Land off Newton Lane, Rugby B O Reilly & Sons Ltd
Ecological Impact Assessment
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Contact Details:
Enzygo Ltd. (Bristol Office) The Byre tel: 01454 269237 Woodend Lane email: [email protected] Cromhall www: enzygo.com Gloucestershire GL12 8AA
Ecological Impact Assessment
Project: Land off Newton Lane, Rugby
For: Mr Selwyn Rees
Status: Final
Date: 12th November 2020
Author: Chris Schofield MSc BSc (Hons) ACIEEM – Senior Ecologist
Reviewer: Derek Allan MSc BSc (Hons) MCIEEM – Director of Ecology
Disclaimer: This report has been produced by Enzygo Limited within the terms of the contract with the client and taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the client. We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above. This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at their own risk.
Enzygo Limited Registered in England No. 6525159 Registered Office: Gresham House, 5-7 St. Pauls Street, Leeds, England, LS1 2JG
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 4
1.1 Commission ...... 4
1.2 Proposed Development/Identification of Impacts ...... 4
1.3 Aims and Objectives ...... 4
1.4 Background/Acknowledgments ...... 4
1.5 Local Planning Policy ...... 5
1.6 Site Context ...... 5
2.0 METHODOLOGY ...... 7
2.1 Desk Study ...... 7
2.2 Field Survey ...... 7
2.3 Assessment ...... 9
2.4 Limitations ...... 10
3.0 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS...... 11
4.0 ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION ...... 25
5.0 ENHANCEMENT AND MONITORING ...... 28
6.0 CONCLUSION ...... 29
7.0 REFERENCES ...... 30
Tables and Figures
FIGURE 1 – SURVEY AREA ...... 6
TABLE 1 – SURVEY DATES AND CONDITIONS ...... 7
TABLE 2 – ECOLOGICAL FEATURES ...... 11
TABLE 3 – ASSESSMENT OF EFFECT AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 25
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 1 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
TABLE 4 – ENHANCEMENT & MONITORING ...... 28
Drawings and Appendices
DRAWING SHF.0135.002.EC.D.001 – PHASE I HABITAT MAP ...... 32
DRAWING SHF.0135.002.EC.D.002 – DESK STUDY MAP ...... 33
APPENDIX A – SITE PROPOSALS ...... 34
APPENDIX B - LEGISLATION AND NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY ...... 35
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 2 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Non-Technical Summary i. In October 2020 Enzygo Ltd was commissioned by Mr Selwyn Rees (the client) to undertake an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) of Land off Newton Lane, Rugby, Warwickshire CV23 0TB (central grid reference: SP 52950 79764), located within the Rugby Borough Council (Clifton, Churchover and Newton Ward) planning authority. This study will inform a planning application for importing materials to regrade agricultural land. ii. The following key ecological features and associated recommendations have been identified:
• River Avon LWS and Blue Infrastructure (the drainage ditch at the northern boundary forms part of the River Avon LWS and is hydrologically connected to the River Avon which lies approximately 2km to the south) – this drain shall be retained and protected throughout the proposals, including through physical protection and pollution prevention;
• Green Infrastructure, Broadleaf Woodland, Tree Preservation Order and Hedgerow Priority Habitat (off-site woodland to the north and boundary hedgerows represent significant green infrastructure and Priority Habitat. Woodland is also covered by TPO) – these habitats shall be retained and protected throughout the proposals. Existing field access points are to be utilised to avoid any necessary breaching of Hedgerow Priority Habitat;
• Bats – (Woodland to the north and boundary hedgerows provide valuable foraging and commuting habitat for bats. Mature boundary trees may provide roosting opportunities) – As above, the boundary woodland and hedgerows are to be retained and protected throughout, including no loss of any mature trees which may provide roosting opportunities;
• Badger – (Badger setts in current use are present within the north-eastern area of the woodland to the north, and existing grassland may provide foraging opportunities) – proposed works are well beyond a 30m radius from the Badger setts, however, precautionary measures to be implemented to ensure the activities do not lead to a risk of killing/injury of Badger; and,
• Birds (general nesting) - (Open grassland and bare ground provide nesting potential for ground-nesting species – Works to be conducted outside of the nesting season or if necessary within the nesting season an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) to advise and supervise works to ensure no active nests to be affected. iii. Proposals present opportunities for biodiversity enhancement in order to demonstrate an overall biodiversity net gain in accordance with national and local policies. iv. This report has demonstrated that, if the outlined mitigation measures are implemented in full then no significant residual impact could be expected, and the proposed application will result in ‘no net loss in biodiversity,’ whilst also providing opportunities for ‘biodiversity net gain’ in accordance with NPPF and Local Planning Policy.
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 3 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Commission
1.1.1 In October 2020 Enzygo Ltd was commissioned by Mr Selwyn Rees (the client) to undertake an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) of Land off Newton Lane, Rugby, Warwickshire CV23 0TB (central grid reference: SP 52950 79764), located within the Rugby Borough Council (Clifton, Churchover and Newton Ward) planning authority. This study will inform a planning application for importing materials to regrade agricultural land.
1.1.2 Note: Enzygo Ltd are not considered to act as a Principal Designer for any mitigation/enhancement strategies identified within this document in accordance with the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CITB, 2016).
1.2 Proposed Development/Identification of Impacts
1.2.1 The study will inform proposals for importing of certified topsoil onto the site to regrade the existing land, which is currently steeply sloping and as a result is not productive as agricultural land. The materials shall be imported through the use of 32-tonne tippers which shall use existing field accesses, and so no further breaches in the existing boundary hedgerows is to be required for access. Boundary hedgerows, the northern boundary drainage ditch, and Newton Spinney woodland to immediate north of the site are to remain. An existing small, dilapidated building at the south of the site is to remain in place and unaffected by the proposals. The client will use the findings of this report to determine the final proposals, and this report can be modified if plans change. Refer to Appendix A for a plan of the proposals.
1.2.2 This report identifies ecological features, and potential impacts and effects, recommends proportionate avoidance/mitigation/compensation strategies, followed by enhancements. This information will advise the client on the potential constraints to proposals and inform the final site design. A corresponding zone of influence has been considered (this includes any transboundary effects regardless of administrative areas).
1.3 Aims and Objectives
1.3.1 The purpose of this report is to provide biodiversity information which succinctly identifies ecological features on site and within the corresponding zone of influence, confirms impacts resulting from the proposed application, associated effects to ecological features, recommends proportionate avoidance, mitigation and compensation strategies, and identifies enhancements that can be implemented in accordance with the British Standard for Biodiversity BS42020:2013 (BSI, 2013) to demonstrate ‘no net loss in biodiversity’ and a ‘biodiversity net gain’ in accordance with NPPF and Local Planning Policy.
1.3.2 This report has been produced with reference to current Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (CIEEM, 2017a), Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland, Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine (CIEEM, 2018), Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing (CIEEM, 2017b) and British Standard BS42020:2013 (BSI, 2013).
1.4 Background/Acknowledgments
1.4.1 A search of the Rugby Council planning website has not identified any previous applications associated with the site with any supporting ecological survey or assessment information pertinent to this report. However, a 2018 application on land to the south associated with Coton Farm for “redevelopment and modernisation of existing farm” (planning reference
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 4 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
R18/0468), was supported by a Protected Species Survey Report (Cotswold Wildlife Surveys, 2017) and an Ecological Appraisal of Ponds (Cotswold Wildlife Surveys, 2018) in respect of potential for Great Crested Newt. Further 2019 bat surveys were presented within an updated Protected Species Survey Report (Cotswold Wildlife Surveys, 2019) submitted in support of discharging biodiversity-related planning conditions (planning reference R19/0587).
1.4.2 These reports have been reviewed and pertinent information used to inform the applicable sections of this assessment.
1.4.3 No further applications have been identified which have any pertinent nature conservation and biodiversity supporting information relevant to this assessment.
1.4.4 It is our understanding that to date there has been no correspondence with the County Ecologist or any statutory consultees i.e. Natural England, regarding this application. Additionally, we have not been informed of any Local Validation requirements i.e. biodiversity checklist for completion or specific standards for surveys.
1.5 Local Planning Policy
1.5.1 The following policies of the Local Plan 2011-2031 (Rugby Borough Council, 2019) are applicable to biodiversity and this assessment. Details are provided in summary only and the Local Plan document should be viewed for full details:
• NE1: Protecting Designated Biodiversity and Geodiversity Assets - The Council will protect designated areas and species of international, national and local importance for biodiversity. Development will be expected to deliver a net gain in biodiversity and be in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy.
• NE2: Strategic Green and Blue Infrastructure - The Council will work with partners towards the creation of a comprehensive Borough wide Strategic Green and Blue Infrastructure Network which is inclusive of the Princethorpe Woodland Biodiversity Opportunity Areas.
1.5.2 No additional Supplementary Planning Documents have been identified which relate to biodiversity, nature conservation or this assessment.
1.5.3 Refer to Appendix B for relevant details of European and National Legislation, and National Planning Policy.
1.6 Site Context
1.6.1 The approximately 4.9ha site lies within a rural area to the north of Rugby and comprises a former agricultural field currently supporting improved grassland and bare earth, with boundary hedgerows and trees, localised areas of tall ruderal herb vegetation and the remains of a small dilapidated former farm building.
1.6.2 The northern boundary supports an unnamed minor wet drainage ditch, beyond which is mature broadleaf woodland known as Newton Spinney. The eastern boundary is demarcated by native hedgerow, with Newton Lane and farmland beyond. The southern boundary is also demarcated by native hedgerow with land beyond associated with Coton Farm which is used for rearing game birds. The western boundary is defined by a strip of unmanaged tall ruderal herb vegetation with an agricultural field beyond. The wider landscape is dominated by agricultural land, bisected by the M6 motorway 650m to the south.
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 5 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
1.6.3 The site lies within the Leicestershire Vales National Character Area (Natural England, 2014) which is characterised as “a large, relatively open, uniform landscape composed of low-lying clay vales interrupted by a range of varied river valleys.”
Figure 1 – Survey Area
Image courtesy of Google Image Pro 7.3.2.5491, [Grid Ref: SP 52950 79764]. Imagery date 5th April 2018. Image accessed 27th October 2020.
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 6 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
2.0 Methodology
2.1 Desk Study
2.1.1 Desk study details were obtained from the following sources on the associated dates to provide background on ecological features in the vicinity of the site. In each case the search included the site and the specified area beyond the site boundary based on the expected zone of influence. Candidate and potential designations are considered too as these are also legally protected. Records search for included:
• Statutory sites designated or classified under international conventions or European legislation within a 5km radius, statutory sites designated under national legislation (including Marine), Local Nature Reserves, existing EPS Licence applications and Great Crested Newt Pond Survey records within a 2km radius, and Priority Habitat & Ancient Woodland Inventory within a 0.5km radius [Magic Map, 28th October 2020] (DEFRA, 2020);
• Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) and Biodiversity Conservation Areas within the immediate zone of influence [Rugby Borough Council website, 28th October 2020];
• Waterbodies within a 0.5km radius (Online mapping sources including: Google Maps; Magic Map; and Ordnance Survey Street View, 28th October 2020); and
• Locally designated wildlife sites & any notified Local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Habitats, Legally protected species, any Priority species (which includes: National Biodiversity Species, Local BAP Species, Species of conservation concern and Red Data Book (RDB) species, Birds of Conservation Concern (BOCC), nationally rare and nationally scarce species, and OSPAR Commission list of threatened/declining species) and Invasive species (listed under section 14 of Schedule 9 only) within a 2km radius, and any important hedgerows/veteran trees within the immediate zone of influence [Leicestershire and Rutland Environmental Records Centre (LRERC), 13th October 2020 & Warwickshire Biological Records Centre (WBRC), 23rd October 2020].
2.1.2 The Data has been edited where relevant to prevent sensitive or confidential records being made public in accordance with Guidelines for Accessing and Using Biodiversity Data (CIEEM, 2016).
2.2 Field Survey
2.2.1 Field Surveys were undertaken on the following dates by the identified staff, all of whom satisfy necessary field survey competencies as stipulated by the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). Weather conditions on the day of survey have been included and where relevant survey/class licence numbers referred to.
Table 1 – Survey Dates and Conditions Date Staff/Licence Environmental Survey Conditions and Times Preliminary 26/10/2020 Chris Schofield ACIEEM MSc. BSc. (Hons) [Senior Ecologist at Dry and cloudy (75% Ecological Appraisal Enzygo] cloud cover), 12oC, and Badger Survey and a light wind.
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 7 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
2.2.2 In accordance with Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal 2nd Edition (CIEEM, 2017a) the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) survey included the following.
Mapping of Habitat Types
2.2.3 Phase I Habitat Survey (JNCC, 2010) is the most recognised published method of habitat classification. It has been used to categorise & map the main vegetation types present within the survey area using a standard set of habitat categories. Each of the main habitats has been described; including details of component plant species abundances (recorded using the DAFOR scale: D=Dominant, A=Abundant, F=Frequent, O=Occasional, R=Rare). Additionally, any stands of non-native invasive plant species were recorded. Habitat extents have been visually mapped onto a topographic plan, with approximate location/areas recorded only (a GPS unit has not been utilised to accurately recorded these).
Assessment of possible presence/likely importance for Protected & Priority Species
2.2.4 An assessment of the possible presence of protected or priority species, and the likely importance of habitat features present for such species has also been undertaken, particularly where uncommon or specialised habitats are present in accordance with current PEA guidelines (CIEEM, 2017a). However, no specific protected species survey has been undertaken unless listed under additional surveys as below. Any incidental sightings of protected or priority species, or field signs of such species has also been recorded. Species assessed include: Plants & Fungi; Terrestrial/aquatic invertebrates; Fish; Amphibians; Reptiles; Breeding, wintering and migratory birds; Bats (including potential roost sites, foraging and commuting habitats/features), Badger, and Other mammal species.
Badger Survey
2.2.5 A thorough search of the site and land within a 30m radius was undertaken for signs of Badger activity in accordance with current guidance (Harris, Cresswell, & Jefferies, 1989). This involved a search for the presence of setts, foraging activity (e.g. snuffle holes), latrines, dung pits, prints and trampled pathways. The location of any setts was mapped, including the number of entrances and signs of use such as bedding material, fresh spoil and hairs were recorded. Additionally, significant evidence of Badger activity was mapped (i.e. territory latrines and runs connecting setts).
2.2.6 Any sett entrance positions were carefully marked from the nearest landscape feature (i.e. tree, fence or base of hedgerow), and distances between entrances and other setts were also recorded. The location of each sett was identified with a 10-digit grid reference. Setts and sett entrances have been classified according to the definitions as stipulated by current guidance (Harris, Cresswell, & Jefferies, 1989). The extent of the setts underground has not been mapped as this could extend in any direction up to at least 20 metres
2.2.7 Where relevant, Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) and Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) excavations and associated evidence of activity have also been recorded.
2.2.8 Relevant survey evidence is shown on Drawing Number SHF.0135.002.EC.D.001. Note: in this instance no evidence of Badger has been detected within a 30m radius, however, the general area of Badger activity recorded outside of this radius has been indicated on the appended drawing.
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 8 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Additional Methods 2.2.9 No stick/sanding of sett entrances was undertaken (considering the locations of the setts, and the nature of the works, monitoring of the holes over an extended period of time was not necessary to inform this assessment). Similarly, no bait marking or other exercises that indicate the territorial range of the Badgers has been undertaken as it is considered an assessment of how the territorial boundaries of different badger groups in an area will be affected by the proposals is not required in this instance.
2.3 Assessment
Assessment of Potential Development Impacts
2.3.1 A level of importance has been assigned to each ecological feature, where sufficient baseline data is available to do so, in accordance with current guidance (CIEEM, 2018). This is defined within a geographical context as follows: International and European; National; Regional; Metropolitan, County, vice-county or other local authority-wide area; River Basin District; Estuarine system/Coastal cell; and Local (plus Negligible where no associated value has been identified). For example, importance of designated sites reflects the geographical context of the designation (where designated sites no longer meet designation criteria and those formally ‘de-notified’ or where an undesignated site meets published selection criteria must also be considered). When considering habitats and species contextual information about distribution and abundance of that habitat/species in the area must be considered (if the habitat/species status is currently in a degraded or unfavourable condition its potential value should be considered).
2.3.2 The assessment then considers potential impacts (both positive and negative) generated during the construction and operational phase of the proposed application. Only impacts that are likely to be significant are considered. Impacts that are either unlikely to occur, or if they did occur are unlikely to be significant, are not considered.
2.3.3 Cumulative impacts are then considered where the application meets criteria in accordance with national EIA screening guidance (GOV.UK, 2019), and where agreed with the competent authority during scoping. This takes into consideration existing background levels of threat or pressure, looks at critical thresholds, and assess both additive/incremental and associated/connected impacts and effects.
2.3.4 Relevant aspects of ecological structure and function are then considered when determining if identified impacts will have a significant effect upon ecological features. Where necessary, this assessment utilises information from other specialists i.e. air quality, hydrology etc, to determine the level of impact. In accordance with current guidance (CIEEM, 2018) these are described using the following characteristics, where relevant: positive or negative; extent; magnitude; duration; frequency and timing; and reversibility.
2.3.5 The mitigation hierarchy is then explored in accordance with BS42020:2013 (BSI, 2013). This seeks as a preference to avoid impacts, then to mitigate unavoidable impacts, and as a last resort, to compensate for unavoidable residual impacts that remain after avoidance and mitigation measures. Justification has been provided by the client/their planner where the mitigation hierarchy cannot be followed, or for example where compensation is a preferred approach where the competent authority has adopted a County wide strategy i.e. District Level Licensing Schemes (GOV.UK, 2019). In this instance current national Biodiversity Offsetting guidance has also been consulted (GOV.UK, 2019). Additional information has also been provided by the client/their planner where the applicant wishes to demonstrate exceptional
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 9 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
circumstances or where they wish to pursue alternative strategies. Any residual impacts following mitigation measures etc are then identified.
2.3.6 All mitigation measures follow species specific current best practice guidance and the source has been identified accordingly. Deviation from guidance has been explained by the ecologist and is proportionate to the predicted degree of risk to biodiversity and to the nature and scale of the proposed works.
2.3.7 It is important that planning decisions are based on up-to-date ecological data, and the specific timeframe over which survey data is considered valid follows general advice (CIEEM, 2019). Additionally, it should be noted that the presence/absence and status of protected species can change seasonally/annually. The age of data should also be assessed separately when considering the submission of an EPS Licence (i.e. Natural England may require data to be from the current season).
2.3.8 Local Environmental Records Centres (LERC) issue a licence for use of provided biodiversity data for 1 year only, after which time this should be renewed to validate an application (and reports updated accordingly to incorporate any new records). Following completion of surveys all relevant biodiversity data will be submitted to the relevant LERC and other groups as appropriate.
2.4 Limitations
2.4.1 Data held by consultees may not be exhaustive; the absence of evidence does not indicate evidence of absence. Enzygo cannot take responsibility for the accuracy of external data sources and as such discrepancies and inaccuracies may occur.
2.4.2 Natural England do not hold information of Ancient Woodland less than 2ha in size.
2.4.3 Records over 10 years old for transient species (as these are likely to have moved during the interim) and species protected from sale only under the W&C Act 1981 and amendments, are excluded (as these are not relevant to a planning application). Additionally, given the large number of priority species, these have only been included if identified from the desk study and/or habitats recorded on site have been assessed as providing suitable conditions.
2.4.4 Geological sites have only been included within this report where they have biodiversity or nature conservation components to their designation.
2.4.5 At certain times of year flora species may be in a state of senescence and are not readily identifiable. However, October represents a suitable time to identify the majority of flora species and it was possible to easily classify the commonly occurring habitat types. The timing of the survey is not perceived as a survey limitation.
2.4.6 This document does not contain a comprehensive list of botanical species on site. Only plant species characteristic of each habitat and incidental observations of notable plant species were recorded.
2.4.7 Rugby Borough Council and LRERC do not supply information on Important Hedgerows or Veteran Trees (WBRC does provide records of Veteran Trees).
2.4.8 All areas of the site were fully accessible.
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 10 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
3.0 Baseline Ecological Conditions
3.1.1 Ecological features identified by the desk study/field survey are presented below, along with their details and associated ecological value. Refer to the appended Drawings SHF.0135.002.EC.D.001 and D.002 for the location/extent of ecological features where relevant.
Table 2 – Ecological Features Ecological Ecological Feature Details Importance Statutory sites designated or classified under international conventions or European legislation None - - Statutory sites designated under national legislation (& Impact Risk Zones) Cave's Inn Pits Site of Special Scientific The site contains some of the best remaining areas of neutral marsh in Leicestershire; this interest is National Interest (SSSI) supported by the presence of other wetland, scrub and grassland habitats. The marsh and open 630m East water habitats are representative of base-rich wetland communities in eastern and southern England. SSSI Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) The Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) in which the site lies states the LPA should consult Natural England on the N/A likely impacts of the following development categories: Proposals do not - Pipelines, pylons and overhead cables. Any transport proposal including road, rail and by meet the criteria for water (excluding routine maintenance). Airports, helipads and other aviation proposals; which LPA should - Planning applications for quarries, including: new proposals, Review of Minerals Permissions consult Natural (ROMP), extensions, variations to conditions etc. Oil & gas exploration/extraction; England. - Residential development of 100 units or more; - Any residential development of 50 or more houses outside existing settlements/urban areas; - Any industrial/agricultural development that could cause air pollution (incl: industrial processes, livestock & poultry units with floorspace > 500m², slurry lagoons > 200m² & manure stores > 250t); - General combustion processes >20MW energy input. Incl: energy from waste incineration, other incineration, landfill gas generation plant, pyrolysis/gasification, anaerobic digestion, sewage treatment works, other incineration/ combustion; - Landfill. Incl: inert landfill, non-hazardous landfill, hazardous landfill; - Any composting proposal with more than 500 tonnes maximum annual operational throughput. Incl: open windrow composting, in-vessel composting, anaerobic digestion, other waste management; and, - Large infrastructure such as warehousing / industry where net additional gross internal floorspace is > 1,000m² or any development needing its own water supply .
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 11 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Ecological Ecological Feature Details Importance Local Nature Reserves Ashlawn Cutting Local Nature Reserve Steep sided disused railway cutting consisting of limestone grassland with scrub. 24 butterfly species County (LNR) have been recorded including Common Blue, Marbled White and Small Copper. Diverse sightings of 750m South birds. The site supports many plants normally associated with unimproved grassland and hay meadows and include Green Winged Orchid and Yellow Rattle. The pools support frogs, toads and newts as well as dragonflies. Other locally designated wildlife sites Coton House Parkland Ecosite The western part of the site and Newton Spinney woodland to the north form part of the Coton House Local Western part of site and woodland to the Parkland Ecosite, of which the main area lies 270m to the west at The Coton House Estate. This site north is noted for the variety of habitats present, including parkland, pasture with old standard trees, a pool, moat and marshy ground with sedges. River Avon Local Wildlife Site (LWS) The ditch at the northern boundary forms part of the River Avon LWS which covers a large number County Ditch at the northern boundary and of drainage ditches and other tributaries in the surrounding area which are hydrologically connected extending to the west and east to the River Avon, as well as covering the main river itself, which lies 2.2km to the south at its closet point. The wider River Avon LWS is designated as it retains many natural features, including several islands remnant channels and abundant diverse bankside vegetation. There are various habitats associated with the river, including woodland, meadows, scrub and ruderal areas. Newton Dismantled Railway Potential LWS A typical disused railway with an interesting geology. The site is very varied, with an often intricate Local and Ecosite mosaic of grassland, wetland, trees and scrub. The site is of importance for invertebrates, birds and 550m South-east flora. Shawell Quarry Extension, Gibbet Native hedgerow which has been recorded as containing 10 woody species in 300m length. County Lane/Watling St Hedge Potential LWS 610m North Shawell Pits LWS Site supports lakes, reedbeds and grassland with grassland areas containing Local Wildlife Site County 725m East grassland criteria species. Road Verge (A5) Potential LWS and Ecosite A roadside verge supporting semi-improved grassland with some notable flora. Local 750m South-east Shawell Pit Pasture Crack Willow 1 Mature Crack Willow (Salix fragilis) situated on the northern bank of a watercourse, which meets the County 825m East primary criteria for a mature tree as its girth is greater than 3.77m at 1.3m above the roots. Shawell Pit Pasture Crack Willow 2 Mature Crack Willow (Salix fragilis) situated on the southern bank of a watercourse, meets the County 875m East primary criteria for a mature tree as its girth is greater than 3.77m at 1.3m above the roots. Shawell Pit Extension Hedges Native hedgerows associated with Shawell sand and gravel pits. County 900m North
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 12 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Ecological Ecological Feature Details Importance Green Lane Spinney Hedgerows Two hedgerows, adjacent Green Lane Spinney, that meet the primary criteria for SINC selection. County 950m North A5 verge near Black Spinney Potential LWS A roadside verge in a cutting, containing mostly scrub and old grassland. Local and Ecosite 950m North Newton Pool and Pastures LWS & Gravel The LWS consists of species-rich semi-improved grassland, marsh and swamp and a fish pool. A County Works Pond and Marsh Potential LWS and number of county notable plants recorded on site. The grassland is also noted for its butterfly Ecosite population and the pools are noted for their value to farmland and migrant birds. 1.3km South-east Churchover Meadows Potential LWS and A large site consisting of numerous fields consisting of poor semi-improved neutral grassland. Local Ecosite 1.3km North-west Coton Park Pool LWS and Ecosite A large pool situated on the northern perimeter of Rugby, containing a mosaic of unmanaged habitats County 1.5km South including a large reed swamp, scrub and peripheral trees. The site qualifies as a LWS on the basis of its high level of diversity of habitats and species despite its small size (holding at least 119 species of vascular plants). It is important for breeding and passage birds as well as for butterflies. Black Spinney Potential LWS and Ecosite A small parcel of deciduous woodland. Local 1.6km North-west Catthorpe/Shawell Boundary Hedgerow 1 This hedgerow meets the criteria for a Local Wildlife Site as it contains 7 woody species per 30 meters. County 1.6km South-east Catthorpe/Shawell Boundary Hedgerow 2 This hedgerow which has been reported as meeting LWS criteria. County 1.6km South-east England HPI, Local BAP Habitats, Ancient Woodland, Important Hedgerows, Veteran Trees, TPOs and Conservation Areas Deciduous Woodland Priority Habitat The 2.3ha area of Newton Spinney woodland to the immediate north is identified as Lowland Mixed Local Immediately to the North Deciduous Woodland HPI. A further 3.4ha area of the HPI is present within a 500m radius located within the Coton House Estate 230m to the west. None of these woodland areas are identified as Ancient and Semi-natural woodland. Woodpasture and Parkland Priority A 9.2ha area of Coton House Estate 230m to the west is also identified as Woodpasture and Parkland Local Habitat HPI. 230m West Tree Preservation Orders The entire area of Newton Spinney woodland to the north is covered by a Tree Preservation Order Local Immediately North (reference TPO TR4.5-W1)
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 13 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Ecological Ecological Feature Details Importance Green/Blue & Aquatic Infrastructure, Dark Zones, and Local Policy Green Infrastructure Newton Spinney woodland to the immediate north and the boundary hedgerows provide notable Local wildlife corridor, structural diversity and habitat connectivity function through the predominantly agricultural landscape. The improved grassland and bare ground areas within central areas of the site do not contribute to, or complement, this green infrastructure function. Blue Infrastructure Although the section of drainage ditch along the northern boundary is not considered to represent Local any significant blue/aquatic infrastructure itself, it is a minor tributary of the River Avon 2.2km to the south (as reflected by the inclusion of this ditch with the River Avon LWS detailed above).
Dark Zones There are no known dark zones across the site. In accordance with the standard guidance specified N/A in the Guidance Notes for Reduction of Obtrusive Lighting (Institution of Lighting Professionals, 2020), the application site likely falls under Environmental Zone E2 (Rural – Low district brightness).
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 14 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Habitat Types Improved Grassland (B4) The eastern area of the site where the importing of top-soil is proposed currently supports species-poor Negligible improved grassland, which has a notably high abundance of docks and thistles. A low-lying area in the eastern part of the site appears likely to become seasonally inundated with water (the grassland species present indicate this is not any more permanent waterbody). Aerial imagery indicates this field was used for arable land in the recent past (imagery from 1999 to 2016 shows arable use). This species-poor neutral grassland is characterised by abundant Perennial Rye-grass (Lolium perenne), Common Bent (Agrostis capillaris) and Broad-leaved Dock (Rumex obtusifolius), with frequent Yorkshire- fog (Holcus lanatus), Annual Meadow-grass (Poa annua), Common Ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), Bristly Oxtongue (Helminthotheca echioides), Dove’s-foot Crane’s-bill (Geranium molle), Creeping Buttercup (Ranunculus repens), Field Speedwell (Veronica persica) and White Clover (Trifolium repens), and occasional Creeping Thistle (Cirsium arvense), Scentless Mayweed (Tripleurospermum inodorum), Prickly Sow-thistle (Sonchus asper), Common Mouse-ear (Cerastium fontanum), Curled Dock (Rumex crispus) and Redshank (Persicaria maculosa). This grassland does not support any species which are rare, uncommon or indicators of any more species- rich or valuable grassland types. This grassland does not represent, or contribute to, any UK BAP or Local BAP Priority Habitat. Grassland not identified as Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh Priority Habitat (Maddock, 2008) (i.e. is not periodically inundated pasture or meadow of high biodiversity value), does not represent Marshy Grassland which is covered by a Local BAP, and does not qualify as Lowland Neutral Grassland Local BAP (which covers unimproved and semi-improved grasslands).
Bare Ground (J4) The western area of the site supports a large area of bare ground comprising brown earth soils which Negligible appear to have recently been moved to the site. This area has very sparse early colonising vegetation (<1% cover) characterised by occasional Broad-leaved Dock, Annual Meadow-grass, Groundsel (Senecio vulgaris), Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale agg.), Redshank, Broad-leaved Willowherb (Epilobium montanum), Dove’s-foot Crane’s-bill, Wavy Bittercress (Cardamine flexuosa) and Shepherd's-purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris). The bare ground area does not represent any UK or Local BAP Priority Habitat.
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 15 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Tall Ruderal Herb (C3.1) Localised areas at the south of the site, and along the western and northern boundaries support Negligible unmanaged species-poor tall ruderal herb vegetation. This habitat is characterised by abundant Common Nettle (Urtica dioica) and Broad-leaved Dock, with frequent Groundsel, Prickly Sow-thistle, Creeping Thistle, and Cleavers (Galium aparine), and occasional Dove’s-foot Crane’s-bill, Rapeseed (Brassica napus), Welsh Poppy (Papaver cambricum), Fat Hen (Chenopodium album), Common Chickweed (Stellaria media), Great Willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum), Red Dead-nettle (Lamium purpureum), Scentless Mayweed and Redshank. This tall ruderal herb vegetation does not represent any UK or Local BAP Priority Habitat. It is confirmed this boundary does not represent Arable Field Margin Priority Habitat (Maddock, 2008), with no evidence of management specifically for the benefit of wildlife (e.g. does not appear seeded with wildflowers or to provide food for wild birds).
Hedgerow (J2.1) The eastern and southern site boundaries support native hedgerows, with the southern boundary also Local supporting occasional mature trees. The southern boundary hedgerow is approximately 300m, and on average 3m high by 2m wide with no apparent regular cutting regime. There is no ditch, wall, hedge bank or any other notable features associated with it. This hedgerow is characterised by dominant Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), frequent Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), and occasional Elder (Sambucus nigra), Dog Rose (Rosa canina), English Elm (Ulmus procera) and Ash (Fraxinus excelsior). The ground flora supports abundant Ivy (Hedera helix) and Common Nettle, with frequent Cleavers, Wood Avens (Geum urbanum) and Bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.), and occasional False Oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), Broad-leaved Dock, White Dead- nettle (Lamium album) and Cow Parsley (Anthriscus sylvestris). This hedgerow also supports two mature Pedunculate Oak (Quercus robur). The eastern boundary hedgerow is approximately 140m long, on average 3m high by 2m wide, and had recently been cut on the eastern (road) side at the time of survey. Again, there is no ditch, wall, hedge bank or any other notable features associated with it. This hedgerow is characterised by abundant Hawthorn and English Elm, with frequent Hazel (Corylus avellana), and occasional Elder and Dog Rose, and a ground flora of abundant Common Nettle and Cleavers, frequent Bramble and Ivy, and occasional Broad-leaved Dock and White Dead-nettle. There are no trees within this hedgerow. These native boundary hedgerows represent Hedgerow UK and Local BAP Priority Habitat, and may qualify as Important in accordance with The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 (further detailed Hedgerow Assessment would be required to confirm this).
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 16 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Wet Ditch (G1) The northern boundary supports a shallow drainage ditch, which at the time of survey had a water Negligible channel on average 0.5m wide and a depth of 0.2m, with a slow flowing nature from west to east. The channel is shaded by the edge of the mature Oak and Ash woodland to the immediate north. The full length of the channel is significantly choked by tall ruderal herb vegetation and scrub comprising abundant Common Nettle and Bramble, with frequent Creeping Thistle, Great Willowherb and Cleavers, and occasional Wood Avens, Common Hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium) and Prickly Sow-thistle. No rare or notable marginal or inundation aquatic species were noted as present. The tall ruderal herb vegetation growing in the bottom of the channel indicate this ditch is likely entirely dry for much of the year. Assessment of the ditch in relation to protected species (such as Water Vole) is presented below. This feature does not represent any UK or Local BAP Priority Habitat (drainage ditches are not covered by the Rivers Priority Habitat (Maddock, 2008)).
Wall (J2.5) and Fence (J2.4). In the southern area of the site is a small dilapidated former farm building, of which only the northern, Negligible eastern and western elevation walls remain (i.e. no roof or south elevation wall). As a result, these have been mapped as walls on the appended Phase I Habitat Map (refer to Drawing SHF.0135.002.EC.D.001). The southern, western and northern field boundaries support post-and-wire fencing. No significant vegetation assemblage is associated with any of these features, and they do not represent any UK or Local BAP habitat.
Legally Protected & Priority Species (& Consultation Zones where applicable) Bats There are no features within or adjacent to the site which are to be affected by the works which provide Local any opportunities for roosting bats. The remains of the derelict farm building (as shown in the photo above) and boundary mature trees may support features suitable for roosting bats however are not to be affected by the works. The species-poor improved grassland and bare ground habitats within central areas of the site provide Negligible suitability foraging and commuting bat habitat (Collins, 2016). The boundary hedgerows, and northern boundary woodland edge and wet ditch provide Moderate suitability foraging and commuting habitat (Collins, 2016) and are likely utilised by edge-feeding species such as Common Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and Soprano Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus).
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 17 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
The desk study has identified records within a 2km radius comprising Common Pipistrelle, Soprano Pipistrelle, Nathusius’ Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus nathusii), Pipistrelle species (Pipistrellus sp.), Brown Long- eared Bat (Plecotus auritus), Noctule (Nyctalus noctula), Serotine (Eptesicus serotinus), Whiskered Bat (Myotis mystacinus), Brandt’s Bat (Myotis brandtii), Myotis species (Myotis sp.) and unidentified bat species. The closest records are associated with Coton Farm 150m to the south from 2017 with recordings of Common Pipistrelle and Noctule. Previous surveys at Coton Farm detected a Brown Long-eared Bat feeding perch, and recorded foraging/commuting activity of Common Pipistrelle, Soprano Pipistrelle, Noctule and Whiskered/Brandt’s Bat (Cotswold Wildlife Surveys, 2019). There is also a single record of a previous EPS licence application within a 2km radius, located 900m to the south-west at the Coton House Estate from 2014 and associated with Common Pipistrelle, Soprano Pipistrelle, Brown Long-eared Bat, Brandt’s Bat and Whiskered Bat (licence ref: 2014-4065-EPS-MIT-1). Badger No evidence of Badger detected within or immediately adjacent to the site boundary. Evidence of Badger Local in the form of setts in current use, recent pit latrines and trampled pathways are present in the north- eastern area of Newton Spinney woodland to the north. The area of this activity is illustrated on the appended Drawing SHF.0135.002.EC.D.001, and the nearest sett entrance lies between 40-50m from the site boundary. The improved grassland habitats within the site may provide some foraging opportunities for Badger and the wet ditch along the northern boundary likely provides a fresh water source (at the times of year this holds water). The boundary hedgerows and northern boundary woodland edge provide suitable shelter and potential sett creation opportunities. The records search has indicated several records of Badger setts within Newton Spinney woodland to the north, spread throughout the woodland area. Discussions with the landowner and the search during the Phase I Habitat Survey have confirmed the Badger setts are restricted to the area indicated on the appended drawing. Further records of Badger are reported from Coton House Estate 500m to the west. A precautionary approach is to be adopted in respect of Badger (see Section 4.0 below)
Dormouse The boundary hedgerows and woodland edge to the north provide a limited extent of suitability habitat Negligible for Dormouse. However, the site is located in an area of the country where this species is significantly rare if not extinct, there are no records with a 2km radius, and these boundary features are not to be affected by the works. Impacts of the proposals on Dormouse are reasonably discounted.
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 18 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Otter and Water Vole The northern drainage ditch provides a limited extent of significantly poor suitability habitat for Water Negligible Vole, with the ditch likely dry for much of the year, with significant shading from the woodland edge, dominance of scrub and tall ruderal herb vegetation within the channel, and lack of notable connectivity to valuable Water Vole habitats in the surrounding area. No suitable habitat for the creation of Water Vole burrows, with an absence of suitable grassy banks or suitable extent of water within the channel. One record of Water Vole within a 2km radius, located 1.5km to the south beyond the M6 motorway from 2015. The minor nature of this drainage ditch is also entirely unsuitable for supporting Otter, with the choked nature of the channel and seasonal nature providing little foraging or commuting opportunities. There are two records of Otter within a 2km radius, with the closest a record of roadkill on the A5 650m east of the site from 2012. Any impact of the proposed importing of the materials to the adjacent grassland habitat on Otter or Water Vole is reasonably discount
Other Protected Mammals No evidence of, or specific opportunities for, any other species of protected mammal. No records of Negligible other protected mammal species within a 2km radius with the last 10 years.
Specially Protected Birds No evidence of, or specific opportunities for, any specially protected bird species within the site. Negligible For instance, no evidence of, or significant opportunities for nesting or roosting Barn Owl (Tyto alba) and there is no significant extent of suitable foraging habitat present (with the improved grassland not supporting the required tussocky nature and litter layer required to support an abundance of small mammal prey). The data search has revealed records of Schedule 1 species within a 2km radius, comprising Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis), Ruff (Calidris pugnax), Little Ringed Plover (Charadrius dubius), Marsh Harrier (Circus aeruginosus), Whooper Swan (Cygnus cygnus), Merlin (Falco columbarius), Peregrine (Falco peregrinus), Hobby (Falco subbuteo), Mediterranean Gull (Larus melanocephalus), Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa), Common Scoter (Melanitta nigra), Red Kite (Milvus milvus), Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Black-necked Grebe (Podiceps nigricollis), Wood Sandpiper (Tringa glareola), Greenshank (Tringa nebularia), Green Sandpiper (Tringa ochropus), Redwing (Turdus iliacus), Fieldfare (Turdus pilaris) and Barn Owl (Tyto alba). The closest records are of Little Ringed Plover, Mediterranean Gull and Fieldfare at the Shawell Lagoons 250m to the north-east. The proposed importing of materials is not considered to have any significant potential impacts on any specific Schedule 1 bird species (i.e. no significant loss of suitable nesting habitat etc.).
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 19 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Breeding, Wintering and Migratory Birds The boundary hedgerows and woodland edge provide a limited extent of suitable nesting habitat for a Local importance range of common bird species likely to be present in the local area. The open grassland habitat also to a restricted provides a limited extent of suitable nesting habitat for ground-nesting species such as Lapwing (Vanellus range of common vanellus) and Skylark (Alauda arvensis). No habitat specifically suitable for wintering and migratory bird species. species (i.e. this enclosed field unit not considered to likely represent high value wet grassland likely to attract flocks of geese and/or swans over winter). The records search has revealed records of 20 UK BAP Priority Species within a 2km radius comprising Lesser Redpoll (Acanthis cabaret), Skylark, Yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella), Reed Bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus), Herring Gull (Larus argentatus), Linnet (Linaria cannabina), Grasshopper Warbler (Locustella naevia), Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava), Spotted Flycatcher (Muscicapa striata), Curlew (Numenius arquata), House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus), Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix), Willow Tit (Poecile montana), Marsh Tit (Poecile palustris), Dunnock (Prunella modularis), Bullfinch (Pyrrhula pyrrhula), Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Song Thrush (Turdus philomelos) and Lapwing.
Common Reptiles The improved grassland and bare ground habitats with a lack of any spatial variation or structural Negligible diversity, represent significantly poor-quality habitat for common reptiles, with an absence of favourable foraging, refuge, and basking habitats. A limited extent of suitable cover and foraging habitat is provided by the boundary features which are to be unaffected by the proposals. The records search has revealed two records of Grass Snake (Natrix helvetica) and one record of Slow- worm (Anguis fragilis) within a 2km radius, with the closest a record of Grass Snake from Coton House Estate 875m to the west from 2015. Any significant impact of the proposals on reptiles is reasonably discounted.
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 20 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Great Crested Newt No waterbodies providing any potential for breeding Great Crested Newt (GCN) within or immediately Negligible adjacent to the site. The improved grassland habitat, with lack of grassland structure or diversity, represents significantly poor-quality terrestrial habitat for GCN, providing limited shelter and unlikely to support an abundance of invertebrate prey items. There is evidence of recent and regular ploughing of the field unit reflected in the poor vegetation structure and abundance of colonising docks and thistles, which further reduces the suitability of the grassland for GCN. The bare ground habitats in the west of the site provide no opportunities for GCN with no refuge or foraging opportunities. Boundary hedgerows and the woodland habitat to the north do provide refuge, shelter and likely hibernation opportunities for GCN. Aerial imagery and OS maps indicate seven waterbodies within a 500m radius, with a field pond 80m to the west, four waterbodies 140m to 400m to the south-east, and two large waterbodies 260m to the north-east. These two large waterbodies to the north-east are lakes associated with the Shawell Quarry and landfill and are 3.4ha and 2.4ha in size, which is unsuitably large for supporting successfully breeding GCN, and also lie beyond the A5 which represents a complete dispersal barrier to GCN. As a result, any impact of the proposals on GCN in respect of these two waterbodies is discounted. The four waterbodies to the south-east are fishing ponds associated with Spring Pools Fishery, and so are almost certainly stocked with high numbers of predatory fish, and are unlikely to provide suitable habitat for breeding GCN. These waterbodies also lie beyond Newton Lane which is a relatively busy road and represents a partial barrier to the movement of GCN. These waterbodies were assessed in a previous 2018 assessment and were confirmed to be stocked with fish and used as angling lakes (Cotswold Wildlife Surveys, 2018). It is noted these ponds were assessed as entirely unsuitable for breeding GCN in this study. Considering these characteristics, any impact of the proposals on GCN in respect of these fishery ponds is also discounted. The field pond to the west was assessed as providing Below Average suitability GCN breeding habitat in this 2018 study (Cotswold Wildlife Surveys, 2018), with the score reduced by the apparent poor water quality, lack of suitable aquatic vegetation for egg-laying, and poor quality of the surrounding arable land as terrestrial habitat for GCN. No further presence/absence survey was conducted in this 2018 assessment, and so although previous assessment has indicated this pond has below average suitability for GCN, the presence of GCN at this pond cannot be discounted. The records search has identified eight records of GCN within a 2km radius in the last 10 years. These records are associated with pools at Coton House Estate 850m and 925m to the west and south-west, respectively, at Coton Park Pool LWS 1.5km to the south, at a field pond 1.5km to the north-west, and at a pond to the north of Shawell Quarry 1.9km to the north-east. There is also a single record of a previous 2016 Natural England EPS licence from 950m to the south-west (reference: 2016-22986-EPS-MIT).
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 21 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
These records confirm GCN are present in the local area, and so may potentially be present in the field pond 80m to the west of the site. To identify whether the proposals are likely to result in an offence in respect of GCN, a Natural England Rapid Risk Assessment has been completed below, based on the size of the proposed works area (approximately 2.7ha) and the distance to the potential GCN breeding pond. As indicated on the plan at Appendix A, the infilling works are proposed in the eastern part of the site at a minimum distance of 250m from the field pond to the west. Note: This assessment also assumes breeding GCN are present at this field pond and does not account for the quality of terrestrial habitats within the proposed development site and surrounding the pond (which are of poor suitability).
Component Likely effect (select one for each component; Notional select the most harmful option if more than one offence is likely; lists are in order of harm, top to bottom) probability score Great crested newt breeding pond(s) No effect 0 Land within 100m of any breeding pond(s) No effect 0 Land 100-250m from any breeding pond(s) No effect 0 Land >250m from any breeding pond(s) 1 - 5 ha lost or damaged 0.04 Individual great crested newts No effect 0 Maximum: 0.04 Rapid risk assessment result: GREEN: OFFENCE HIGHLY UNLIKELY
This assessment indicates the proposals are Highly Unlikely to result an offence in respect of the protection afforded to GCN. Considering the above details and assessment, it is concluded there is a negligible risk of any significant impact of the proposals on GCN, with the potential breeding pond sufficient distance from the works, and the poor quality of the habitats within the site unlikely to attract GCN from the surrounding area. There is also to be no permanent loss of this poor-quality terrestrial habitat, with only temporary disturbance whilst the top-soils are imported, and a continuation of the existing and historic disturbance levels from farming activities, and so no significant increase in potential future risk of killing/injury of GCN. The woodland to the northern and the boundary hedgerows which do provide suitable terrestrial habitat for GCN are to be unaffected by the proposals. There are also no apparent suitable breeding ponds or favourable accessible terrestrial habitat to the east of site to which any GCN from the field pond to the west may be attempting to dispersal across the proposed works area to access; the works will not lead to any fragmentation impacts or obstruction of GCN dispersal.
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 22 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Other Protected Herpetofauna No suitable habitats within or immediately adjacent to the site specifically suitable for other species of Negligible protected herpetofauna. No records of other protected amphibian or reptile species within a 2km radius. Protected Fish/Marine No watercourses or waterbodies within or immediately adjacent to the site with any potential to support Negligible protected fish or marine species (the seasonal nature of the drainage ditch to the north is significantly unlikely to provide any suitability for any protected fish species) . No records of any protected fish or marine species within a 2km radius.
White-clawed Crayfish The drainage ditch at the northern boundary is considered entirely unsuitable for supporting White- Negligible clawed Crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes), being seasonal in nature, and completely choked with scrub and tall ruderal herb vegetation. This watercourse does not have a permanent, slow-flowing, rocky substrate nature favoured by White-clawed Crayfish, and also culverts under Newton Lane to the east limiting potential dispersal from wider connected more suitable watercourses. No records of White- clawed Crayfish within a 2km radius in the last 10 years. Any impacts of the proposals on White-clawed Crayfish is reasonably discounted.
Protected Invertebrates Only widespread and common habitats typical of the urban landscape are present. No habitats present Negligible which are likely to support a range or diversity of invertebrates or likely to support any protected invertebrate species. The data records search has not revealed any protected invertebrate species within the 2km radius search area. Protected Flora No protected flora species detected during the Phase I Habitat survey. Only common and widespread Negligible habitats present, and unlikely to support any protected flora species. No records of any protected flora within a 2km radius of the site. Invasive Flora No flora species detected which are listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as Negligible amended). The records search has identified records within a 2km of Wall Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster horizontalis) and Montbretia (Crocosmia x crocosmiiflora).
Invasive Fauna No invasive species detected during the survey, no specific opportunities for any invasive species Negligible identified, and no significant risk of the proposals causing the spread of any invasive fauna identified. Records in the wider area of species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) including Chinese Muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi), Grey Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and Canada Goose (Branta canadensis). Priority Species The predominantly species-poor improved grassland and bare ground habitats provide significantly poor- Negligible quality habitat for Priority Species such as Common Toad (Bufo bufo) and Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus), with an absence of any favourable shelter, refuge or foraging potential.
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 23 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
The data search has identified records in the wider area of Common Toad, Hedgehog, Polecat (Mustela putorius), Latticed Heath (Chiasmia clathrata), Dingy Skipper (Erynnis tages), Ghost Moth (Hepialus humuli), Dot Moth (Melanchra persicariae) and Cinnabar (Tyria jacobaeae), in addition to the Priority Species of bird listed above.
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 24 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
4.0 Assessment and Mitigation
4.1.1 Assessment of impacts and the associated ecological effect to identified ecological features are presented below. Ecological features have been screened out where no likely significant impacts have been identified or where impact is unlikely to occur. Cumulative effects are also considered where applicable.
4.1.2 To clarify, other than the ecological features listed below, there are no perceived potential impacts on any other sites, habitats or species in the wider area. The proposals are of a type, scale and distance that any direct or indirect construction or operational impacts on the other identified ecological features are reasonably discounted. Specifically, it is confirmed that the proposals will not have any potential impact on Cave's Inn Pits SSSI (with no hydrological connectivity), Ashlawn Cutting LNR, or any other designated sites/local features within a potential zone of influence of the proposals which are not detailed in Table 3 below.
Table 3 – Assessment of effect and mitigation measures Ecological Significance of Impact Avoidance/Mitigation Compensation Feature Residual Effect River Avon LWS Risk of damage and/or To avoid potential pollution and run-off impacts, site works will be undertaken in None required. No significant and Blue degradation of watercourse. accordance with construction best practice and the through adoption of the effect Infrastructure Minor adverse, permanent, appropriate Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidance (in the absence anticipated. irreversible impact. of any updated guidance), specifically PPG5. To ensure the proposed imported top-soils are not accidentally deposited into the watercourse to the north, this drainage ditch shall also be protected through erecting suitable protection fencing (Heras or similar) throughout the implementation phase. No works are to occur beyond this boundary, including no storage of materials or machinery. No significant impacts to the functioning of the drainage ditch in the long-term are foreseen (i.e. no significant hydrological changes with continuation of the historical agricultural land usage and continuation water run-off from the field unit in the direction of the ditch). Can be subject of a condition.
Green Potential damage and/or The boundary hedgerows and woodland to the north will be protected throughout None required. No significant Infrastructure, degradation of boundary the construction/implementation phase in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in effect Broadleaf hedgerow and off-site woodland relation to design, demolition and construction. Recommendations. anticipated. Woodland, TPO which contribute to valuable Can be subject of a condition.
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 25 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Ecological Significance of Impact Avoidance/Mitigation Compensation Feature Residual Effect and Hedgerow green infrastructure. Woodland Priority Habitat also covered by TPO. Minor, adverse, permanent, reversible impact.
Bats Potential damage and/or The protection measures highlighted above in relation to protection of the None required. No significant degradation of suitable bat boundary hedgerows, woodland to the north, and drainage ditch habitats, will effect foraging and commuting habitat minimise the risk of degradation of the suitable bat foraging and commuting anticipated. Minor, adverse, permanent, habitats. In the event the proposals change, such that the remains of the derelict reversible impact. farm building at the south of the site, or boundary mature trees are to be removed, further survey would be required to determine the presence/absence of roosting bats in accordance with current guidance (Collins, 2016).
Badger Low risk of killing/injury of Badger, A pre-works updated Badger Survey shall be undertaken prior to commencement None required. No significant and potential destruction of setts of the works to ensure Badger remain absent from the site and immediate effect if Badger were to colonise the site surrounds, and to inform necessary mitigation measures if they are found to be anticipated. prior to commencement of works. present. Low risk of significant adverse, In any case, as Badger are known to be present in the local area, and are at risk of permanent, irreversible impact harm if they were to stray into the construction site during works, the following reasonable avoidance measures should be adhered to (with all relevant site contractors informed of these details): - No works will be conducted at night, or dawn/dusk when Badgers are likely to be active; - Any holes, trenches or other excavations in which Badger may fall into and become trapped will be covered overnight, or otherwise a means of escape provided (e.g. a plank of wood); - If temporary piles of soil are to be stored within the site, these will be left un-compacted and not permitted to grass over to reduce the likelihood of Badger using them for new sett excavation; - Any proposed drainage pipes between 0.1 and 0.5 in diameter must be stored with caps on to prevent Badger access; and,
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 26 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Ecological Significance of Impact Avoidance/Mitigation Compensation Feature Residual Effect - Any chemicals will be stored securely so that they cannot be accessed by inquisitive Badger.
Can be subject of a condition. Nesting Birds Risk of disturbance of nesting To avoid an offence being committed in respect of nesting birds, the proposed None required. No significant birds during works. importing of soils will be planned to be conducted outside of the bird nesting effect Minor adverse, temporary, season (March to August inclusive) where possible. If it is necessary to undertake anticipated. irreversible impact. these works during the bird nesting season, a suitably trained Ecological Clerk of (no significant loss of habitat) Works (ECoW) would undertake a pre-works check to ensure no active nests are affected. If any active nests are detected, an appropriate protection area around the nest(s) will be established until it can be determined that the nest is longer active. Can be subject of a condition.
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 27 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
5.0 Enhancement and Monitoring
5.1.1 Opportunities for biodiversity enhancement (above and beyond those required to mitigate for any identified impacts) have been determined through consideration of: Ecological Features identified on site and within the zone of influence; Historical records of protected species/habitats present within the locality; National and Local planning policy including National and Local Biodiversity habitats/species; Local Development Plans including consideration of Green/Blue Infrastructure Resource; Consultation with third parties/stakeholders where applicable; and Other influencing factors such as underlying Geology/Hydrology, intended operational activities, and existing disturbance activities within the locality. This makes specific reference to Biodiversity Net Gain, Good practice principles for development (CIEEM, IEMA, CIRA, 2019).
5.1.2 It is accepted that the nature of the proposals does not lend itself to providing large scale ecological enhancements, however, it is confirmed that the below minor enhancements, in combination with the above described mitigation measures, will demonstrate an overall net gain for biodiversity. Given the poor-quality condition of the grassland habitats present prior to works, and the nature of the works to re-create workable agricultural land, it is not considered any Biodiversity Offsetting calculation metric is necessary in this instance in order to confirm this. There is no current requirement under the NPPF or relevant local policies (e.g. Policy NE1) for any demonstrable measure (i.e. a %) of net gain. The specific location and details of the proposals can be secured by an appropriately worded planning condition.
Table 4 – Enhancement & Monitoring Significance of Ecological Feature Enhancement & Monitoring Residual Effect Drainage Ditch At the northern drainage ditch, it is recommended that the excessive scrub and tall ruderal herb vegetation (i.e. the Minor positive effect Improvements large stands of Common Nettle and Bramble) are cleared out from the channel and banks, along with any excessive build-up of silt. The measures, along with recent cutting back of shading of the ditch, will promote the establishment of a more desirable and diverse assemblage of emergent vegetation, and increase the biodiversity value of this corridor. Arable Field Margins It is also recommended that a 1-2m strip around the field edges adjacent to the boundary hedgerows is utilised to Minor positive effect create a high value arable field margin. A tussocky grassland sward should be permitted to develop which is cut back every 3-years in the autumn, ideally on a rotational basis. Such a field margin will provide high value habitat for a range of farmland species, including ground-nesting farmland birds and shelter for wildlife including overwintering insects. 5.1.3 No post-determination monitoring is perceived necessary. To comply with guidance set out in BS42020:2013, a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) will be produced prior to the commencement of construction activities, including site clearance works. A Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) will then be produced prior to operation of the site to ensure the continued appropriate management and monitoring of ecological features. These documents will contain details on the mechanisms in place to secure mitigation works, and refer to the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CITB, 2016) where applicable.
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 28 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
6.0 Conclusion
6.1.1 This assessment has confirmed the site provides opportunity to incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate any potential impacts to ecological features and to demonstrate ‘biodiversity net gain in accordance with NPPF and local planning policy. As such, no significant residual impact can be expected which would prevent determination of a planning application.
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 29 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
7.0 References
BSI. (2013). Biodivesity - Code of practice for planning and development BS 42020:2013. London: BSI Standards Limited.
CIEEM. (2016). Guidelines for Assessing and Using Biodiversity Data . Winchester: Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management .
CIEEM. (2017a). Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. Winchester: Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.
CIEEM. (2017b). Guidelines on Ecological Report Writing. Winchester: Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.
CIEEM. (2018). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, coastal and Marine. Winchester: Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management .
CIEEM. (2019). Advice Note on the lifespan of ecological reports & surveys. Winchester: Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.
CIEEM, IEMA, CIRA. (2019). Biodiversity Net Gain: Good practice principles for development. CIEEM, CIRIA & IEMA.
CITB. (2016). Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. Norfolk: Construction Industry Training Board . Retrieved from https://www.citb.co.uk/Documents/CDM%20Regs/2015/cdm-2015-designers-printer- friendly.pdf
Collins, J. (2016). Bat surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). London: The Bat Conservation Trust.
Cotswold Wildlife Surveys. (2017). Protected Species Survey Report for Coton Farm, Newton Lane, Newton, Rugby, Warwickshire, CV23 0EB. Gloucestershire: Cotswold Wildlife Surveys.
Cotswold Wildlife Surveys. (2018). Ecological appraisal of ponds at Coton Farm, Newton Lane, Newton, Rugby CV23 0EB. Gloucestershire: Cotswold Wildlife Surveys.
Cotswold Wildlife Surveys. (2019). 2019 Protected Species Survey Report for Coton Farm, Newton Lane, Newton, Rugby, Warwickshire CV23 0EB. Gloucestershire: Cotswold Wildlife Surveys.
DEFRA. (2020). MAGIC. Retrieved from https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx
GOV.UK. (2019). Collection on Biodiversity Offsetting. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/biodiversity-offsetting
GOV.UK. (2019). Guidance on Environmental Impact Assessment. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/environmental-impact-assessment#Screening-Schedule-2- projects
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 30 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
GOV.UK. (2019). Guidance on GCN District Level Licensing Schemes. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/great-crested-newts-district-level-licensing- schemes?utm_source=987533b2-4ba3-44e7-9707- 93f5189921d8&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk- notifications&utm_content=immediate
Institution of Lighting Professionals. (2020). Guidance Notes for Reduction of Obtrusive Lighting. Rugby: Institution of Lighting Professionals.
JNCC. (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A Technique for Environmental Audit. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
Maddock, A. (2008). UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat Descriptions . Retrieved from http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/UKBAP_PriorityHabitatDesc-Rev2011.pdf
Natural England. (2014). NCA Profile: 94 Leicestershire Vales (NE532). Retrieved from http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4900422342934528
Rugby Borough Council. (2019). Rugby Borough Local Plan 2011-2031. Rugby: Rugby Borough Council.
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 31 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby B O Reilly & Sons Ltd
Drawing SHF.0135.002.EC.D.001 – Phase I Habitat Map
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Drawing SHF.0135.002.EC.D.002 – Desk Study Map
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 33 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Appendix A – Site Proposals
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 34 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Appendix B - Legislation and National Planning Policy
Wildlife legislation and policy relevant (or potentially relevant pending further survey) to the proposed works, based on the findings of the desk study and field survey are set out below. This legal information is a summary only, and the original legal documents should be consulted for definitive information. Legislation Protection Afforded to Sites/Habitats that could Potentially be Affected by the Proposed Works
Designated Legal Status Site/Habitat None -
Legislation Protection Afforded to Species that could Potentially be Affected by the Proposed Works
Species Legal Status European Protected Bats These animal species and their breeding sites or resting places are protected under Regulation 41 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012, which makes it illegal to: • Deliberately capture, injure or kill any such animal or to deliberately take or destroy their eggs; • Deliberately disturb such an animal; • Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal. European Protected Species (EPS) licences can be granted by Natural England in respect of development to permit activities that would otherwise be unlawful under the Conservation Regulations, providing that the following 3 tests (set out in the EC Habitats Directive) are passed: • The development is for reasons of overriding public interest; • There is no satisfactory alternative; and • The favourable conservation status of the species concerned will be maintained and/or enhanced. Under Regulation 9(5) of the Conservation Regulations, Planning Authorities have a legal duty to ‘have regard to the requirements of the EC Habitats Directive in the exercise of their functions’. This means that they must consider the above 3 tests when determining whether Planning Permission should be granted for developments likely to cause an offence under the Conservation Regulations. As a consequence, Planning Applications for such developments must demonstrate that the 3 tests will be passed.
Nationally Protected Bats These animals receive full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), which makes it illegal (subject to exceptions) to: • Intentionally kill, injure or take any such animal; • Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct any place used for shelter or protection by any such animal; and • Intentionally or recklessly disturb such animals while they occupy a place used for shelter or protection.
Badger The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 makes it illegal to wilfully kill or injure a Badger, or attempt to do so and also make it illegal to intentionally or recklessly interfere with a Badger sett. This includes damaging or destroying a sett,
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 35 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
Species Legal Status obstructing access to a sett and disturbing a Badger while it is occupying a sett. Licences can be granted to permit sett closure and/or disturbance between July and November inclusive. Nesting Birds (general) All wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), which makes it illegal (subject to exceptions) to: • Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird; • Take, damage or destroy the nest (whilst being built or in use) or eggs of any wild bird. Invasive Species None -
Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (the NERC Act) places a legal duty on public bodies, including planning authorities, to ‘have regard’ to the conservation of biodiversity when carrying out their normal functions, which includes consideration of planning applications.
In compliance with Section 41 of the NERC Act, the Secretary of State has published a list of species and habitats considered to be of principal importance for conserving biodiversity in England under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. This is known as the list of Habitats and Species of Principal Importance (HPI/SPI), of which there are 56 habitats and 943 species. The HPI/SPI list is used to guide planning authorities in implementing their duty under the NERC Act. National Planning Policy
The NPPF (2019) set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This presumption does not apply where development requiring Appropriate Assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined. The NPPF states that: ‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles: • if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;
• development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
• development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists;
• 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 • the following wildlife sites should be given the same protection as European sites: potential Special Protection Areas (SPA) and possible Special Areas of Conservation (SAC); listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 36 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
adverse effects on European sites, potential SPAs, possible SACs, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites.’ Under the NPPF, the Planning Authority has a responsibility to promote the preservation, restoration and re- creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species; and identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity.
Also, under the NPPF, the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan) and to minimise impacts on, and provide net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing a coherent ecological network that are more resilient to current and future pressures.
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 37 November 2020
Land off Newton Lane, Rugby Mr Selwyn Rees
SHF.0135.002.EC.R.001 Page 38 November 2020