleum bertellonii and Creeping Bent Agrostis capillaris.
3.20 TN 7: This area of long grassland surrounds outbuilding no. B7 and the habitat continues as far as the footpath leading north out of the Site, up to TN 8 as shown on Map 4. Species within this area include Common Ragwort Senecio jacobea, Common Cat’s-ear, Yarrow, Greater Knapweed Centaurea scabiosa, Bird’s foot Trefoil, Teasel, Oxeye Daisy Leucanthemum vulgare, Smaller Cat’s-tail, Creeping Thistle Cirsium arvense, Forget-me-not Myosotis arvensis, Perforate St John’s-wort Hypericum perforatum, Corn Marigold Chrysanthemum segetum and Cornflower Centaurea cyanus. Other common species recorded also in other areas and present here include Ribwort Plantain, Bird’s-foot Trefoil, Dove’s-foot Crane’s-bill and Creeping Bent.
Evaluation and Mitigation 3.21 The area around TN 7 supports the highest diversity of plants on the Site and includes species that are uncommon and vulnerable such as Cornflower and Corn Marigold (these are marked on Map 3 and have been recorded by previous surveyors on Whiteknights Campus). It is likely that these plants are from wildflower seed sown around Park House just to the west of Erlegh House.
3.22 The Semi-improved grassland within and surrounding the Site is considered to be of Local value. If it contained species that could be present without wildflower seeding the value would be higher.
3.23 The area between Building B7 and TN 8 is to be lost due to creation of parking spaces. It is recommended that other areas of wildlflower meadow are created to recompense for this loss. They can be sown with wildflower seed or alternatively, seed from the area of TN 7 can be used to seed them when it is mown at the end of the summer. A suitable new wildflower area could be the southern end of the Site adjacent to the hedgerow, in what is currently TN 10 – Amenity Grassland.
Planted Trees 3.24 There are several areas of planted trees within and surrounding the Site, creating shade and greater habitat diversity.
3.25 TN 6 is marked separately on Map 4 as it is within the red line boundary and close to the building. This is a Silver Birch Betula pendula surrounded by Ivy Hedera helix on the ground and a Buddleja Buddleja davidii. There is also some ornamental planting within this small area.
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey P19/34-1C Final Report – 18 July 2019
8
3.26 Other areas of planted trees are marked on Map 4. None of the trees that are located within or partly within the red line boundary are very mature, and they are fairly small. None are suitable for supporting bat roosts.
Hedgerow 3.27 The hedgerow at the southern part of the Site is wide and species rich, and next to a footpath that runs in an approximately west-east direction across the campus. Species recorded include Hazel Corylus avellana, Field Maple Acer campestre, Elm Ulmus procera, Yew Taxus baccata, Holly Ilex aquifolium, Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, Oak Quercus robur and Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna. There is Ivy covering some of the ground and several standard Oak trees.
3.28 The hedgerow has been classed as a species rich hedgerow and is of Local importance. It is being retained intact.
Fauna
Bats
3.29 Species records obtained from TVERC are accurate to 1 km square. Bat species that have been recorded within the Site itself, or within the 5 km radius of the Site are listed below with the number of records of each.
Bat species Scientific Name Number of records of species within a 5 km radius of Site Bat (unknown species) 43 Barbastelle Barbastellus barbastellus* 1 Serotine Eptesicus serotinus 24 Myotis species Myotis sp. 67 Daubenton’s Bat Myotis daubentonii 67 Natterer’s Bat Myotis nattereri 21 Nyctalus species Nyctalus sp* 4 Leisler’s Bat Nyctalus leisleri 5 Noctule Nyctalus noctula 190 Pipistrelle bat species Pipistrellus sp. 169 Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus 502 Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus* 378 Nathusius’s Pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii 16 Long-eared Bat Species Plecotus sp. 29 Brown Long-eared Bat Plecotus auritus* 155
* Listed on NERC – section 41
3.30 All of the common bat species found in the UK are found within a 5 km radius of the Site, plus a couple of less common species such as Barbastelle and Nathusius’s pipistrelle.
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey P19/34-1C Final Report – 18 July 2019
9
Building Inspection Results – Erlegh House External 3.31 Erlegh House (B1 on Map 5) is a modern three storey building with a footprint of approximately 2,600m2. The building is currently being refurbished, to change its use from B1(b) Use (research and development) to D1 Use (clinical care). Various offices, consultation rooms and treatment spaces occupy the first three floors and plant rooms take up the majority of the loft spaces. There are several small, single storey substation buildings and a temporary pre-fabricated office to the north of the main building.
3.32 Habitat in the immediate vicinity of the buildings is largely hard standing with car parks, roads and pavements but also present is meadow grassland and planted immature trees which provide some foraging and commuting habitat. These habitats also link to the nearby Whiteknights Lake to the north and Wilderness to the south which are larger areas of greenspace, and are likely to provide decent foraging and potentially roosting resources within the wooded areas for local bat populations.
3.33 The walls are predominantly brick and are likely to have a cavity; there is plastic cladding on the southern aspect in places. The windows are simple with metal frames. There is a sheet metal workshop extension attached to the north of the building.
3.34 The roof of B1 is predominantly of pitched construction and slate-tiled with possible asbestos ridge tiles (Lofts A, B, C). The roof of Loft D is slate-tiled but of hipped construction, again with asbestos ridge tiles. Dormers forming vents for the plant rooms are present on the south facing aspects of Lofts A and C, and vents within the ridge tiles are present on Lofts A, C and D. All vents appear to have tight fitting mesh which would prevent bat access.
3.35 Lead flashing is present in places where the roof meets walls and is largely tight and in good condition although it has been lifted in places (see features below). Large plastic-coated plywood soffit boxes are present along the eaves of the entire building. Vents with plastic mesh are present on the underside of these every 0.5m, although the mesh is missing in many places, providing access to the inside of the soffit boxes.
3.36 Smaller sections of flat roof are present, with a paved and gravel plaza area in the centre of the building and a flat metal roof present on the sheet metal workshop on the northern side of B1.
Features 3.37 There are numerous external features which could provide access to roosting spaces or which are roosting features themselves. Where possible these were inspected with torch or endoscope although the majority of the features were inaccessible.
3.38 Feature locations are plotted on Map 5 and described in Table 3.4 below, with photographs of the features found in Appendix 3. Due to the high number of features and similarity of each type of feature, they are described as general features unless a particular feature is of exceptional interest.
Feature type Description Lifted ridge tile Asbestos ridge tiles appear to be raised in places where bats could potentially roost under or crawl through into void between loft insulation and roof tiles. Lifted lead Lead flashing is raised, potentially providing roosting crevice.
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey P19/34-1C Final Report – 18 July 2019
10
Hole on underside of soffit Purpose-built holes on underside of the soffit boxes over box 0.5m are supposed to have a plastic mesh cap; however these are missing in many places providing access into soffit boxes. Slipped/ broken roof slate Gaps around roof slates which could provide access under roof tiles. Hole in cladding Hole on underside of plastic wall cladding at ground floor level behind concrete pillar could provide access into any cavity behind wall cladding. Vents in brickwork Numerous purpose-built vents present above windows on all storeys. They appear to be very small and no evidence that they are of sufficient depth to provide roosting feature themselves but may lead to wall cavity in places. Nesting bird Droppings and nesting material present on pipe underneath eaves indicated nesting bird (probably Pigeon) is present. Hole in brickwork Two ~ 8 cm diameter holes present in brickwork at approximately 2m height where pipes have been removed. Holes provide access into cavity wall.
Building Inspection Results – Erlegh House Internal 3.39 There are four loft spaces/ voids present at B1 (see Map 1), of which three were fully accessible at the time of survey (A,B,C), these were all functioning as plant rooms with large amounts of machinery.
Lofts A and C 3.40 Lofts A and B are of identical dimensions and construction. They are both used as plant rooms; storing air conditioning equipment, pipes and workshop areas. Access to these lofts was through doors at TN’s 1, 2, 5 and 7 on Map 5. The loft spaces were both approximately 40m x 15m and 8m at the highest point with breeze block walls and solid concrete floors. The lofts were open to the rafters with a combination of metal and wooden trusses and a wooden ridge beam. Tyvec-like foam insulation boards were present between the trusses and were very tight with no gaps. Both lofts were very well-lit with tube lighting and no obvious access points for bats were observed; all vents (present on southern aspects and the gable ends) were meshed, and any gaps in insulation boarding or at the eaves were plugged tightly with rockwool.
Loft B 3.41 Loft B is also a plant room and is connected to Lofts A and C by doors (TN 3 and 4) through which it can be accessed. The space is very well lit by tube lighting and is cluttered with machinery, water tanks and pipes, creating considerable noise. The roof structure with metal and wooden trusses is identical to that of Lofts A and C. The loft space measures approximately 18m x 6m and is 8m high at the highest point of the half-pitched roof. Vents on the southern aspect of the loft were all tightly meshed and no bat access points were noted.
Loft D 3.42 Loft D was not available to access at the time of survey and so the dimensions and characteristics of the space are not known.
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey P19/34-1C Final Report – 18 July 2019
11
Evaluation of Building B1 3.43 Building B1 is a large structure which contains many external features suitable for crevice- dwelling bat species. The loft spaces are very unlikely to support roosting bats due to the apparent lack of access for bats, as well as high light and noise levels. The surrounding habitat, although likely to be well lit, provides suitable links to nearby higher quality areas of foraging habitat. It is therefore considered that Building B1 has Moderate suitability to support roosting bats following the BCT Good Practice Guidelines (2016).
Outbuildings B2 – B6 3.44 Buildings B2-B6 are all small, single storey electricity sub-station buildings of similar age and construction. They are brick-built with pitched sheet metal roofs which have various metal vents and chimneys on them, no windows are present. No external features or gaps providing access inside were observed on any of the buildings.
Evaluation 3.45 Due to the lack of potential roosting features, buildings B2-B6 were deemed to have Negligible potential to support roosting bats under the BCT Guidelines.
Outbuilding B7 (Site Office) 3.46 B7 is a single storey pre-fabrication office building with a flat metal roof, simple metal windows and areas of metal cladding around the eaves. The entire building appears to be in good condition with no obvious gaps or roosting features for bats.
Evaluation 3.47 With no obvious roosting features or entry points, B7 is assessed as having Negligible potential under the BCT Guidelines.
Outbuilding B8 3.48 B8 is a modern brick and wooden slat electricity sub-station shed with a slightly single-pitched bitumen roof. The internal of the building is very light and open to air movement from the outside due to the wooden slats on the eastern and western aspects. No external roosting features/ gaps were observed and it is considered that the inside of the shed is unsuitable for roosting bats due to high light levels and likely fluctuating temperatures from being open to air movement.
Evaluation 3.49 B8 is considered to have Negligible potential to support roosting bats under the BCT Guidelines.
Evaluation and Effects of Proposals 3.50 Records of bats from TVERC within the Site are of common and widespread species. Records of other bats within 2 km of the Site that are less common are mainly from within woodlands. The bat assemblage here is considered to be of Local importance.
3.51 The proposals are for the internal refurbishment of the main Erlegh House building (building B1), demolition of the outbuildings (B2 – B8) and for additional car parking. There are no external works planned for the building. It is considered that the effects on bats will be very limited as none of the areas that appear to be suitable for roosting bats will be affected by the proposals. No further work is therefore planned.
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey P19/34-1C Final Report – 18 July 2019
12
Non-flying Mammals 3.52 There are records of Badger Meles meles within Whiteknights campus, but no signs were observed within the Site itself during the survey. The closest Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius record is outside of the Whiteknights Campus to the to the south east.
3.53 There are a number of Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus records, listed on s41 of the NERC Act, from Whiteknights Campus. During the survey a dead Hedgehog was found next to Building B7.
3.54 These three species are very unlikely to be affected by the proposals as they currently stand. Enhancement measures such as provision of hibernation boxes for Hedgehogs is recommended within chapter 4, as this species is rapidly declining.
Birds
3.55 There is a large number of bird records from TVERC from within Whiteknights Campus, notably a large number of Swift records spread over the campus. Swifts have declined in recent years and are listed on s41 of the NERC Act.
3.56 Birds noted whilst on site included common species such as Blackbird Turdus merula, Robin Erithacus rubecula, Chiff chaff Phylloscopus collybita, Magpie Pica pica, Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis and Blue Tit Cyanistes cyanistes.
Effects of Proposals 3.57 The proposals are unlikely to reduce habitat for the majority of bird species as only a small area of wildlflower meadow is being lost and a few young planted trees. Recommended enhancements include the provision of Swift boxes on suitable areas of the main building.
Invertebrates 3.58 Invertebrate data from TVERC shows Stag beetle Lucanus cervus records from Whiteknights Campus. Invertebrates recorded within Whiteknights Campus that could potentially be supported by habitats adjacent to the Site include 3 Notable B beetles: Orsodacne humerilis, a rare beetle found on shrubs and broad-leaved trees, Variimorda villosa, a beetle found in trees and parkland and Phytoecia cylindrica, a beetle that feeds on umbellifers. There is also a record of Nephus quadrimaculatus, an Ivy-feeding beetle listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red list.
3.59 The butterflies Small Heath Coenonympha pamphilus, White Admiral Limenitis camilla, Small Blue Cupido minimus and Chalkhill Blue Polyommatus coridon have all been recorded in the past from Whiteknights Campus (TVERC, 2019). During the Ecological Appraisal, common species such as Common Blue Polyommatus Icarus, Marbled White Melanargia galathea and Meadow Brown Maniola jurtina were noted within the grassland managed as wildflower meadow.
3.60 Other invertebrates noted during the survey included 7-spot Ladybird Coccinella septempunctata and several nectaring bees.
3.61 The value of the invertebrate fauna supported on Site is likely to be of Local importance. The impacts of the proposals on invertebrates is unlikely to be significant but is dependant on the continuation of the current management regime of wildflower meadow management.
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey P19/34-1C Final Report – 18 July 2019
13
3.62 Recommended enhancement work is recommended which includes increasing some of the area for wildlflower meadow.
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey P19/34-1C Final Report – 18 July 2019
14
4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Introduction 4.1 Based on the results of the Ecological Appraisal outlined above, no further survey or assessment work is recommended.
Recommendations for Impact Avoidance and Mitigation and Opportunities for Net Biodiversity Gain 4.2 The following summarises opportunities for incorporating impact avoidance and mitigation measures into the scheme:
The retention of the hedgerow at the southern end of the Site; and
Minimising the number of trees to be removed through the parking layout.
4.3 The following are recommendations for enhancements that provide opportunities for delivering net biodiversity gains in accordance with National aspirations enshrined in the NPPF and 25 Year Environment Plan:
Creation of wildflower meadow in areas of amenity grassland that is currently close mown (TN 9 and TN 10 on Map 4);
Installation of 2 Hedgehog hibernation boxes within sheltered places; and
Installation of 6 Swift nest boxes in clusters on suitable places on Erlegh House building.
4.4 It should be noted that if the proposals in Appendix 1 change in any way, the conclusions of this report will need to be checked to make sure that they are still applicable.
Conclusions
4.5 With the proposed mitigation in place the ecological impacts of the proposals outlined in Appendix 1 are considered to have no significant effect on the important ecological features within the ZOI and the proposals will comply with applicable nature conservation related legislation and policy. Impacts to Species of Principal Importance for Nature Conservation (s41 species) are considered to be not significant.
4.6 Mitigation as part of the design and suggested enhancements are listed above, and with these in place the effects of the proposals on the ecology of the Site are considered to be neutral or positive.
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey P19/34-1C Final Report – 18 July 2019
15
5. REFERENCES
CIEEM (2018). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine. CIEEM https://www.cieem.net/data/files/ECIA%20Guidelines.pdf
Crawley, M J (2005) Flora of Berkshire Brambleby Books, Harpenden, Hertfordshire.
Day J, Mayer E, and Newell D (2019) The Swift – A Bird You Need to Help! In Practice, Issue 104, June 2019, CIEEM.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework.
JNCC (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – A technique for environmental audit. Revised Edition. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Le Grice, D & Jury, S L (2011) Flora of Whiteknights Park – A survey of the plants of the University of Reading, Whiteknights Campus. University of Reading
Natural England (2015) National Character Area Profile 115: Thames Valley. Natural England.
Stace, C. A. (2010) New Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press.
University of Reading, Estates and Facilities Dept (2017) Whiteknights Campus – University of Reading Management Plan. University of Reading.
University of Reading, Estates and Facilities Dept. (2017) Biodiversity Policy University of Reading.
Erlegh House, Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading Ecological Appraisal & Building Bat Survey P19/34-1C Final Report – 18 July 2019
16
Maps
Map 1 Statutory Designated Sites Map 2 Policy Sites within 2 km of the Proposals including Local Wildlife Sites Map 3 Protected and notable species records: Flowering Plants Map 4 Protected and notable species records: Habitats and Features Map 5 Results of Building Survey for Bats
MAP 1 Site Loc ation & N ature Clayfie ld Copse LN R Conse rvation De signations
KEY
Site b ound ary
2km b uffe r of site b ound ary
Ali's 5km b uffe r of site b ound ary Pond LN R Le gally De signate d Site s
Site s of Spe c ial Sc ie ntific Inte re st (SSSI)
Ald e r Moors LN R Loc al N ature Re se rve s (LN R)
Lod ge W ood N atural England ’s Provisional Anc ie nt & Sand ford W ood land Inve ntory Mill SSSI Louse hill Copse LN R Anc ie nt & Se mi-N atural W ood land Lave lls Lake LN R Anc ie nt Re plante d W ood land
Highwood LN R Lod ge W ood & Sand ford Mill SSSI
Maid e n Erie gh Park LN R
Pe arman's Copse LN R
SCALE: 1:40,000 at A3 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Me tre s ±
Ecological Planning & Research
CLIEN T: Be rkshire He althc are N HS Found ation Trust
PROJECT: Erle gh House
DATE: 12 July 2019
Y :\Er le gh House , Re ad ing\GIS\EA\Map1_Site _Loc al_De signations_P1934_120719.mxd P19/34
Cre d its: Sourc e s: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Inte rmap, inc re me nt P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, N PS, N RCAN , Ge oBase , IGN , Kad aste r N L, Ord nanc e Surve y, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © Ope nStre e tMap c ontrib utors, and the GIS Use r Community © N atural England c opyright. Contains Ord nanc e Surve y d ata © Crown c opyright and d atab ase right 2019. MAP 2 Policy Sites within 2 km of the Proposals including Local Wildlife Sites
KEY
Site boundary
2km buffer of site boundary
Reading Cemetery LWS Local Wildlife Sites (LWS)
High Wood, Bulmershe LWS Whiteknights Park LWS
Whitley Park Farm/St Patricks Hall Pond LWS
Maiden Erlegh Woods LWS
Redhatch Copse LWS
Rushey Way Pond LWS SCALE: 1:18,000 at A3 The Cowsey 0 250 500 750 1,000 Metres ± LWS
Ecological Planning & Research
CLIENT: Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
PROJECT: Erlegh House
DATE: 12 July 2019
Y:\Erlegh House, Reading\GIS\EA\Map2_Policy_Sites_within_2km_P1934_120719.mxd P19/34
Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre -TVERC/19/168 MAP 3 Protected and Notable Species - Flowering Plants
KEY
Site boundary
2km buffer of site boundary ")")*#")")*# 5km buffer of site boundary ") Annual Knawel *# Large-leaved Lime *#XW ") Bell Heather *# Lesser Spearwort ") Bladder-sedge *# Lousewort ") Bluebell *# Marsh Pennywort ") Butcher's-broom *# Marsh Speedwell ") Chamomile *# Mat-grass ")*# *#*# *#")^_!(")!( ") Chicory XW Midland Hawthorn ") Chives XW Mousetail ") Common Cow-wheat XW Nettle-leaved Goosefoot ") Common Valerian XW Quaking-grass ") ") Corn Marigold XW Ragged-Robin XW ")^_ !( Corn Spurrey XW Sanicle ")*#!( !( Cornflower XW Sea-buckthorn !( !( Creeping Yellow-cress XW Small Cudweed ") XW !( Cross-leaved Heath XW Small Pondweed !( Crosswort XW Spiny Restharrow ^_")")")^_ !( Devil's-bit Scabious XW Star Sedge ") ^_^_*#")!(XW") ^_^_!(!(") !( Dittander ^_ Stinking Chamomile ") !( Fringed Water-lily ^_ Summer Snowflake *# *# !( Goldenrod ^_ Tormentil ") ") !( Good-King-Henry ^_ Treacle-mustard XW!(") !( Grape-hyacinth ^_ Trifid Bur-marigold ")") *# Greater Duckweed ^_ Wild Pansy *# Heath Cudweed ^_ Wild Strawberry ")") *# Heath Milkwort ^_ Wood Horsetail XW ^_ ") *# Heath Speedwell Wood Small-reed XWXW ") XW ^_ *# Heather ") Wood-sorrel
SCALE: 1:15,000 at A3 ")")")!( 0 250 500 750 1,000 Metres ±
")!( ")!(
Ecological Planning & Research
CLIENT: Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
PROJECT: Erlegh House
DATE: 15 July 2019
Y:\Erlegh House, Reading\GIS\EA\Map3_Protected_Notable_Species_Plants_P1934_150719.mxd P19/34
Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Data from Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre -TVERC/19/168 - 12th July 2019 MAP 4 Habitats and Features
KEY
Site boundary
Target note
mn mn mn mn Planted tree B7 B8 B 8 Buildings B5 7 B6 Hardstanding
Managed wildflower meadow B3 B2 B4 Native species-rich hedgerow
9 5 Ornamental planting mn6 Short mown amenity grassland 4 mn B1 Trees mn mn mn mn 3 mnmn
mn 1 mn 2
mn SCALE: 1:700 at A3 0 10 20 30 40 50 Metres ± mn
10
Ecological Planning & Research
CLIENT: Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
PROJECT: Erlegh House
DATE: 15 July 2019
Y:\Erlegh House, Reading\GIS\EA\Map4_Habitats_and_Features_P1934_150719.mxd P19/34
y t i n u m m o C r e s U S I G e h t
d n a , N G I , D I R G o r e A , S G S U , A D S U , S D s u b r i A / S E N C , s c i h p a r g o e G r a t s h t r a E , e y E o e G , e b o l G l a t i g i D , i r s E : e c r u o S
4 3 / 9 1 P
d x m . 9 1 7 0 2 1 _ 4 3 9 1 P _ y e v r u S _ n o i t c e p s n I _ g n i d l i u B _ t a B _ 5 p a M \ A E \ S I G \ g n i d a e R , e s u o H h g e l r E \ : Y
9 1 0 2 y l u J 2 1 : E T A D
e s u o H h g e l r E : T C E J O R P
t s u r T n o i t a d n u o F S H N e r a c h t l a e H e r i h s k r e B : T N E I L C
h c r a e s e R & g n i n n a l P l a c i g o l o c E
± s e r t e M 0 2 5 1 0 1 5 0
3 A t a 0 0 6 : 1 : E L A C S
?
! ( ! (
! (
* #
* #
! (
?
! (
D t f o L
! (
! (
(
! ? * # ! (
! (
! (
g n i d l i u
B ?
! (
! (
! (
?
?
! !
! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (
! ( ! (
! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( 7 ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (
2 ? ? 5
!
d e n i m a x e t f o L
1 * #
" )
" )
) s w o d n i w
* * # #
* A t f o L #
*
# * *
# # * * # #
!
?
6
e v o b a ( l l a w f o e d i s e l o h w g n o l a s k c i r b r i A C t f o L
1 B
" )
)
? " " )
" )
" )
!
e t o n t e g r a T
? ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (
! ( ? ! ( ! (
!
!
? 4 3 ?
B t f o L
e l i t f o o r d e p p i l s / d e t f i L
" )
! ( ! ( ! (
e l i t e g d i r d e t f i L * #
4 B
!
8
2 B
3 B
g n i h s a l f d a e l d e t f i L * #
x o b t i f f o s f o e d i s r e d n u n i e l o H ! (
g n i d d a l c f o e d i s r e d n u n i e l o H
! (
6 B 5 B
8 B
t s e n d r i B ! (
7 B
y r a d n u o b e t i S
Y E K
s t a B r o f y e v r u S
g n i d l i u B y r a n i m i l e r P f o s t l u s e R 5 P A M
Appendix 1 Phase III Building Scheme – Outline Car Park Layout 23.10.17, Drawing no. 17031_T_A201 Revision L
Revisions:-
Date Rev. Description Prop. Low level screen planting - Ref A202 Drawing extended to cover existing parking 24/10/17 A Ex. Foot path to be redirected to Prop. Electric car parking points 8No between parking bays - final route to Additional parking spaces added (shown blue) Prop. & Ex. Street lighting - final design TBC 29/11/17 B be agreed Trees in this are to be removed - ref Revised following meeting with UoR 13 06 18 to tree report 13/06/18 C Additional bays added by cycle shelter Reading University 28/08/18 D Leased spaces added Atmospheric Observatory 30/08/18 E Drop-off added/amended, additional cycle shelter 18/09/18 F added, additional charging points added Barrier moved and existing path line amended 21/09/18 G 8 UoR Staff Staff Staff Car park entrance moved in accordance with 19/02/19 H arboreal advice. Drawing number changed to 201 Bays Bays 2m Spaces Demolished Bridges Hall wide Final Draft path 16/05/19 I Portacabin Sub Station 21 Demolished Ex Kerb lines to be adjusted (drop Layout changes to improve manoeuvring Staff Building kerb to car park) 12/07/19 J Bays Layout changes to improve manoeuvring Dia 811.1 16/07/19 K Prop. Access barrier (typical) Final alterations for planning
priority 18/07/19 L Oncoming (5-3) 2 vehicles have Dia 811.1 3 5
6 Parking Staff Only Dia 811.1 Motorbike Notes:- Dia 811.1 drop kerb Park priority Oncoming
vehicles have 3 UoR Space Dia 811.1 Ex. Gas tender The contractor is responsible for checking dimensions.
Staff Bin compound 3
YARD
BAY Mains Do not scale, work to figured dimensions.
Bays 5 Store removed SERVICE
Demolished LOADING Gas All discrepancies to be verified by CONTRACT Building HV Sub Station (STC) ADMINISTRATOR before proceeding with work. 4 Ex. HV Cables - ref to services information 4 These drawings are copyright under Designs & Patents 5 Act 1988 for commercial use. These drawings remain Prop. Pedestrian protection bollard (typical) the property of EDTS and cannot be shared, Motorbike reproduced, used for marketing or given to others (in 13 8 Park Prop. Banked kerb line to suite levels part or whole) without written permission of EDTS. 24 Space Car Park Ex. Oaks to be protected - refer to Please note this drawing is subject to a topographical 4 tree survey survey and final lighting design 88 New RAMP Car Park Ex. Parking barrier Spaces Existing space (163 less 12 removed) drop kerb Science & Technology Centre LANDING Proposed space Berkshire Healthcare/Royal Berkshire Trusts (82)
Proposed Space University of Reading (12) WALK WAY
Turning Space Head c/w Removed drop kerb. 2 12 Patient Bays (13-1) for car SLOW only & maintenance access/fire DROP OFF EDTS tender Look Both Ways Ex. Cycle shelters Estates Design & Technical Services
St Marks Hospital, St Marks Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 6DU. Patient Bays Patient Bays Patient Bays Staff Bays Tel Nº 01753 638600 Email: [email protected] Website: HTTP://www.edts.org.uk Ex. Cycle shed Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
Client:- 160 Existing Berkshire Healthcare Spaces Total Netted down 29 34 32 30 NHS Foundation Trust Ex. to 157 with Cycle shed addition of NHS Trust disabled parking Prop. Additional bays Location:- STC, University of Reading
Scheme:- Phase III Building Scheme
Drawing:- Outline Car Park Layout 10 5
Drawn by:- MH Foster Scale:- 1:250 Date:- 23.10.17 Paper size:- A1
Block Nº:- - Floor:- External Department: Various
Drawing Number:- Rev. 17031_T_A201 K Revisions:-
Date Rev. Description - Prop. Planing to be set back 1m from path edge to improve line of - - sight. The timber edging shall be returned to the kerb and the existing grass left in situ
Reading University Atmospheric Observatory
8 UoR Staff Staff Staff Bays Bays 2m Spaces Demolished Bridges Hall wide Portacabin 21 path Sub Station Demolished Staff Building Bays Dia 811.1
Notes:- priority Oncoming (5-3) 2 vehicles have Dia 811.1 3 5
6 The contractor is responsible for checking dimensions.
Parking Do not scale, work to figured dimensions. Staff Only Dia 811.1 Motorbike Dia 811.1 drop kerb Park All discrepancies to be verified by CONTRACT priority Oncoming
vehicles have 3 UoR Space Dia 811.1 ADMINISTRATOR before proceeding with work.
Staff Bin compound 3
YARD
BAY Mains
Bays 5 Store removed
SERVICE LOADING These drawings are copyright under Designs & Patents Demolished Gas Building HV Sub Station (STC) Act 1988 for commercial use. These drawings remain 4 the property of EDTS and cannot be shared, 4 reproduced, used for marketing or given to others (in
5 part or whole) without written permission of EDTS.
Motorbike 13 8 Park 24 Space Car Park
4 88 New RAMP Car Park Spaces drop kerb Science & Technology Centre LANDING
WALK WAY
Turning Space Head c/w Removed drop kerb. 2 12 Patient Bays (13-1) for car SLOW only & maintenance access/fire DROP OFF EDTS tender Look Both Ways Estates Design & Technical Services
St Marks Hospital, St Marks Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 6DU. Patient Bays Patient Bays Patient Bays Staff Bays Amenity Planting Schedule Tel Nº 01753 638600 Size (maintained, Email: [email protected] # Plant Size (planted) Spacing/m approx) Carpinus betulus 60/90cm 2L pot 90cm Website: HTTP://www.edts.org.uk 1 3 Ex. (Hornbeem) Cycle Lonicera nitida 20/40 90cm 4 shed 2 (Baggesen's Gold) 2L pot Choisya ternata 30/50cm 5L pot 90cm Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust 3 3 (Sundance) The contractor shall randomly select one plant type. Plant a c1m length then change plant type or best fit. There should be roughly equal linear meters of each type Client:- around the scheme 160 Existing Berkshire Healthcare The contractor shall allow for an initial water. Then again every 7 days up to 5 Spaces Total occurrences. Should planting be followed by hot or wet weather the contractor shall Netted down modify frequency or defer accordingly 29 34 32 30 NHS Foundation Trust Ex. to 157 with Cycle shed addition of NHS Trust disabled parking The center of the first plant in the hedge shall align with the start of the car parking bay. Planting shall then follow the bays shown by Location:- the indicative hedge lines STC, University of Reading
Hedging shall be planted centrally in a 1m wide bed, measured from the back of the kerb-line to a treated 100x25mm lawn edging Scheme:- Car Park board set flush with the existing ground level.
Drawing:- Planing Scheme 10 Prepared bed shall be covered in 100gsm Heavy Duty Weed Control 5 Ground Cover Membrane Fabric e.g. Yuzet this shall be dug in 100mm at all edgest to ensure it it well restrained. Finished with Drawn by:- MH Foster Scale:- 1:250 bark mulch of not less than 50mm thick Date:- 23.10.17 Paper size:- A1
Block Nº:- - Floor:- External SETTING OUT Department: Various
n.t.s Drawing Number:- Rev. 17031_T_A202 - RUSUHousesHouses The Lounge
Appendix 2 Relevant Legislation & Planning Policy
LEGISLATION
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (known as the “Habitats Regulations”) transpose the European Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the “Habitats Directive”) into UK legislation. The 2017 version consolidates the amendments made since the previous version in 2010.
The Habitats Regulations provide for the designation of both Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) in the UK, which form part of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas across Europe. The Regulations also prohibit certain actions relating to European Protected Species (EPS), which include inter alia Hazel Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius, Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus, European Otter Lutra lutra and all native species of bat.
Further information on SPAs, SACs and European Protected Species is provided in the relevant sub- sections of this Appendix.
Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is the principal mechanism for the legislative protection of wildlife in Great Britain. Various amendments have occurred since the original enactment. Certain species of bird, animal and plant (including all of the European Protected Species listed above) are afforded protection under Schedules 1, 5 and 8 of the Act. Reference is made to the various Schedules and Parts of this Act (Table A1.1) in the section of this Appendix dealing with Legally Protected Species. The Act also contains measures for the protection of the countryside, National Parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and public rights of way as well as preventing the establishment of invasive non-native species that may be detrimental to native wildlife.
Table A1.1: Relevant Schedules of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)
Schedule Protected Species
Schedule 1 Part 1 Protects listed birds through special penalties at all times
Schedule 1 Part 2 Protects listed birds through special penalties during the close season
Schedule 5 Section 9.1 Protects listed animals from intentional killing or injuring (killing/injuring)
Schedule 5 Protects listed animals from taking Section 9.1 (taking)
Schedule 5 Protects listed animals from being possessed or controlled (live or dead) Section 9.2
Schedule 5 Protects listed animals from intentional damage or destruction to any structure or place Section 9.4a used for shelter or protection
Schedule 5 Protects listed animals from intentional disturbance while occupying a structure or place Section 9.4b used for shelter or protection
Schedule 5 Protects listed animals from being sold, offered for sale or being held or transported for Section 9.5a sale either live or dead, whole or part
Schedule 5 Protects listed animals from being published or advertised as being for sale Section 9.5b
Protects listed plants from: intentional picking, uprooting or destruction (Section 13 1a); selling, offering for sale, possessing or transporting for the purpose of sale (live or dead, Schedule 8 part or derivative) (Section 13 2a); advertising (any of these) for buying or selling (Section 13 2b).
Schedule 9 Prohibits the release of species listed in the Schedule into the wild.
Allows environmental authorities to issue species control orders to landowners, obliging Schedule 9a them to control/eradicate invasive and/or non-native species.
Further information on legally protected species, designated wildlife sites and invasive non-native species is provided in the relevant sub-sections of this Appendix.
Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 Many of the provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 have been incorporated as amendments into the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and some provisions have now been superseded by later legislation such as The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006).
The most relevant changes provided by the CRoW Act include the added protection given to SSSIs and other important sites for nature conservation. Importantly, under the Act it became a criminal offence to "recklessly disturb" Schedule 1 nesting birds and species protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. It also enabled heavier penalties on conviction of wildlife offences.
The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 was intended to raise the profile of biodiversity amongst all public authorities (including local authorities, and statutory undertakers) and to make biodiversity an integral part of policy and decision-making processes. The NERC Act also improved wildlife protection by amending the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Section 40 (S40) of the Act places a ‘Biodiversity Duty’ on all public bodies to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity when carrying out their normal functions. This includes giving consideration to the restoration and enhancement of species and habitats.
Section 41 (S41) of the Act requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of habitats and species which are of Principal Importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. This was published in 2007 and is commonly referred to as the “S41 list”. Public authorities have a responsibility to give specific consideration to the S41 list when exercising their normal functions. For planning authorities, consideration for Species and Habitats of Principal Importance will be exercised through the planning and development control processes. Further information on Species and Habitats of Principal Importance is provided in the relevant sub-sections of this Appendix.
The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations 2003 Currently, the overriding legislation relating to freshwater is the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), which was enacted into law in England and Wales through the Water Environment Regulations in 2003. The Directive sets out objectives to deliver a better water environment based upon achieving a ‘good status’ for freshwater bodies. The new concept of ‘good status’ is a more rigorous measure of environmental quality than previous measures, which now takes into account not just the chemical status but also the ecological health and the extent of artificial physical modification to rivers.
The WFD is based upon the concept of protecting water through the management of river basin districts (RBDs), and requires the implementation of River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs). Regulation 17 of the WFD requires local authorities to ‘have regard’ of the RBMP when making planning decisions, for example through the granting of planning permission with appropriate planning conditions and/or obligations. These could require measures to be implemented (e.g. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), grey water recycling etc.) or funds to be provided for habitat enhancement schemes.
The WFD also affects planning policy through the implementation of Programmes of Measures for each river basin district. This involves bringing together funding from various sources and co-ordination of the activities of organisations with an interest in the use of land and water, including developers.
SITES DESIGNATED FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE
There is a hierarchy of nature conservation sites which is based on the level of statutory (legal) protection and the administrative level of importance. Other features of nature conservation interest outside designated sites may also be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.
Statutory Sites: International
Ramsar Sites, Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA)
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 provide the primary legal basis for the protection of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) in Great Britain.
SACs are sites which support internationally important habitats and/or species listed as being of Community Importance in the Annexes of the European Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. SPAs are sites which support internationally important numbers of bird species listed as being of Community Importance in the Annexes of the European Birds Directive 2009/147/EC. Together, SACs and SPAs make up the Natura 2000 network of Sites of Community Importance throughout Europe. They are often referred to as “European sites”.
Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance and are, as a matter of national planning policy, subject to the same strict protection as SACs and SPAs. The majority of terrestrial Ramsar sites in England are also notified as SPAs and/or Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).
Any plan or project considered likely to affect a SAC, SPA or Ramsar site must be subject to a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), as set out under Regulation 63 (and Regulation 105 in respect of Land Use Plans) of the Habitats Regulations 2017.
The local authority (or other ‘competent authority’) carries out the HRA, but the onus is on the developer to provide the necessary information to inform this process, usually in the form of a report.
Under the Habitats Regulations 2017, the competent authority must determine in the first instance whether a proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on the European or Ramsar site, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects. This stage of the HRA process is known as ‘screening’.
If a likely significant effect cannot be precluded (screened out) on the basis of objective information, the competent authority must undertake an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ to fully assess these implications against the site’s conservation objectives. A precautionary approach must be taken with respect to determining whether or not there would be a significant effect, and the appropriate nature conservation body (in most cases Natural England) should be consulted. Except in certain exceptional circumstances prescribed by the Regulations where there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest for allowing a development to proceed, the competent authority may not undertake or authorise the plan or project until they have established (based on the conclusions of the Appropriate Assessment) that the activity will not adversely affect the integrity of the European or Ramsar site. This should be the case where no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects.
Statutory Sites: National Nationally important sites include Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and National Nature Reserves (NNRs). A development proposal that is likely to affect a nationally important site will be subject to special scrutiny by the local planning authority and Natural England. Certain operations may be permitted. Any potentially damaging operations that could have an adverse effect directly or indirectly on the special interest of the site will not be permitted unless the reasons for the development clearly
outweigh the nature conservation and/or geological value of the site itself and the national policy to safeguard such sites, as set out in Section 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
Sites of Special Scientific Interest The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the CRoW Act 2000 provide the primary legal basis for the protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). These sites have been designated to capture the best examples of England’s flora, fauna, geological or physiographical diversity.
National Nature Reserves National Nature Reserves (NNRs) are declared under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. They are managed to conserve their habitats or to provide special opportunities for scientific study of the habitats communities and species represented within them. NNRs represent the very best parts of England’s SSSIs. The majority of NNRs also have European nature conservation designations.
Statutory Sites: Regional/Local
Local Nature Reserves
Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) are declared by local authorities under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as living green spaces in towns, cities, villages and countryside. They provide opportunities for research and education, or for simply enjoying and having contact with nature. LNRs are usually protected from development through local planning documents which may be supplemented by local by-laws.
Non-Statutory Sites
Local Wildlife Sites Local planning authorities may designate non-statutory sites for their nature conservation value based on important, distinctive and threatened habitats and species within a national, regional and local context. These sites are not legally protected but are given some protection through the planning system. These sites may be declared as ‘County Wildlife Sites’ (CWSs), 'Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation' (SINCs), or ‘Sites of Nature Conservation Importance' (SNCIs) in local and structure plans. Non-statutory sites are a material consideration when planning applications are being determined. The precise amount of weight to be attached, however, will take into account the position of the site in the hierarchy of sites as set out above. Further information is typically provided in local level planning policy.
Nature Conservation in Areas Outside Designated Sites Various other features exist outside designated sites that are important for the conservation of nature and which are a material consideration in the planning system.
Habitats of Principal Importance in England Fifty-six habitat types have been identified as Habitats of Principal Importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006. Although these habitats are not legally
protected, the NPPF, Government Circular 06/05, good practice guidance and the NERC Act place a clear responsibility on planning authorities to further the conservation of these habitats. They can be a material consideration in planning decisions, and so developers are advised to take reasonable measures to avoid or mitigate impacts to prevent their net loss and to enhance them where possible. Additional guidance to developers is typically provided in local level planning policy.
The S41 list also includes species as explained below under ‘Species of Principal Importance in England’.
Networks of Natural Habitats
Networks of natural habitats link sites of biodiversity importance and provide routes or stepping stones for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of species in the wider environment. Examples include rivers with their banks, traditional field boundary systems (such as hedgerows), ponds and small woods. Local planning authorities are encouraged through the NPPF to maintain networks by avoiding or repairing the fragmentation and isolation of natural habitats through planning, policies and development control.
Hedgerows Hedgerows can act as wildlife corridors that are essential for migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species. Hedgerows that qualify as a Habitat of Principal Importance under S41 of the NERC Act 2006 are a material consideration in the planning system.
Under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, it is an offence to remove a hedgerow without submitting a notice to the Local Planning Authority and waiting for their decision. The Regulations are aimed at countryside hedges and do not apply to hedges around private dwellings or where planning permission has been granted for a project that includes hedge removal. Hedgerows that satisfy wildlife, archaeological, historical or landscape criteria qualify as ‘important’ under the Regulations. If a hedgerow is not important, the Local Planning Authority may not prevent its removal; however, Local Planning Authorities are required under the Regulations to protect and retain Important hedgerows unless satisfied that the circumstances justify its removal.
Tree Preservation Orders Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) may be declared under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999 to protect individual trees and woodlands from development and cutting. TPOs are designed to preserve amenity or landscape conservation. The important of trees as wildlife habitat may be taken into account, but alone is not sufficient to warrant a TPO. For this reason, TPOs do not fit comfortably under the remit of nature conservation and are generally dealt with by an arboricultural consultant rather than an ecologist. Further guidance on TPOs in relation to development is available from the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Ancient Woodland & Veteran Trees
Ancient woodlands are defined as areas continuously wooded for at least 400 years. Even an ancient wood which has been replanted may still have remnants of ancient woodland wildlife and historical features and has potential to be restored. Ancient woodland is not a statutory designation and does not provide legal protection, but local authorities are advised under the NPPF and National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) not to grant planning permission for any development that would result in
the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland or veteran trees unless under ’wholly exceptional circumstances’. Local Planning Authorities must take into account Natural England and the Forestry Commission’s Standing Advice for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees.
Surface & Ground Waters Surface waters (including flowing and standing water) and ground water can directly and indirectly impact upon the conservation of nature.
Guidance on pollution prevention is hosted on the Government’s website and focuses on regulatory requirements. This covers topics including the prevention of pollution if you are a business, managing business and commercial waste, oil storage, working on or near water, and managing water on land. Careful planning and the application of these guidelines can help reduce the risk of construction and maintenance work causing pollution to surface and ground waters. Some activities with the potential to impact watercourses or groundwater may require consent under the Water Resources Act 1991.
Water Resources Act (WRA) 1991 Under the WRA there is strict regulation of discharges (including sediment, chemicals, nutrients) to rivers, lakes, estuaries and groundwaters. It also aims to ensure that polluters cover the costs associated with pollution incidents.
SPECIES PROTECTION
Legally Protected Species The species listed in the following subsections are protected by law in England. When preparing a planning application, it is essential to determine the presence or likely absence of legally protected species and the extent to which they may be affected by a proposed development. This can best be achieved by undertaking surveys early in the planning process. Avoidance and/or mitigation measures may be required to address any predicted impacts upon protected species and may necessitate a licence. The Government website offers standing advice from Natural England and DEFRA which can be applied to planning applications that affect protected species.
Bats There are 18 species of bat in the UK, seven of which are Species of Principal Importance in England. All bats and bat roosts are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Bats are also a European Protected Species protected under the Habitats Regulations 2017. It is an offence to:
Intentionally or deliberately kill, injure or capture bats;
Intentionally, deliberately or recklessly disturb bats in such a way as to be likely to significantly affect the ability of any significant group of bats to survive, breed, or rear or nurture their young or the local distribution of or abundance of a species of bat;
Intentionally, or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct any place used for shelter or protection (i.e. bat roosts) or intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat whilst it is occupying such a place;
Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a bat; and
Possess, sell or transport a bat, or anything derived from it.
Development proposals affecting bats or their roosts require a European Protected Species mitigation licence from Natural England.
Reptiles
All four of the widespread British species of reptile, namely the Common Lizard Zootoca vivipara, Slow- Worm Anguis fragilis, Grass Snake Natrix helvetica (previously Natrix natrix) and Adder Vipera berus, are Species of Principal Importance in England. They are protected under Schedule 5 (Sections 9.1, 9.5a, 9.5b) of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) from intentional killing, injury and trade. The habitat of the four widespread reptiles is not legally protected; however the replacement of habitat lost through development may be required through the planning system. Mitigation for these species is not subject to licensing by Natural England but should nonetheless be planned to minimise disturbance and potential project delays.
The Smooth Snake Coronella austriaca and the Sand Lizard Lacerta agilis are the rarest reptile species in Britain. In addition to the protection that is afforded to the widespread species of reptile listed above, these species are protected further under Schedule 5 (Sections 9.4b and 9.4c) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). They are also European Protected Species protected under the Habitats Regulations 2017. This legislation makes it an offence to:
Intentionally or deliberately kill, injure or capture Sand Lizards or Smooth Snakes;
Intentionally, deliberately or recklessly disturb Sand Lizards or Smooth Snakes in such a way as to be likely to significantly affect the ability of any significant group of Sand Lizards or Smooth Snakes to survive, breed, or rear or nurture their young or the local distribution or abundance of either species;
Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct any place used by Sand Lizards or Smooth Snakes for shelter or protection, or intentionally or recklessly disturb a Sand Lizard or Smooth Snake whilst it is occupying such a place;
Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a Sand Lizard or Smooth Snake; Keep, sell, or exchange Sand Lizards or Smooth Snakes or their eggs; and
Deliberately take or destroy their eggs.
Development proposals affecting Smooth Snake or Sand Lizard require a European Protected Species mitigation licence from Natural England.
Birds 49 species of bird are listed as Species of Principal Importance in England. All wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), making it an offence, with certain exceptions (e.g. game birds), to intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird and to take, damage or destroy their nests or eggs.
Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) affords extra protection for certain species and applies harsher penalties for offences. Any intentional or reckless disturbance of a Schedule 1 bird, whilst it is nesting or rearing dependent young, constitutes an offence.
Regulation 10 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 requires appropriate authorities and conservation bodies, in the exercise of their functions, to take such steps that they consider appropriate in order to secure “the preservation, maintenance and re-establishment of a sufficient diversity and area of habitat for wild birds in the United Kingdom, including by means of the upkeep, management and creation of such habitat (…)”.
European Badger The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 offers considerable protection to both badgers and badger setts. This legislation was enacted to protect the European Badger Meles meles against baiting and not as a means of species recovery as it is common in England. It is an offence to cruelly treat, kill or take Badgers, but it is also illegal to intentionally or recklessly damage or disturb a badger sett while it indicates signs of current use by a Badger.
The Government website contains information to help developers and their proponents avoid sett disturbance and to identify setts that are in current use. It is important to maintain adequate foraging territory in development proposals affecting badgers as the destruction or severance of large areas of foraging territory could also be taken to include habitat loss. Licences to disturb Badgers and their setts in respect of development may be issued by Natural England provided provisions are made to minimise disturbance.
Wild Mammals All wild mammals are protected against cruelty under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which makes it an offence to mutilate, kick, beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, crush, drown, drag or asphyxiate any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering.
Licences for Development Licences are required to permit activities prohibited under wildlife legislation, namely the disturbance or capture of protected species or damage to their habitats. Natural England is the licensing authority in England. Licences are only issued for certain purposes, which are set out in the legislation, and only where there is a valid justification. The licences most relevant to development scenarios are discussed below.
European Protected Species Mitigation Licences A European Protected Species mitigation licence (EPSL) is required from Natural England to undertake any development that is reasonably likely to result in an offence in respect of a European Protected Species protected under Schedule 2 of the Habitats Regulations 2017; including inter alia all species of bats, Hazel Dormouse, Great Crested Newt and European Otter. Natural England must be satisfied that the following three tests are satisfied before it will issue a licence covering a European Protected Species:
1. The proposal is necessary to preserve public health or public safety, or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment;
2. There is no satisfactory alternative; and
3. The proposal will have no detrimental effect to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.
Conservation Licences In the context of development, conservation licences are normally only relevant to mitigation involving the capture of Water Voles or White-Clawed Crayfish. Conservation licences are granted to permit the trapping and translocation of these species on the condition that the development activity is properly planned and executed and thereby contributes to the conservation of the population of the species.
Badger Licences Licences to disturb Badgers and their setts in respect of development may be issued by Natural England, provided provisions are made to minimise disturbance.
Species of Principal Importance in England 943 species have been identified as being of Principal Importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England under Section 41 (S41) of the NERC Act 2006. The S41 list includes species found in England which have been identified as requiring action under the now superseded UK Biodiversity Action Plan 2007 (plus the Hen Harrier). While many of these species may not be legally protected (some are protected under the legislation described above), there is a clear responsibility on local planning authorities to further their conservation. These species can be a material consideration in development control decisions and so developers are advised to take reasonable measures to avoid or mitigate impacts to prevent the net loss of these species, and to enhance their habitats where possible. Additional guidance to developers is typically provided in local level planning policies.
Invasive Non-Native Species There are a number of species not ordinarily resident in the UK, such as Japanese Knotweed. Those which pose a significant threat, if uncontrolled, to our ecology and economy are listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). For an offence to be committed, a species must be released or allowed to escape into the wild. For example, if a plant listed on Schedule 9 is not adequately controlled by a land owner, once they are aware that it is present, and the species is allowed to spread into adjoining areas, then this could constitute an offence.
Species Control Orders
A new schedule 9A was inserted into the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) by Sections 23 to 25 of the Infrastructure Act 2015. This gives environmental authorities (in England the Secretary of State, Environment Agency, Natural England and the Forestry Commission) the power to offer ‘species control agreements’ to landowners in respect of invasive and/or non-native species, such as Japanese Knotweed. If the landowner does not comply with a species control agreement, or refuses to enter into one, the environmental authority may issue a ‘species control order’, requiring the owner to eradicate or control the species, or to allow the environmental authority access to carry out these operations themselves.
If the owner does not comply with the species control order, the maximum penalty if convicted is a fine of up to £40,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 51 weeks. The environmental authority can also recover costs for carrying out the necessary work themselves.
PLANNING POLICY & GUIDANCE
This section set out the main planning policy and government guidance that relates to the conservation of nature at all levels of government.
National Level
National Planning Policy Framework 2018 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2018 sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied in local-level policy and decision making. The NPPF has a clear “presumption in favour of sustainable development” (paragraph 11), with economic, social and environmental objectives. This does not apply where development requiring Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Directive is being planned or determined (paragraph 177).
Section 15 of the NPPF provides guidance on conserving and enhancing the natural environment through the planning system, as summarised below.
Firstly, planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by applying the following key principles:
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);
minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;
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; and
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.
Section 15 also requires planning policies and decisions to limit the impact of artificial light pollution on nature conservation.
Secondly, when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following key principles:
if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or (as a last resort) compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;
proposed development that is likely to have an adverse effect on a SSSI (either individually or in combination with other developments) should normally be refused;
planning permission should normally be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and aged or veteran
trees, unless there are ‘wholly exceptional reasons’ and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and
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.
In the case of SSSIs and irreplaceable habitats, exceptions may be made if it can be clearly demonstrated that the benefits of the development, in that location, clearly outweigh the costs in terms of loss or adverse impacts.
Section 15 specifies that listed or proposed Ramsar sites, potential European sites, and sites identified or required as compensatory measures for adverse effects on designated/listed or potential/proposed European and Ramsar sites should be given the same protection as designated European sites.
Section 15 includes the following text on air quality:
Planning policies and decisions should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones, and the cumulative impacts from individual sites in local areas;
Opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts should be identified, such as through traffic and travel management, and green infrastructure provision and enhancement. So far as possible these opportunities should be considered at the plan- making stage, to ensure a strategic approach and limit the need for issues to be reconsidered when determining individual applications; and
Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones is consistent with the local air quality action plan.
The NPPF also sets out principles for plan-making, including the allocation of land with the least environmental or amenity value, and taking a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure by identifying, mapping and safeguarding components of local wildlife-rich habitats, wider ecological networks, wildlife corridors and stepping stones, and those areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration or creation.
Government Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation The Government produced Circular 06/05 to provide guidance on the application of the law to the conservation of nature. Although the document is in the process of being updated, Paragraphs 98 and 99 remain relevant as they set out the following principles and obligations:
The presence of protected species is a material consideration when determining a development proposal;
Local authorities should consult with Natural England before granting permission, and consider imposing planning conditions or obligations to secure the long-term protection of the species;
The presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent to which thy may be affected by the proposed development, must be established before permission is granted;
Given the delay and cost that may be involved, developers should not be required to undertake surveys for protected species unless there is a reasonable likelihood of the species being present and affected by the development.
DCLG Planning Practice Guidance Revised and updated Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) was launched by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) as a web-based tool in March 2014 to accompany the NPPF. The webpages are set out in a Q&A format. The PPG consolidates and supersedes existing guidance on a range of planning-related topics, clarifies some of the statements made in the NPPF, and provides links to relevant legislation and other sources of advice.
The Guidance outlines a number of important principles in relation to nature conservation and biodiversity, including the need to integrate biodiversity into all stages of the planning process and to consider opportunities to enhance biodiversity and contribute to the Government’s commitments and targets set out in Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services.
The guidance also requires that “an ecological survey will be necessary in advance of a planning application if the type and location of development are such that the impact on biodiversity may be significant and existing information is lacking or inadequate”, and recommends that “local planning authorities should only require ecological surveys where clearly justified, for example if they consider there is a reasonable likelihood of a protected species being present and affected by development.”
Other guidance In addition to the Planning Practice Guidance, various other forms of guidance and standards are available in relation to biodiversity and the development process. Of particular note is British Standard BS42020:2013 Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development, published in August 2013, which replaces Planning to Halt the Loss of Biodiversity (PAS 2010): Biodiversity conservation standards for planning in the United Kingdom.
This document is designed to complement the NPPF and is aimed at organisations concerned with ecological issues throughout the planning process, including local authorities, developers, planners and ecological consultants. It sets out step-by-step recommendations on how to incorporate biodiversity considerations at all stages of the planning process, with a focus on the provision of consistent, high quality and appropriate ecological information, effective decision making, and high standards of professional conduct and competence.
Regional Level Regional plans (such as the South East Plan Regional Spatial Strategy) have been revoked, but some specific policies have been saved. The only policy saved from the South East Plan is Policy NRM6, which relates to the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBH SPA).
Local Level Wokingham Borough Council is the relevant planning authority. Relevant planning policies include:
Core Strategy The Core Strategy (adopted 29 January 2010) is a policy document which determines the future development of the Borough until March 2026. This includes 21 policies and strategies to provide new housing, schools, roads, places to work and other services.
CP1 – Sustainable Development This policy states that planning permission will be granted for development proposals that: 1) Maintain / enhance the high quality of the environment; 2) Minimise the emission of pollutants into the wider environment; 3) Limit any adverse effects on water quality (including ground water); 4) Ensure the provision of adequate drainage. [The above list is not complete however the other points are not relevant to this report].
CP7 - Biodiversity Sites designated as of importance for nature conservation internationally or nationally will be conserved and enhanced and inappropriate development will be resisted. The degree of protection given will be appropriate to the site status in terms of its international or national importance.
Development which: A) May harm County designated sites (i.e. Local Wildlife Sites in Berkshire) – directly or indirectly, or B) May harm habitats or species of principal importance in England for nature conservation, veteran trees, or features of the landscape that are of major importance for wild flora and fauna (including wildlife and river corridors), whether directly or indirectly, or C) Compromises the implementation of national/regional/county and local Biodiversity Action Plans
will only be permitted if it has been clearly demonstrated that the need for the proposal outweighs the need to safeguard the nature conservation importance, that no alternative site would result in less or no harm is available which will meet the need, and: i) Mitigation measures can be put in place to prevent the damaging impacts; or ii) Appropriate compensation measures to offset the scale and kind of losses are provided.
‘The need for a development that affects a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) will be deemed to outweigh the need to safeguard the nature conservation interest where the development has clear social or economic benefits of national importance. The need for a development that affects Local Wildlife Sites, habitats or, species of principal importance in England for nature conservation, ancient woodland, veteran trees or features of the landscape that are of major importance for wild flora and fauna will be deemed to outweigh the need to safeguard the nature conservation interest where the development has clear social or economic benefits of regional or national importance’.
The conservation of sites designated as important to nature conservation, habitats or species of principal importance in England for nature conservation and features of the landscape that are of major importance for wild flora and fauna are essential for the maintenance of the area’s biodiversity and the quality of life of the Borough’s residents. All developments should take account of the biodiversity, and where possible developments should contribute to the enhancement of the Borough’s biodiversity. The Wokingham Borough Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) highlights targets where proposals can contribute towards their achievement, and the Council has identified a number of Biodiversity Opportunity Areas (BOAs) (in line with South East Plan Policy NRM5) that are priorities for the maintenance, restoration and creation of priority habitats. BOAs have the highest concentration of existing ecological sites e.g. Local Wildlife Sites. Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre (TVERC) surveyed the Borough for potential BOAs during 2007/2008.
The Managing Development Delivery DPD will provide further details on the application of this policy. The Berkshire Nature Conservation Forum advises on the boundaries of Local Wildlife Sites (formerly known as Wildlife Heritage Sites).
CP8 – Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area This policy states that development which alone or in combination is likely to have a significant effect on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA will be required to demonstrate that adequate measures to avoid and mitigate any potential adverse effects are delivered.
Wokingham Borough Authority and Natural England do not consider that it is generally possible to avoid impact from development within 400m of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.
The Site is just under 8.5 km from the TBH SPA, and as it is not for housing, it is unlikely that effects on the SPA will need to be considered further within this report.
Managing Development Delivery Document (Local Plan) – Adopted 21 February 2014 This planning document is the Adopted version of the Managing Development Delivery Local Plan document which is an important part of implementing the adopted Core Strategy. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Policy CC03: Green Infrastructure, Trees and Landscaping This policy, amongst other items, aims to protect and retain existing trees, hedges and other landscape features and to incorporate high quality, ideally native planting and landscaping as an integral part of the scheme. It also states that proposals shall comply with Policy TB23: Biodiversity and Development (see below).
Proposals must be supported by a landscaping scheme which must demonstrate which features are to be retained and how.
Policy TB14: Whiteknights Campus Development proposals will accord with the following criteria: Respect the historic landscape, open areas and listed buildings and their settings and the character of the area Areas of wildlife significance including LWS will be retained and enhanced The loss of undeveloped areas on the site will be weighed against the benefits of development to the wider community
Policy TB23: Biodiversity and Development Planning permission for development proposals will only be granted where they comply with Policy CP7 – Biodiversity of the Core Strategy (see above) and also demonstrate how they: a) Provide opportunities, including through design, layout and landscaping to incorporate new biodiversity features or enhance existing ones; b) Provide appropriate buffer zones between development proposals and designated sites as well as habitats and species of principal importance for nature conservation; c) Ensure that all existing and new developments are ecologically permeable through the protection of existing and the provision of new continuous wildlife corridors, which shall be integrated and linked to the wider green infrastructure network.
BIODIVERSITY PLANS AND STRATEGIES
The NERC Act 2006 places a duty on local authorities to have due regard to biodiversity when exercising their normal functions, and the NPPF requires planning policies to “promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species, and identify and pursue opportunities for securing measureable net gains for biodiversity” (paragraph 174). These targets are set out in a range of biodiversity plans and strategies from the international through to the district level.
An overview of the key biodiversity plans and strategies in the UK, and their implications for development, are set out below.
National level
The UK Biodiversity Action Plan 2007 (UK BAP) has been superseded by the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework and individual national biodiversity strategies. The UK Framework sets out the overarching vision, strategic goals and priority activities for the UK’s work towards international biodiversity targets (known as the ‘Aichi Targets’), as agreed by 192 parties at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in 2010.
In England, Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services is the national biodiversity strategy, which has the stated mission “(…) to halt overall biodiversity loss, support healthy well-functioning ecosystems and establish coherent ecological networks, with more and better places for nature for the benefit of wildlife and people.” In order to focus activity and assess performance in achieving this mission, Biodiversity 2020 sets out objectives relating to terrestrial and marine habitats and ecosystems, species and people.
Local level
While BAPs at the national level have now been superseded by the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework and Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services, many county and district level BAPs still exist.
‘The Natural Environment in Berkshire – Biodiversity Strategy 2014 – 2020’ is a statement on the current state of nature in Berkshire and a strategy for protecting and enhancing its natural environment. This builds on and replaces the Berkshire Biodiversity Action Plan. Relevant national outcomes are:
Outcome 1 – Habitats and Ecosystems on Land
A. Better wildlife habitats with 90% of priority habitats in favourable / recovering condition, at least 50% of SSSIs in favourable condition, while maintaining at least 5% in favourable / recovering condition.
B. More, bigger and less fragmented areas for wildlife, with no net loss of priority habitat and an increase in overall extent of priority habitats.
C. At least 17% of land and inland water conserved through effective, integrated and joined up approaches to safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services
D. Restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems as a contribution to climate change mitigation and adaption.
Outcome 3 – Species
An overall improvement of the status of wildlife, preventing further human-induced local extinctions.
Relevant Berkshire objectives to forward these outcomes include:
Objectives for Habitats
1.1 Devise a method to record the condition of Berkshire’s priority habitat outside of designated sites
1.2 Record & report on the condition of Berkshire’s Priority habitat outside of designated sites on an annual basis.
1.4 Increase habitat connectivity by encouraging targeted habitat creation within the BOAs
1.7 To ensure the Local Wildlife System is maintained and improved upon.
1.8 Promote the use of BOAs when guiding nature conservation effort and spending.
Objectives for Species
2.1 Maintain species records and encourage local recording
2.2 Identify key species for Berkshire where specific objectives would assist with species objective plans
2.3 Promote implementation of the Invasive Non-Native Species Framework strategy.
Delivering Net Gain Opportunities should also be sought to achieve a net gain (i.e. enhancement) of biodiversity. Support for biodiversity enhancement is provided in the Public Authority ‘Biodiversity Duty’ under the NERC Act 2006 and in the key principles of the NPPF, and increasingly in local level planning policy.
Enhancement projects may not just benefit biodiversity. There are many functional benefits to be won from strategically planned green infrastructure projects such as semi-natural urban green spaces, sustainable urban drainage schemes (SUDS) and green roofs. Planning conditions and obligations are increasingly being used to mandate biodiversity enhancement on or off a development site, either through design or financial support.
Appendix 3 Ecological Appraisal Methodology
This Ecological Appraisal has been completed following guidance in The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland (2018).
DESK STUDY METHODOLOGY
A desk study was carried out in order to gather and refer to existing biodiversity and contextual information with respect to the zone of influence and the wider area. This involved interrogation of internet resources, including the Multi-agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) and National Biodiversity Network (NBN), aerial photos, current Ordnance Survey maps and historical maps. Reference was also made to local planning policies, strategies and initiatives relating to biodiversity.
A request was made to Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre (TVERC) for any existing biological records in the databases. The local records search and other desktop research was over a 2km radius for nationally and locally important features and European Protected Species, and a 5 km radius for sites of European significance.
FIELDWORK METHODOLOGY
The field survey was completed by Helen Demopoulos on 1 July 2019. The perimeter of the Site and the sports field and immediately surrounding land was walked, recording habitats and features of potential value to wildlife and any evidence of, or potential for, protected or notable species or habitats, in accordance with the methods described below.
The bat building survey was completed by Joshua Sowden (CL18 Licence no. 2016-24351-CLS-CLS) and Anna Showan of EPR on 1 July 2019. Survey methodology followed the Bat Conservation Trust Good Practice Guidelines 2016 and was conducted in appropriate weather conditions and a suitable time of year to detect roosting bats. Survey weather conditions are given in the table below.
Temperature 16 – 21°C Cloud cover 0-25 % Wind BF 1 -2 Precipitation None
Land Use, Habitat Types, Vegetation Communities and Flora
Within the study area the land use, habitat types and landscape features (such as hedgerows and veteran trees) were described and mapped. For each main habitat type the dominant vegetation communities were recorded, along with any notable or indicator plant species, (including invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed where present). A preliminary evaluation of the structure, quality and likely management of each habitat or feature was also carried out.
The survey method used to record this information was based on Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology (JNCC 1993). Botanical nomenclature in this report follows Stace (2010).
Fauna The potential for habitats and features to support protected or notable species, or species of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity, were recorded, as were any signs encountered. The following is a summary of the approach taken for this Ecological Appraisal.
Badgers Consideration was given to the presence of habitat potentially suitable for supporting Badgers, including woodland and grassland. Potential evidence of the presence of Badgers was looked out for and noted, including earthworks that might be Badger setts, and signs such as dung pits, mammal pathways through ground vegetation and under fences, and hairs on fences.
Bats Bats use buildings and trees for roosting and breeding and, where present, a preliminary assessment of the potential for these features to support bats was undertaken during the survey. Potential may include gaps beneath roof or hanging tiles, in soffits, or beneath the end of ridge tiles, but also under the edge of felt on flat roofs. In trees potential roosting features include woodpecker holes, splits in branches and peeling bark.
Preliminary evidence was obtained through noting any staining around potential roost entrances, and looking for bat droppings, for example on window sills. A preliminary evaluation was also undertaken of potential bat foraging habitat in the area, including woodland, pasture, hedges and watercourses.
Dormouse The type and quality of habitat with the potential to be suitable for supporting Dormice, such as woodland and hedgerows, was considered during the survey. In particular the presence of oak, hazel and berry-bearing shrubs was noted, and the connectivity of habitat recorded.
Birds Any birds seen whilst carrying out the survey were recorded, and the type and quality of habitats available for birds was considered, including vegetation suitable for nesting, and habitat with the potential to support valued species, including breeding and wintering birds.
Amphibians Consideration was given to the presence of habitat potentially suitable for supporting amphibians, including water bodies (ponds, ditches), woodland, scrub and rough grassland, and features such as log piles that might provide hibernation areas. Where appropriate, effort to gather direct evidence of amphibians was undertaken by making a preliminary search for eggs by examining vegetation within
reach of the margins of water bodies, and for resting animals on land by looking under potential refuges, such as stones, wood and rubbish near to water bodies.
Reptiles The presence and quality of habitat considered potentially suitable for supporting reptiles was recorded. This included areas providing basking and foraging areas, hibernation and breeding sites, such as rough grassland and scrub, banks, burrows, rubble piles, compost heaps, hedgebanks and water bodies.
Invertebrates Readily identifiable invertebrates seen during the survey were recorded, and habitats and features likely to support noteworthy groups and species were noted, for example herb-rich grasslands, areas of bare ground and deadwood habitats, including woodland and veteran trees.
Appendix 4 Photographs relating to Ecological Appraisal
Corn Marigold with Oxeye Daisy in the foreground
Cornflower found within wildlflower grassland at north of building B1
Looking south west from north west corner of Site – showing mown amenity and unmown wildlflower areas of grassland
Appendix 5 Photographs relating to Building Survey for Bats
Loft A western aspect
Loft A southern aspect
Loft A eastern aspect
Loft B internal
Loft B southern aspect showing vents with mesh
View of roof of B1, south eastern aspect
View of hole in underside of soffit feature
View of B1 roof, south western aspect
Lifted lead flashing, centre of B1
Hole in cladding behind pillar, southern aspect of B1
Centre of B1 from south east
South eastern corner of B1
Eastern gable of B1
Eastern half of northern aspect B1
Holes in wall, north east corner of B1
Lifted tiles around chimney, northern aspect B1
Metal workshop extension, northern aspect of B1
Northern view of B5
South western aspect of B1
South western corner of B1
Example of air brick holes
Southern corner of B1
Southern view of B7 and B8