Sherfield School Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

030743

14 September 2012

Revision 00

Buro Happold

DRAFT Description Issued by Date Checked

00 Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report MC 14.09.12 TC

\\SRV-BATH01\project filing\030743 Sherfield School - 50m Swimming Pool\F32 Environmental\03 Reports\EIA Scoping\120914 MC 030743 Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report 00.docx

This report has been prepared for the sole benefit, use and information of GEMS Education for the purposes set out in the report or instructions commissioning it. The liability of Buro Happold Limited in respect of the information contained in the report will not extend to any third party.

author Mark Crowther

signature

date 14th September 2012

approved Trevor Curson

signature

date 14th September 2012

Buro Happold

Contents

1 Introduction 8

1.1 Background to the project 8

1.2 Requirement for Environmental Impact Assessment 8

1.3 The purpose of Scoping in the EIA process 9

1.4 Structure of the Scoping Report 9

1.5 Consultation during scoping 10

2 Proposed approach to EIA 11

2.1 Purpose 11

2.2 Scope of the assessment 11

2.3 Defining significance 12

2.4 Mitigation and residual effects 12

2.5 Assessment of cumulative environmental effects 13

3 The site and surrounding area 15

3.1 Site description 15

4 Description of the proposed development 19

5 Environmental Assessments 22

5.1 Noise & Vibration 23

5.2 Assessment context 23

5.3 Assessment Methodology 24

5.4 Air Quality 25

5.5 Landscape Visual Impact Assessment 27

5.6 Archaeology 29

5.7 Built Heritage 30

5.8 Water Resources and Flood Risk 35

5.9 Ecology 38

5.10 Waste 42

5.11 Traffic and Transportation 43

5.12 Ground Conditions 45

5.13 Wind Microclimate 46

5.14 Artificial Lighting 46

5.15 Sunlight / Daylight and Overshadowing 47

5.16 Socio-Economics 47

5.17 Environmental Statement general chapters 47

6 Summary of Key Potential Environmental Issues 48

7 Other planning documents 51

Table of Tables

Table 2-1 Matrix for determining effect significance ...... 12

Table 2-2 Draft IEMA guidance on presenting the influence of different forms of mitigation on environmental effects ...... 13

Table 5-1 Assessment sensitivity ...... 34

Table 5-2 Magnitude of effect...... 35

Table 5-3 Impact magnitude against the importance of the receptor ...... 42

Table 5-4 Baseline Capacity summary ...... 44

Table 5-5 Operational Impact Magnitude ...... 45

Table 6-1 Environmental topics to be included in full EIA ...... 48

Table of Figures

Figure 3-1 Site Location showing anticipated planning boundary (as indicated by the red line) ...... 16

Figure 3-2 Approximate site boundary and surrounding features ...... 17

Figure 3-3 Nature on the Map extract showing coverage of BAP Ancient and Semi Natural Woodland and BAP Deciduous Woodland on and within the vicinity of the site (including approximate site boundary) ...... 18

Figure 4-1 Illustrative Masterplan (note this Masterplan is still evolving) ...... 21

Glossary

Term Definition BAP Biodiversity Action Plan BS British Standards CHP Combined Heat and Power DEFRA Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ES Environmental Statement GLA Greater London Authority GVA Gross Value Added IEEM Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management IEMA Institute of Environment Management and Assessment LPA Local Planning Authority LVIA Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment NNR National Nature Reserves PPG16 Planning Policy Guidance 16 – Archaeology and Planning (cancelled) PPG24 Planning Policy Guidance 24 – Planning and Noise (cancelled) PPS25 Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk (cancelled) SAC Special Area of Conservation SAP Species Action Plans SINC Site of Importance for Nature Conservation SPA Special Protection Area SSSI Sites of Specific Scientific Interest SWMP Site Waste Management Plan TA Transport Assessment TPO Tree Preservation Order

1 Introduction

1.1 Background to the project

GEMS Education intend to submit an Outline Planning Application for development at Sherfield School. The masterplan is being developed with the following in mind:

 Increase the facilities available on the school site, to provide much needed facilities for existing students;

 Improve the existing facilities to attract new students to allow the intended growth of the school;

 Rationalise the building, roads and landscape layout on the site to improve the approach and legibility of the facilities on site;

 Improve the poor visual appearance of some of the buildings on the site by refurbishment or replacement;

 Improve the image of the school and the setting of the historic buildings by sensitive and appropriate development; and

 Identify areas of the site requiring improvement such as the vehicle approach, transition of age groups on the site, security and legibility, tired condition of some buildings.

1.2 Requirement for Environmental Impact Assessment

The need to undertake Environmental Impact Assessment is set out in European Union Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC on assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. The Environment Act 1995 and Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 “the EIA Regulations” transposes the Directive into England’s regulatory regime.

Projects that require or may require EIA are set out in Schedule and 1 and 2 of the EIA Regulations. Schedule 1 development automatically requires and EIA as these have the most potential to cause environmental effects. Schedule 2 development requires an EIA where it exceeds certain thresholds as follows:

(a) any part of the development is to be carried out in a sensitive area such as a Site of Special Scientific Interest, Habitats Directive designated site, within a National Park or World Heritage Site; or (b) any application threshold or criterion in the corresponding part of column 2 of schedule 2.

The Sherfield School scheme falls under Schedule 2, Category 10b: Infrastructure Projects. For this category of project the threshold for when an EIA is likely to be required is when the area of the development exceeds 0.5 hectares. The Sherfield School site exceeds this at 15 hectares.

The EIA Regulations define ‘sensitive areas’ as including nature conservation sites with national or higher level designations (e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation, and Ramsar sites) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Parks, World Heritage Sites, and Scheduled Ancient Monuments. Paragraph 39 of Circular 02/99 additionally states, “in certain cases other statutory and non-statutory designations which are not included in the definition of 'sensitive areas' but which are nonetheless environmentally sensitive, may also be relevant in determining whether an EIA is required. Where relevant Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) will be of assistance in determining the sensitivity of a location."

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council have provided a Screening Opinion for the scheme (01.08.12) with the following conclusions made with respect to the “test of significance”:

 “Where relevant Biodiversity Action Plans (BAP's) will be of assistance in determining the sensitivity of a location." The potential impact of the proposed development is considered to be significant in this respect”; and

 “The development is proposed to increase the school population to 900 which would have a potential significant impact on the local highway network.”

1.3 The purpose of Scoping in the EIA process

There is no formal requirement for scoping to be undertaken prior to submission of the Environmental Statement, although provision for it is made in the legislation to enable a scoping opinion request to be made and responded to. Regulation 13 requires that a “scoping opinion” request includes the following information:

- a plan sufficient to identify the land; - a brief description of the nature and purpose of the development and of its possible effects on the environment; and - such other information or representations as the person making the request may wish to provide or make

The regulations set out a five week timescale and the need gain the opinion of statutory consultees. A scoping opinion is adopted when the local authority is satisfied that sufficient information has been provided for them to form a decision.

The submission of a scoping opinion request is considered to be good practice for EIA. It ensures that the scope of the assessment focuses on the important issues and eliminates detailed study of areas that are considered to be less significant. This makes sure that the process is both cost efficient and targeted.

The Scoping Report will form a basis of common reference for consultation about the scope and methodology of the EIA. The responses received from consultees on the Scoping Report will feed into the EIA and where appropriate the EIA will inform the ongoing design of the scheme and the ES that accompanies the planning application. It is not the purpose of this report to provide detailed measurement, calculation or assessment of potential impacts. Detailed assessments will be carried out when the EIA of the scheme is undertaken, and presented in the ES. The report at this stage is based on local knowledge of the site, preliminary site visits and a working knowledge of similar schemes.

1.4 Structure of the Scoping Report

The remainder of the scoping report is set out as follows:

 Chapter 2 details the proposed approach to EIA and the structure of the Environmental Statement;

 Chapter 3 describes the site, surrounding area and potential sensitive resources and receptors;

 Chapter 4 describes the proposed development;

 Chapter 5 provides a description of the environmental issues that are to be addressed by the EIA and sets out which environmental topics will not require detailed assessment and are scoped out;

 Chapter 6 summarises the key potential environmental issues that will be assessed; and

 Chapter 7 provides a summary of the wider planning documents proposed to be submitted.

1.5 Consultation during scoping

Consultation has been initiated to date with the following:

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

 Planning officers; and  Highway Development Control.

Other organisations which consultation has been initiated include:

 Environment Agency.

2 Proposed approach to EIA

2.1 Purpose

The purpose of an EIA is to predict the effect of a development on its surrounding environment and, where appropriate, identify, evaluate and develop methods to mitigate significant effects. An EIA is conducted by establishing baseline conditions for a number of topic areas and comparing these with the conditions that are predicted to occur were the scheme to be constructed and operated, to identify likely changes in environmental conditions. Environmental effects on sensitive and valued receptors (that is usually: people, built resources and natural resources) as a result of the changes are then predicted and their significance determined. The output of the EIA is an Environmental Statement (ES) that is submitted with the planning application. A robust ES allows the LPA to make an informed decision on the scheme in terms of its environmental impact.

2.2 Scope of the assessment

2.2.1 Technical scope

The range of environmental topics to be addressed in the ES is referred to as the technical scope. Part I of Schedule 4 to the EIA Regulations notes that the ES should describe the “aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape, and the inter-relationship between the above factors”.

Potential environmental issues have been evaluated as part of this scoping exercise in order to determine the extent to which they should be included in the EIA. These are discussed further in Chapter 5.

2.2.2 Spatial Scope

The geographical or spatial scope of the EIA takes into account the following factors:

• the physical extent of the proposed works;

• the nature of the baseline environment;

• the manner in which the impacts are likely to be propagated; and

• local, regional and national planning policy.

2.2.3 Temporal scope

The temporal scope is determined as the life of the scheme, covering the preparation works, construction and operation of the development.

Environmental impacts will be described in terms of the extent of change to the baseline environment. This baseline is generally taken to mean the environmental conditions that are prevalent at the time of the assessment i.e. 2012 however consideration will also be given to the future baseline condition, the year at which the development will be fully operational.

As there will be a period of time when areas of the site will be operational while other areas of the site will be under construction, an assessment of the intermediate year effects will be undertaken. The date for this intermediate year assessment will coincide with peak construction activity, i.e. when construction is at its most disruptive. This date will be confirmed when more is known about the construction programme.

2.3 Defining significance

The ES will report on those environmental effects arising from the project that are considered likely to be significant. There is no statutory definition for what is significant but in many cases there are accepted methods for quantifying effects and determining the threshold of significance. Where a more qualitative approach is needed, a significant effect can be defined for the purposes of the assessment as an effect, which either in isolation or combination with others, should be taken into account in the decision-making process. Where there are institute specific guidelines for assessment methodologies these will be followed and briefly set out under the relevant disciplines in section 5 of this report. Where there is no specific guidance there will be a consistent approach to determination and in terminology set out as follows.

Receptor sensitivity will be defined as High, Moderate, Low or Negligible and magnitude of change will be defined as Large, Medium, Small or Negligible. Significance of effect is then determined using the following table, whereby a significant effect is one which is judged as moderate or major.

Table 2-1 Matrix for determining effect significance

Receptor sensitivity Effect significance High Moderate Low Negligible Magnitude Large Major Major Moderate Negligible of change Medium Major Moderate Minor Negligible

Small Moderate Minor Minor Negligible

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

2.4 Mitigation and residual effects

Schedule 4 to the EIA regulations requires that where significant effects are identified ‘a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and if possible remedy significant adverse effects’ should be included in the ES. Mitigation measures are then considered in terms of a hierarchy:

 avoidance of the significant effect;

 reduction of the impact;

 finding a way to reverse or repair the effect and, as a last resort;

 compensation.

Consideration should also be given to the potential opportunity to deliver environmental enhancements through this development. Priority will be given to avoidance of negative impacts on receptors; this could be through redesigning certain aspects of the project or regulating the timing or location of activities. For each significant adverse effect, mitigation measures will be considered and included in the ES as commitments, where appropriate. Residual effects (assuming mitigation options are applied) will be classified as not-significant or still significant (albeit reduced), as appropriate.

Guidance presented at a recent IEMA (Institute of Environment Management and Assessment) training event provides an approach to presenting different forms of mitigation within the ES and it is proposed to follow this approach.

Table 2-2 Draft IEMA guidance on presenting the influence of different forms of mitigation on environmental effects

Mitigation Description Primary Modifications that occurred to either the location or design of the development during the pre- (Inherent) application phase that now forms an inherent part of the proposal seeking consent. Primary mitigation should be presented as part of the ES’s alternatives and iterative design section or within its description of the proposed development.

Secondary Actions that will require activity post-consent, to deliver the anticipated outcome, either as a result (foreseeable) of requirements likely to be imposed as part of the consent; or through the inclusion of the action in the Environmental Statement. Tertiary Standard practices used to mitigate commonly occurring effects, e.g. standard construction (Inexorable) practices used to reduce nuisance effects. Standard practices infer that the anticipated action will occur with or without further input from the consenting authority or developer

2.5 Assessment of cumulative environmental effects

It is a requirement of the EIA regulations to identify the full range of environmental effects that are likely to result from a development. This includes not only the project’s direct effects, but also a range of secondary and cumulative effects.

Cumulative effects have been defined as: "The impacts on the environment which result from incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." (IEMA 2004)

In other words, those impacts that may be considered to generate a non-significant effect in isolation may result in a significant effect when combined with other potential non-significant environmental effects of the proposals of one or more projects.

Cumulative interactions can occur either as interactions between multiple effects of the proposals on one receptor (intra-project effects) or through the effect of multiple development schemes on a receptor (inter-project effects).

2.5.1 Intra-project cumulative effects

The effects presented within each technical chapter will be reviewed to identify the potential for interaction effects and therefore cumulative effects. Where there is more than one effect on a particular receptor the cumulative effect will be determined and found to be significant further mitigation will be proposed, if necessary. This review on intra-project cumulative effects will be set out in the cumulative effects chapter.

2.5.2 Inter-project cumulative effects

A review of the combined effects of the proposed development with other schemes should be presented within the cumulative effects chapter of the ES. It is proposed that the EIA considers other schemes located within 1km of the proposed development site area. This distance will ensure that all schemes with the potential to interact are taken into account. The schemes that are to be included in the cumulative effects should include all consented schemes, those in the planning process or those identified in local planning policy that are likely have combined effects with this development. It would be appreciated if Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council could highlight, in their scoping response, those schemes that they consider should be assessed within the cumulative impact aspect of the EIA.

3 The site and surrounding area

3.1 Site description

The anticipated outline planning application area occupies approximately 15 ha and is centred on Ordnance Survey Grid Reference 468146 157076, located just off the A33 between Reading and Basingstoke near the village of Sherfield-on-Loddon, Hampshire. The envisaged Outline Planning Boundary can be seen in Figure 3-1.

The site is bound to the west by the A33, which forms a strategic link between Reading and Basingstoke, and the school owned New South Lodge which falls between the A33 and the planning boundary. The site is bound to the north by amenity grassland, mixed woodland, scattered trees and a lake to the north-east. The planning boundary to the north additionally boarders onto school owned New North Lodge and Carfor House. There are a number of residential buildings to the north, adjacent to the A33, beyond the immediate site boundary. To the south, the site boundary intercepts Buckfield Copse, which forms Biodiversity Action Plan habitat and is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). The location of Buckfield Copse can be seen on Figure 3-3. Sherfield Oaks Golf Course is located to the east and south of the site beyond Buckfield Copse. There are ponds to both the east and south of the site associated with the golf course. Features surrounding the site can be seen in Figure 3-2).

The site itself includes the existing Sherfield School. There are a number of existing buildings on site and the locations of these can be seen on Figure 3-1. There is a road on site providing access to the school, connecting to the A33 to the west and Wildmoor Lane to the north. Undeveloped areas of the site include Buckfield Copse to the south, arable farmland to the south west, grassland to the north, grassland interspersed between the existing buildings, and both woodland and scattered trees to the north (see Appendix A - Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report). In addition to the protection designations associated with Buckfield Copse (location can be seen on Figure 3-3), the site falls on the Hampshire Register of Historic Parks and Gardens (North Foreland Lodge and Park), which forms a local level designation, and the woodland to the north of the site is classified as Biodiversity Action Plan Deciduous Woodland (see Figure 3-3). A public right of way, footpath 11, additionally crosses the site.

Figure 3-1 Site Location showing anticipated planning boundary (as indicated by the red line)

Figure 3-2 Approximate site boundary and surrounding features

Deciduous Sherfield Woodland on Loddon (BAP) Residential buildings Lake A33

Sherfield School Site Ponds

Sherfield Oaks

Right of way Golf Course

Buckfield Copse (BAP and SINC)

Figure 3-3 Nature on the Map extract showing coverage of BAP Ancient and Semi Natural Woodland and BAP Deciduous Woodland on and within the vicinity of the site (including approximate site boundary)

4 Description of the proposed development

The development is likely to see growth in school numbers of approx 450 pupils in 2011 to a max of 890 pupils in five years time. The outline development proposals include the provision of new education and boarding facilities.

The latest masterplan drawing for Sherfield School can be seen in Figure 4-1. The proposals are expected to comprise the following:

Demolition:

 Demolition of existing dining room; and small ancillary buildings.

Refurbishment:

 Refurbishment of the Chapel (existing little GEMs) building onsite to form a 6th form hub; and

 Existing sports hall to form the new performing arts centre.

New builds:

 50 metre indoor swimming pool;

 4 court sports hall;

 Kitchen and dining facilities;

 90 bed – 3 no 30 beds on site boarding facilities;

 1 no. outdoor sports pitch for football, rugby, and hockey

 New “Little Gems” education classrooms; and

 Additional classrooms to accommodate project growth.

Given that the scheme will include a swimming pool, the design team are currently investigating opportunities for using Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and whether a heat network may be appropriate for distributing low carbon heat to the latter phases of the masterplan.

A new water main shall be brought into the site to serve both the new and existing buildings, replacing the private borehole that is currently used to provide potable water. The school is currently served by oil. Investigations are being made to bring a new gas main onto site to serve the new buildings. Discussions are currently underway with Scottish and Southern Electricity to upgrade the site’s electrical supply with the intention of replacing the existing substation to ensure sufficient capacity to meet the master plan’s needs.

It is anticipated that the development plans will be completed over a number of phases, each will be subject to a full planning application.

The development proposals do not include alterations to the existing listed building and structures, but the masterplan is being developed to enhance the setting, in the case of the main school building, or to deal with issues of site access through the existing listed gates.

It should be noted that the site layout is still under review, and reference should be made to the latest masterplan in Figure 4-1. The outdoor sports pitch, sports hall, swimming pool and associated car parking have been located to the south-west of the site falling between the A33 and Buckfield Copse. The classrooms and little gems new builds are anticipated to be within the vicinity of the existing buildings on site. The new kitchen and dining room are planned opposite the existing science block, whilst the boarding accommodation, with due regards to the findings of the arboricultural survey, is located amongst the wooded areas to the north of the site.

Figure 4-1 Illustrative Masterplan (note this Masterplan is still evolving)

5 Environmental Assessments

Agreeing assessment methodology is a crucial stage of the process and is the primary purpose of requesting a scoping opinion. Ensuring the EIA methodology is acceptable to decision makers and consultees helps to avoid unnecessary delays in the post planning submission determination process.

The assessment methodologies for each of the topic areas that will determine the impact of the development on environmental receptors are set out below. To aid Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council and the statutory consultees in determining whether the methodology proposed is adequate, some baseline contextual information is provided and preliminary consideration is given to probable areas of significant effects.

The environmental disciplines proposed to be scoped out of the ES are additionally outlined at the end of this section.

5.1 Noise & Vibration

5.2 Assessment context

The scoping exercise has identified potentially noise sensitive locations in the vicinity of the proposed development. These locations include: specialist natural habitat; amenity land uses; dwellings.

The noise assessment will be coordinated with the work on ecology to assess potential impacts on fauna, including consideration of Buckfield Copse, the area of specialist (BAP listed) habitat closest to the planned development.

Noise impacts on the amenity use of land will be considered, particularly the public right of way across the site and the golf course to the south east of the school boundary.

The nearest dwellings potentially affected by the development are those to the north of the school boundary, adjacent to the A33.

In all cases where the term ‘noise’ is used, vibration will be considered to be included within the assessment.

Technical scope

Historically, assessment of noise and vibration effects made reference to PPG24 ‘Planning & Noise’. Although now withdrawn following issue of the National Planning Policy Framework in 2012, the document still provides a helpful source of reference and will be used to guide assessment approach.

Estimation and assessment of noise from demolition will be undertaken using the calculation methods and typical data included within BS 5228: 2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites –Part 1: Noise and Part 2- Vibration.

Estimation and assessment of road traffic noise will be undertaken using the calculation methods described in ‘Calculation of Road Traffic Noise’ (Department of Transport, Welsh Office, 1988)

Estimation of operational noise from buildings and fixed plant will be undertaken using the calculation methods included within BS 4142:1997 Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas.

Estimation of noise from school and community use of outdoor games areas will be based on reference to library data for similar activities and standard acoustical models for sound propagation.

Potential construction effects

Demolition and construction has potential to generate high levels of noise and vibration through activities such as material movements, earthworks, ground improvement and piling, crushing and breaking etc. Although subject to assessment and detailed review, the projected scale and phasing of the development indicates that it is unlikely the works would be a major source of noise or groundborne vibration. Some impact would be expected off site due to construction vehicle movements.

Potential Operational effects

The development proposals are expected to generate additional road traffic associated with higher pupil numbers on site, community use and an increased requirement for day to day servicing of the school operations. The additional vehicle movements will potentially increase road traffic noise levels on the local road network.

Fixed plant and building services equipment associated with the development will create noise when operating. The new equipment may create change in the ambient noise climate. In practice, change is likely to be limited to areas within the immediate vicinity of plant and off-site effects are considered unlikely.

Expansion or relocation of outdoor sports pitches and facilities may lead to change in the level or duration of noise associated with sports activity. From initial review of proposals, it is considered that change is likely to be limited to areas within the immediate vicinity of pitches and off-site effects are unlikely.

5.3 Assessment Methodology

Baseline assessment

Pre-development baseline conditions will be established by means of environmental noise survey. The survey will conducted over a period sufficient to indicate the local ambient noise climate over the intended time of operation of the development. The survey will include unattended logging and attended short period samples.

The locations used for measurement will be representative of the identified noise sensitive receptors.

The survey methodology will comply with the requirements of BS 7445-1:2003 Description and measurement of environmental noise. Guide to quantities and procedures’. Procedures for measurement of road traffic noise will comply with the guidance in ‘Calculation of Road Traffic Noise’, using the ‘short form’ procedure where appropriate. Effect prediction and assessment of effect significance

Effect prediction will use a range of recognised calculation and modelling methodologies.

Guidance to construction noise and vibration is contained within BS 5228, although it does not provide any objective noise limits associated with construction activities. AL72 (currently out of print) did provide recommended noise level limits for construction activities. The LPA will be consulted to establish their preferred approach.

BS5228 Part 2 provides guidance on the perception of vibration within occupied buildings. This provides a simple method of determining annoyance alongside evaluation of cosmetic damage associated with vibration.

BS4142:1997 ‘Method for Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas’ is widely used for assessing the impact of noise from mechanical services plant. The assessment parameter is the ‘rating level’ LR of the plant noise assessed at the position of residential properties compared with the ‘background’ level LA90.

Procedures described in Department of Transport / Welsh Office Memorandum ‘Calculation of Road Traffic Noise’ (CRTN) (1998) will be used for calculating and measuring road traffic noise.

Guidance on impact assessment of traffic noise is provided within the IEMA Guidance Note No. 1 (Guidance for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic). The document recommends assessment where traffic flows will increase by more than 30% (or the number of heavy goods vehicles will increase by more than 30%), and where specifically sensitive areas experience traffic flow increases of 10% or more. The guidance indicates that projected changes in traffic of less than 10% create no discernible environmental noise impact.

Other impacts will be assessed using the guidance in the draft ‘Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessment’ issued by the IoA and IEMA in 2002.

5.4 Air Quality

5.4.1 Assessment context

Basingstoke and Dean Borough Council has not declared any air quality management areas as national air quality objectives are met throughout the borough. However, the proposed development will have potential impacts on local air quality during its construction and operation which needs to be assessed.

The nearest sensitive receptor likely to be affected by the construction activities is the New South Lodge located to the west of the site. Also, receptors likely to be affected by operational traffic emissions are those located within 200m of the A33 (north of the site) which is likely to experience an increase in traffic flows. Emissions from the onsite plant (gas-fired CHP) will have the potential to impact on future onsite receptors as well as existing receptors in the surrounding area.

Technical Scope

Operational traffic-related emissions and emissions from the energy centre will be assessed using the atmospheric dispersion model ADMS-Roads. The assessment will consider traffic-related pollutants (nitrogen dioxide (NO2)) and particulate matter (PM10) and NO2 associated with the energy centre.

Potential construction effects

The development will have the potential to generate dust and other air emissions during construction which can have adverse impacts on sensitive receptors.

Potential operational effects

Traffic generated by the proposed development and emissions from the CHP during operation will give rise to nitrogen oxides and PM10 emissions.

5.4.2 Assessment methodology Baseline assessment

Baseline data will be gathered from the following sources:

 Basingstoke and Dean Borough Council’s air quality review and assessment reports and monitoring data; and

 DEFRA air quality background maps.

No surveys will be undertaken as it is assumed sufficient data will be available.

Effect prediction and assessment of effect significance

Construction impacts will be assessed through an investigation of potential sources of air pollutant emissions from construction activities and through the formulation of appropriate mitigation and control measures. An environmental risk assessment of construction impacts will be carried out using the risk based approach described in the Greater London Authority (GLA) Best Practice Guidance1. Although this Guidance is a London focussed document, the principles of best practice can be readily applied to other areas outside London. It provides a method for undertaking a qualitative air quality impact evaluation, whereby the construction / demolition site is evaluated and depending on the outcome of the assessment (high, medium or low risk).

Operational traffic-related emissions and emissions from the energy centre will be assessed using the atmospheric dispersion model ADMS-Roads. The assessment will consider traffic-related pollutants (NO2 and PM10) and NO2 associated with the energy centre. Concentrations of these pollutants will be forecast at nearby receptors for the following traffic scenarios:

 Existing baseline year;

 Do Nothing: future baseline without the development; and

 Do Something: future baseline operation with the development.

A comparison of results in future Do Nothing and Do Something scenarios will allow the impact of the proposed development to be determined. The cumulative effects of committed developments will be taken into consideration in both scenarios.

Pollutant concentrations will be forecast at selected properties (receptors), where exposure of residents to traffic emissions from vehicles travelling to / from the proposed development is potentially the greatest. These receptor locations will be agreed with the Environmental Health Officer of the Council following further work on traffic generation.

The most recent meteorological data, assumed to be 2011, will be used for this assessment. DEFRA air quality background maps will be used to obtain pollutant background concentrations for the model.

Results from the modelling of traffic and CHP emissions will be compared against the national air quality objectives and the effect significance will be determined using the Environment Protection UK Guidance EPUK (2010) Development Control: Planning for Air Quality (2010 Update). This guidance provides a basis on how to describe the significance of the effects predicted from an air quality modelling study.

1 GLA and London Councils (2006). The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition. Best Practice Guidance, November 2006

5.5 Landscape Visual Impact Assessment

5.5.1 Assessment context

The scoping exercise has identified that the proposals may result in impacts on the landscape and visual resources of the site and its surroundings. Best practice requires that the significance of the potential effects is determined and potential mitigation measures are identified in order to reduce the significance of these effects. The residual effects (with the mitigation measures in place) are then reassessed to consider the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and demonstrate the long-term effects of the proposals.

Technical Scope

The scheme is likely to have effects upon the physical landscape attributes of the site and on the visual amenity of views towards and within the site. This may result in effects on the landscape character of the surrounding areas. These effects may be positive or negative depending on the baseline conditions of the receiving environment. The significance of the impacts will depend upon the magnitude of the impact and the sensitivity of the landscape and visual receptors. The EIA will therefore consider impacts upon:

 the physical landscape resources of the site and its immediate surroundings;

 the visual amenity of views within and towards the site; and

 any consequential effects on the surrounding landscape character resources.

Potential effects

The assessment will consider the potential effects on the landscape and visual attributes of the site during construction, on completion of the building works and 15 years after completion of the buildings works, when the mitigation measures are fully established. Potential effects include:

 Loss or damage to the landscape attributes of the site, including semi mature and mature trees and semi natural ancient woodland;

 Impacts on the settings of Listed Buildings and other heritage features within or adjacent to the site;

 Impacts on the character and condition of the registered parkland;

 Impacts on the public right of right to the south of the main access drive;

 Impacts on views from the A33, the public right of way and other publicly available viewpoints, and

 Local impacts on the surrounding landscape character.

The assessment will consider the likely impacts at each of the three stages, with the conclusions presented in the Landscape and Visual Impact Tables. These will also identify whether the impacts are likely to be significant by considering the sensitivity of the receptors and the existing contribution of the attributes to the baseline situation. The effects 15 years after the completion of the buildings works (the residual effects) will make reference to the long-term Landscape Strategy and Masterplan for the School and will incorporate assumptions relating to the long-term management of the site outline in this and other chapters of the ES.

5.5.2 Assessment methodology

The assessment methodology will be based on the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Assessment Guidelines) 2002. These guidelines state that there is no standard methodology for the quantification of landscape and visual impacts. In accordance with best practice, the methodology will therefore incorporating a degree of professional judgement and will relate specifically to the site. Reference will also be made to the following guidance:

 Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland - (2002) Countryside Agency / Scottish Natural Heritage

 The Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment - (2004) Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment

 Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual assessment (2011) - Landscape Institute Advise Note 01/11

Baseline assessment

An assessment of the current baseline landscape and visual conditions on the site will be undertaken. This will include a desk based assessment of available published materials, including internet-based mapping services such as MAGIC to identify statutory and local designated sites within the area. This will be followed by site walkover surveys and a photographic survey to illustrate the existing character and conditions of the landscape and visual resources of the site. The assessment and the identification of potential mitigation measures will consider the following sources:

 The Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Assessment (June 2001);

 The Basingstoke and Deane Landscape and Biodiversity SPD (June 2008); and

 The Basingstoke and Deane Countryside Design Summary (September 2008);

The baseline assessment will be illustrated by reference to annotated panoramic photographs showing the existing landscape features of the site, the visibility of the site from publically available viewpoints and the existing contribution that it makes to the surrounding landscape character. The scoping exercise has identified that the key viewpoints are likely to be located along the A33 and the public rights of way network. The precise locations of the viewpoints to be assessed will be agreed with the Local Planning Authority as part of the design development and assessment process.

Effect prediction and assessment of effect significance

The objective of the impact assessment should be to identify the potential significant impacts that may result from the proposals. These impacts would be important considerations in the decision making process. Where such impacts are identified, appropriate mitigation measures should be incorporated in order to eliminate, reduce or compensate for the long-term or residual effects of the proposals. The significance of the impacts will be determined by a combination of the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of the predicted changes.

5.6 Archaeology

5.6.1 Assessment context

The Assessment will evaluate the potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed development on the known and potential archaeological resource, to include World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Registered Historic Parks and Gardens and Battlefields and archaeological Heritage Assets recorded within the County Historic Environment Record. The proposal site lies within the locally designated North Foreland Lodge and Park, which is recorded within the Hampshire Register of Historic Parks and Gardens. There are two Scheduled Ancient Monuments within the vicinity of the proposal site, with Bulls Down Camp to the northwest (SAM 1001944) and Pyotts Hill Entrenchment (SAM 1001924) to the southwest. The assessment will review archaeological data from within a Study Area of 1.5km radius of the site centre and draw on selected relevant data from beyond this to further define the context of the site. A review of the relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance at National Regional and Local level will be undertaken to include consideration of the NPPF and the LDF.

Technical Scope

The chapter will consider archaeological Heritage Assets (Designated and un-Designated) but will not include detailed consideration of Listed Building or Conservation Area matters as these are to be dealt with separately under the Cultural Heritage Chapter. The Assessment will be undertaken by a professional Archaeologist who is a Member of the Institute for Archaeologists (MiFA). The Assessment will identify potential effects of the development proposals on the archaeological resource and propose suitable mitigation strategies.

Potential construction effects

During the construction phase the proposals would have the potential to generate a range of effects on the archaeological resource. The effects to be considered by the Assessment would include;

 Direct Effects – Those which physically affect archaeological assets e.g. truncation of buried archaeological deposits through excavation of foundations;  Indirect Effects – Those which affect the setting of an archaeological asset e.g. a Scheduled Ancient Monument; and  Cumulative Effects – Those that can either arise from multiple effects on a single asset or from a combination of several developments on an asset.

Potential operational effects

Potential operational effects are likely to be limited to indirect effects on the settings of Designated and un-Designated Assets. Any direct effects on buried archaeological remains will be limited to the construction phase. The Residual effects, once mitigation has been undertaken, will also be assessed.

5.6.2 Assessment methodology Baseline assessment

An assessment of the current Baseline Conditions, including a desk based assessment and site walkover survey, will be undertaken. The assessment will consult readily available documentary evidence including the Hampshire Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record, the National Monument Record, cartographic, photographic and other published and unpublished sources as may be relevant. The data will be collated and presented within the Archaeology Chapter supported by appropriate illustrations and photographs. Professional judgement will be used to determine the importance of the known and potential archaeological resource. Where Assets are designated this will assist in ascribing levels of importance, where not the Secretary of State’s non statutory criteria (formerly set out in Annexe 4 of PPG16) will be considered. Statutory Consultees will be consulted (e.g. English Heritage, Hampshire County Council Heritage Services) as appropriate. Effect prediction and assessment of effect significance

Having ascribed levels of importance to the known and potential archaeological assets, the scale and significance of individual effects (direct and indirect) e.g. Adverse Effect of Minor Significance, will be assessed using professional judgement against a set of Significance Criteria which will take into account the sensitivity of the asset, the scale of the potential effect and the likelihood of occurrence.

5.7 Built Heritage

5.7.1 Assessment context

In accordance with national and local planning policy, the Heritage chapter will assess the impacts of the proposed development upon the historic environment. It will establish the value and significance of those heritage assets which are on and within the vicinity of the development site, and will assess the impacts of the development on the significance of each of those assets and their setting.

Heritage Assets, as defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF and for the purposes of this assessment, can be defined as;

A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing).

The heritage assets which will be considered within this Chapter will be referred to as ‘designated heritage assets’ i.e. listed buildings and conservation areas and ‘non-designated’ heritage assets i.e. assets identified by the local planning authority. In accordance with the NPPF, the settings of all heritage assets will be assessed. The definition of ‘setting’, as set out in the NPPF and for the purposes of this assessment, is;

The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.

Shefield School includes 3 listings within its own boundaries, plus it adjoins the boundary with the walled garden, which includes another 2 listed buildings, both of which were linked to Sherfield School when it was a house. Whilst the site has been notably impacted by 20th century school developments prior to listing in 2004, there remains a great scope to enhance the setting of the site and buildings through careful analysis and assessment. The key heritage assets on the site are recognised as:

 Designated

 Sherfield School – main block (Grade II listed)

 South gates, gate piers & flanking walls to Sherwood School (Grade II listed)

 Pond basin to south-east of main block (GII listed)

 Sherfield-on-Loddon Conservation Area

 Non-designated

 Sherfield School Gardens (Hampshire registered Historic Park/Garden)

For the avoidance of complication, any object or structure within the curtilage, which is deemed to encompass ALL of the development site, and although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since 1st July 1948, is considered to be classed as a listed building/structure.

The need to consider the historic environment is a material consideration in planning decisions, directed by legislation and national policy. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is the primary legislation which requires in section 66 that the decision maker in the planning process should have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest which it possesses. A similar duty exists in respect of conservation areas under section 72 of the Act. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 provides for the designation and management of scheduled ancient monuments.

The National Planning Policy Framework, published on 27 March 2012, sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and advises on how these are expected to be applied at a local level. Chapter 12 specifically sets out the Government’s objectives for ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’. The overarching emphasis of Chapter 12 is the need to understand the significance of a heritage assets (both designated and non designated) and their setting and to consider the degree of harm likely in terms of ‘substantial’ or less than substantial on the significance of the building and allow that to be weighed against any public benefits in order to achieve:

Local planning policy which has been taken into account in this assessment includes the following policies and guidance documents:

South East Plan (also known as the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East

 Policy CC6: Sustainable communities and character of the environment

 Policy BE6: Management of the Historic Environment

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 (adopted July 2006)

 Policy E2: Buildings of Historic or Architectural Interest

 Policy E3: Areas of Architectural or Historic Interest

 Policy E6: Landscape Character

Other relevant local supplementary planning documents include:

 PPS5 Practice Guide (2010)

 English Heritage (2008) Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance

 English Heritage (2011) The Setting of Heritage Assets

 Sherfield-on-Loddon Conservation Area Appraisal

 Basingstoke and Dean Council Listed Building SPG

 Hampshire’s Historic Parks and Gardens Register

 Hampshire's Historic Landscape Report

 Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Assessment (2002) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment

Technical Scope

This chapter will consider each of the development proposals outlined below in relation to the impacts on buildings, their setting, the historic parkland landscape and vistas and views into, out of, to and from the assets and through the site.

Demolition:

 Demolition of existing sports hall and existing dining room

 Potential to demolish ex science blocks to open up courtyard area between dining and Little GEMS

Refurbishment:

 Refurbishment of the Chapel (existing little GEMs) building onsite to form a 6th form hub.

New builds:

 50 metre indoor swimming pool;

 6 court sports hall;

 Kitchen and dining facilities;

 90 bed – 3 no 30 beds on site boarding facilities;

 1 no. 3G astroturf pitch for football, rugby, hockey;

 Changing facilities;

 Performing arts centre with 250 seat auditorium;

 New “Little Gems” education classrooms;

 New science block; and

 Additional classrooms to accommodate project growth.

The development proposals do not include alterations to the existing listed building and structures, but the masterplan is being developed to enhance the setting of the main school building and improve access through the existing listed gates. The site layout for the development is still under review but it is envisaged that development will extend further north and south from the positioning of the current school buildings.

This chapter will consider the historical development of the site, the changes in the character of the buildings, their setting and uses, the historical landscape setting and changes to it and will consider the existing character of the site before considering the implications of the proposed development. Potential construction effects

 Vibrations from the vehicular movement could have structural implications for buildings and structures

 Structural movement and potential long term damage to listed buildings

 Visual harm in terms of screening/shoring of historic buildings and increased traffic

 Noise - harm to the parkland setting

 Potential loss of historic fabric through changes to buildings, roads and landscape layout on the site Potential operational effects

 Changes to the appearance of the buildings and the setting of the heritage assets

 Changes to views and vistas within the site

 Improved landscaping on the site

 Beneficial repairs to buildings

 Visual changes to the Registered Parkland

5.7.2 Assessment methodology Baseline assessment

The first stage of assessment will be to identify all of the heritage assets on the site and within 10m of the vicinity of the site boundary. This will include all designated and non-designated heritage assets and their settings.

Baseline data will be gathered from the following sources:

 The Heritage Gateway – online resource

 Basingstoke and Dean Council website

 Hampshire County Council website

 Hampshire Record Office

 National Monuments Record Centre

 On site analysis of individual heritage assets and their settings

 On site visual analysis of key views into, within or out of site and the heritage assets – photographs will be included to illustrate key views. The views to be assessed will be agreed with the local planning authority.

Once the baseline information has been gathered, the assessments set out in Tables 1 – 3 can be carried out. Effect prediction and assessment of effect significance

Industry guidance for assessing the effect on significance is set out in the NPPF, PPS5 Practice Guide and English Heritage’s guidance on ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets’. The methodology will look first at the significance (value/sensitivity) of all of the heritage assets and their setting, then at the magnitude of effects arising from the proposed development, and then at the significance of the impacts.

Significance, as defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF and for the purposes of this assessment, can be defined as;

The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.

Table 1 below sets out a guide for the first stage in the assessment of the heritage assets and their setting, namely an assessment of their significance (value/sensitivity). The initial scoping study summarises that none of the heritage assets on or in 10m of the site are classified as falling into the very high sensitivity category. Some of the heritage assets fall into the high sensitivity category, some within the medium and many within the low sensitivity category.

For the purposes of the assessment, all freestanding curtilage listed structures will be categorised within the high sensitivity category unless there are particular reasons for considering them under a different category. For example, as they are not listed in their own right they could be categorised as being of medium or even medium/low heritage significance (value/sensitivity), on the basis of informed professional judgement.

Table 5-1 Assessment sensitivity

Sensitivity Criteria Very High Sites of universal value, importance and significance – i.e. World Heritage Sites.

High Designated heritage assets as defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF - in this case listed buildings and conservation areas. Medium Non-designated heritage assets, as defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF – in this case locally listed buildings and Hampshire Registered Historic Park and Garden. Low Structures which may have some potential interest or significance, but which have not been identified as heritage assets by the LPA.

There will be direct (physical) effects as a result of the proposed demolition of some buildings and indirect effects as a result with changes to the setting of the heritage assets – the surroundings in which the significance of the asset in question is experienced. These effects can be experienced either during the construction and decommissioning phases, or the operational phase, or both.

The magnitude of effect is set out in Table 2 below. It should be emphasised that not all change is necessarily harmful. In particular, even though the wing attached to the principle listed building is proposed for demolition, the Council has recognised that “removing the immediately adjoining northern wing of modern school buildings from the main building would be a substantial improvement”.

Table 5-2 Magnitude of effect

Magnitude of Effect Factors in the assessment Major/Severe Direct: Total loss of a heritage asset Indirect: Total loss of the setting of a heritage asset Major Direct: Considerable physical change to a heritage asset Indirect: Extensive and fundamental change to the setting of a heritage asset Medium Direct: Noticeable physical modification or change affecting key elements or characteristics Indirect: Noticeable modification or change of the setting of a heritage asset, affecting key elements or characteristics Minor Direct: A physical change or difference to a key element or characteristic Indirect: A change or difference within the setting of the heritage asset, affecting a key element or characteristic Slight Direct: Slight physical change that does not erode the significance of the heritage asset Indirect: Slight change within the setting of the heritage asset that does not erode its significance

The heritage field has scope for some degree of subjectivity. However, in accordance with the NPPF, the assessment made will be based on professional judgement based on current heritage policy and guidance and 16 years of experience within the field.

It is important to recognise that the designated heritage assets are the receptors. The setting of these heritage assets is complex, and is made up of many components, of which so called “key views” (as referred to in English Heritage’s ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets’) to and from the assets may play only a part. Accordingly, when assessing the setting of a heritage asset it is important to consider the wider setting and not focus on one viewpoint. Setting is in itself only one component of significance, which itself is made up of other values or types of interest described above – architectural, historical, and so on. Therefore, an effect on the setting of a heritage asset is not the same as an impact on the significance of a heritage asset. It is also valuable to recognise that the amount of public access to a site does not change any emphasis on whether its setting adds to its significance. However, proper evaluation of the effect of change within the setting of a heritage asset will usually need to consider the implications for public appreciation of its significance, as advocated in the PPS5 Practice Guide and English Heritage guidance.

5.8 Water Resources and Flood Risk

5.8.1 Assessment context

There are no water bodies within the site boundary; however there is a small lake directly to the north-east of the development site within the school grounds. At this time the natural supply of water to this lake is unconfirmed but as the site slopes towards the north east, it is possible that the surface water from the school buildings and areas of hardstanding discharge there. It is understood that the lake discharges to a ditchcourse which outfalls in the River Loddon approximately 0.5km to the north-east. The discharge from the lake is controlled by a weir. Other water bodies within 2km of the site include a lake to the south of the site associated with the adjacent golf course, a number of lakes several hundred metres to the east associated with the neighbouring golf course, standing water bodies approximately 0.5km to the south-west and 1.8km to the west of the site and Bow Beck located approximately 0.6km to the north-west of the site. The water bodies to the south-west and west of the site are not considered to be connected to the site drainage and therefore will be ruled out of any further assessment within the ES.

Both the River Loddon and Bow Beck fall within the Thames River Basin Catchment and the associated River Basin Management Plan sets a number of actions to meet the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive. This is a strategic document, and is further sub-delineated through a number of Catchment Implementation Plans. On initial review of the draft Loddon Catchment Implementation Plan, the River Loddon is failing to meet the Water Framework Directive ‘good ecological status’ objective, with a major issue being phosphate levels exceeding the WFD standard.

A borehole is located within one of the buildings on the site and currently provides the majority of buildings with water. The water from this borehole produces a naturally high level of fluoride. The site borders onto a minor aquifer (high vulnerability) to the north as indicated by Environment Agency mapping.

The site consists of areas of hard standing associated with existing school buildings and road access. This being said, the majority of the site encompassed within the planning application boundary is considered to be undeveloped and includes wooded areas, grasslands and arable farmland in active use.

According to the Environment Agency’s flood maps, the whole of the site is within Flood Zone 1 and is considered to be at a low risk from fluvial flooding. Currently, it is understood that foul sewerage is drained to the Thames Water public sewer network to the north-west of the site and storm water is drained to the adjacent lake. These should be confirmed by Thames water and a CCTV survey of the existing onsite sewer network respectively.

Potential construction effects

Initial review of the proposed scheme and existing surrounding water environment suggests that potential significant effects during the construction phase may include:

 Localised changes in surface water flow regime during rainfall events;

 Deterioration of the quality of surface water run-off from the site which may deteriorate the quality of downstream water bodies and groundwater through infiltration; and

 Accidental leaks and spillages of hazardous material which could adversely affect the quality of downstream water bodies and groundwater through infiltration.

Potential operational effects

Initial review of the proposed scheme and existing surrounding water environment suggests that potential significant effects during the operational phase may include:

 Increased water supply and foul water disposal capacity;

 Potential change of surface water flow regime across the site changing capacity requirements for surface water sewer network;

 Deterioration of the quality of surface water run-off, particularly from increased traffic movements, which may deteriorate the quality of nearby water bodies, via the surface water sewerage network; and

 An increase in surface water discharge rates which may increase flood risk to the site, adjacent sites and areas downstream.

5.8.2 Assessment methodology

The Water Resources and Flood Risk chapter of the ES will assess the potential effects of the development on the surrounding surface water environment and the potential effects of the surface water environment on the proposed scheme. The assessment will assess potential impacts to groundwater quality. This will include an assessment of the potential change in water supply, foul drainage, surface water drainage, pollution prevention and flood risk.

Baseline assessment

Relevant baseline data will be reviewed, covering the site and extending to 2km from the site boundary. Baseline data will be obtained through an Envirocheck report, a site visit and consultation with the relevant authorities.

Relevant baseline data will include assessing the current quality of any existing surface and ground water features in line with the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive requirements and, where relevant, EU Habitats Directive. There will be a review of existing permitted discharges, surface and ground water abstractions, the existing surface water runoff regime, and a review of any existing flood risk issues. A review and summary of relevant international, national and local legislation relating to the water environment will also be undertaken. Effect prediction and assessment of effect significance

Potential effects on the water environment, and in particular the features of the water environment stated above, arising from the proposed development will be assessed against the baseline condition. Effects will be assessed for both the construction and operational phases of development.

Potential changes in water supply, foul drainage, surface water drainage and pollution to the surface water environment and groundwater will be assessed through a qualitative based approach. The baseline sensitivity will be informed through an appreciation of elements including water body amenity value, Water Framework Directive Designations on chemical and ecological status, presence of source protections zones, groundwater sensitivity and vulnerability, and the presence of nature conservation designations associated with the water environment. Professional judgement will be made on the likely changes to watercourses / hydrology, hydrogeology, water supply, and the likely changes to surface water and groundwater quality through potentially polluting on site activities during both construction and operation with development, taking into account the development plans and likely onsite activities.

A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) will be undertaken for the outline planning application in accordance with NPPF, the good practice set out in PPS25 Development and Flood Risk and in consultation with the Environment Agency. The FRA will assess the current potential for flood risk on the site from rivers, groundwater and overland flow. The FRA will then assess the potential effect of development on flood risk, in particular the potential for increased flood risk to the site, adjacent sites and areas downstream. This will include an assessment of the proposed surface water drainage strategy and the potential implications of climate change.

The effect significance will be based on assessing the effect magnitude (i.e. the deviation from the baseline condition) and the sensitivity of the likely receptor. Professional judgement and the use of a matrix approach will determine if potential effects are considered to be significant.

5.9 Ecology

5.9.1 Assessment context

An extended Phase 1 habitat survey was completed in July 2012 (Appendix A). The extended Phase 1 survey identified a mosaic of different habitats present within the site including: amenity grassland, arable fields, broadleaved and mixed woodland, ornamental planting; semi-improved grassland, improved grassland, species-poor hedgerows, standing open water, deciduous and coniferous standard trees, tall ruderal vegetation and scrub. These habitat types in themselves are common and widespread throughout the UK and are considered to be of value at site level only. Notwithstanding this, Buckfield Copse is identified as ancient and semi-natural woodland and therefore is considered as being of national importance.

Ancient woodland, such as Buckfield Copse is listed as a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitat. There are Natural England guidelines associated with such habitats and include buffer zone requirements (15m) and protection of features.

The survey identified an active badger sett, which is located near Carfor House. There is potential of bats to be using buildings for roosting and there is anecdotal evidence of a bat roost in the roof void of Little Gems. Several of the mature trees on site were considered likely to support roosting bats. Habitat which is suitable to support common reptile species was also identified, especially around the edges of the arable fields and woodland edge. Several ponds are located across the site and in the immediate area. There is therefore the potential of Great Crested Newts (GCNs) to be supported across the site.

Further surveys for reptiles, GCNs and bats (Appendix B) were undertaken in August and September 2012. These confirmed the use of the roof void of Little Gems as a maternity roost for brown long eared bats. It is likely that other species, such as pipistrelles are also using the building. The reptile surveys identified that grass snakes are present in low numbers around the edges of the site. Grass snakes were found on the edges of the agricultural field and near the lake within the school boundary but outside the application area. HSI for GCNs were undertaken. Many of the lakes and ponds in the local area supported high numbers of fish and were therefore not considered suitable for GCNs. It is considered that GCNs are unlikely to be in the application area of the site if they are present in the local area.

Technical Scope

Phase 1 surveys are undertaken following the JNCC guidelines. Further protected species surveys will follow best practice guidelines as per IEEM and guidelines taken from statutory bodies such as Natural England and non statutory bodes such as Frog Life and Bat Conservation Trust.

Further species specific surveys were undertaken for bats, great crested newts and reptiles in and around the application area and in the wider landscape.

Potential construction effects

Potential construction effects include:

 Loss of habitat within the site;

 Loss of semi mature and mature trees within the site;

 Impact or loss of semi natural ancient woodland and BAP habitat;

 Disturbance to protected species (reptiles, nesting birds, badgers, GCNs);

 Loss of bat roosts within buildings; and

 Loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation in relation to the wider landscape.

The scoping report will identify whether these potential impacts are considered to be significant in terms of nature conservation and ecological value at the site and in the wider landscape.

Potential operational effects

Potential operation effects include:

 Management of the sites habitats with regards to nature conservation interest;

 Potential impacts of increased foot fall and wear and tear on the retained landscape;

 Potential operational impacts on badger setts, reptile habitat, bat roosts etc;

 The provision of opportunities for wildlife on site; and

 Maintaining some degree of habitat linkages across the site.

Operational effects will be reviewed in terms of running of the site in light of the development as per the masterplan. The operational effects will be reviewed in terms of the local landscape and the wider landscape and their nature conservation value. 5.9.2 Assessment methodology

Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessments, which forms part of the EIA, is taken from the IEEM guidelines (2006). This document provides best practice guidance in identifying whether the need for an EcIA is required and where it is required guidance on determining the value of ecological features and resources including those that have been designated for nature conservation, and the impact magnitude, including description of baseline conditions and cumulative impact assessment.

Baseline assessment

Desktop study

A desk top study search will be undertaken using an internet-based mapping service, MAGIC, for statutory designated sites and two internet-based aerial mapping services (multimap and google.maps) to understand the habitats present in and around the survey area and habitat linkages and features (ponds and woodlands) within the wider landscape.

A 2km search will also be carried out using an internet-based database (www.searchnbn.net) for recent protected species records. Records older than 10 years will not be considered.

Site Inspection

Phase 1 habitat surveys were undertaken in July 2012. Further surveys for specially protected species will be undertaken in August and September 2012.

The Phase 1 study identified the habitats present, following the standard ‘Phase 1 habitat survey’ auditing method developed by the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC). The site was surveyed on foot and the existing habitats and land uses were recorded on an appropriately scaled map (NCC 1990). In addition, the dominant plant species in each habitat were recorded, as was any evidence of protected species. The potential for the site to support protected species was also assessed. This included an inspection of the site for indications of the presence of protected species as follows:

 Evidence of badger, including setts, runs, snuffle holes and hairs;

 The presence of features such as roof voids, bridges and/or trees with fissures, holes, loose bark and ivy or building basements, cladding etc. indicating potential for roosting bats;

 Scrub/grassland mosaic and potential hibernation sites for common reptiles;

 Relevant habitat for dormice such as dense deciduous woodland, coppice and thick shrubbery;

 The presence of suitable breeding places (water bodies) and hibernation features for great crested newts;

 The presence of suitable freshwater habitat for white-clawed crayfish;

 The presence of ditches for water voles;

 The presence of fresh water stream/rivers for otters;

 Suitable nesting places for birds; and

 Other potential protected species.

The likelihood of occurrence will be ranked as follows, based on the previous survey and the update walkover to be undertaken:

 Unlikely – while presence cannot be absolutely discounted, the site includes very limited or poor quality habitat for a particular species or species group. The site may also be outside or peripheral to known national range for a species;

 Low – on-site habitat of poor to moderate quality for a given species/species group. Presence cannot be discounted on the basis of national distribution, nature of surrounding habitats, habitat fragmentation, recent on-site disturbance etc;

 Medium – on-site habitat of moderate quality, providing all of the known key-requirements of given species/species group. Factors limiting the likelihood of occurrence may include small habitat area, habitat severance and fragmentation, disturbance;

 High – on site habitat of high quality for a given species/species group. Good quality surrounding habitat and good connectivity; and

 Present – presence confirmed from the current survey or by recent, confirmed records.

The purpose of this assessment is to identify whether more comprehensive species surveys for protected species or habitats (Phase 2) are to be recommended.

As a result of the Phase 1 surveys, further protected species surveys were undertaken including bats, GCNs and reptiles. These surveys were undertaken in August and September 2012.

Effect prediction and assessment of effect significance

The prediction of impacts is identified through the valuation of species and habitats on site and the identified potential scale or magnitude of the proposed development.

Guidelines for assigning values to ecological features and resources are taken from the IEEM Guidelines (2006). Valuing sites, habitats and species is undertaken by reviewing legislation, planning policies, and national and international legislation.

Habitat value is determined by geographical context (International, national, regional, local etc); its legal designation, whether internationally important, Ramsar sites for example, to European sites of importance , SPA and SACs as part of Natura 2000 sites across Europe, for example. National nature reserves (NNRs) and Sites of Scientific Interest (SSSI) are important at a national level. Locally BAP habitats or local nature reserves such as SNICs are also considered. Other designations include TPOs and important hedgerows.

In assigning value to a species, it is necessary to consider its distribution, and status, including a consideration of trends based on available historical records. Species which are protected by legislation are also considered to be of significance for nature conservation value. This can include European Protected Species, such as bats, of nationally protected species under the WCA such as the more common reptiles. There are numerous species whose populations are in decline throughout the UK. Many of those for which the decline is most serious, ‘priority species’ are the subject of Species Action Plans (SAPs) in the UK BAP. These species must also be considered as part of the EIA.

Species that are not protected by legislation or listed as priorities in Biodiversity Action Plans are likely to be common and widespread. Impacts on the populations of these species are unlikely to be significant. This would be considered of value at a local level. Features that are important at a local level may be of particular value in the context of the site itself. Local non-designated sites may also be of importance to local people. However, individual cases should be considered, particularly birds, some species of which are still common but have undergone a significant decline in the last few years. A common bird species, listed in the National Biodiversity Action Plan as a ‘Species of Conservation Concern’ may be given more consideration than one not on the list.

Features which are considered to be of some value at site level are also considered. These are likely to be features such as mature trees, hedgerows or ponds, which although do not support protected species or are not protected themselves do provide some opportunities for wildlife. Features which are wide spread and common are assessed as such if they present in a variety of habitats and are widespread through the UK. Negligible value include aspects which provide no opportunities for wildlife, such as hardstanding elements.

Where features have been assigned values at more than one level, their importance should be taken at the highest level. For example, a site designated as an SAC and SSSI would be valued in any assessment as being of international importance, reflecting its SAC designation, and any impacts assessed accordingly.

In determining the magnitude of the impact on the habitats or species identified as potential receptors as part of the proposed development, the methodology set out in Table 5-1 below is considered (English Nature, 1994), a robust approach.

Table 5-3 Impact magnitude against the importance of the receptor

Impact Magnitude Effect significance Large Medium Small Negligible Levels of International Major Major Moderate Minor importance of the receptor National Major Moderate Minor Minor

County / Moderate Minor Minor Negligible District

Local Minor Minor Negligible Negligible

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

5.10 Waste

5.10.1 Assessment context

In the expansion of Sherfield School there is potential to generate significant amounts of construction and demolition waste during construction works. Additionally, as the facilities are set to expand and include other leisure and support facilities, increasing pupil numbers, which will raise operational waste generation rates. An increase in waste streams has the potential to effect both localised and regional waste management infrastructure, which may already be running at or near full capacity.

Technical scope

Waste generated rates will be determined for the demolition, refurbishment and new builds of the school. Construction waste levels will be found, reduction measures detailed and overall effects determined. Operational waste generation rates will also be found, reduction measures determined and over all effects detailed.

Potential construction effects

Depending on phasing, waste from construction activities can be significant if mitigation measures are not implemented. Larger pulses of waste creation can occur at key construction stages, such as the early demolition stage or the later building fit out, which can lead to infrastructure pressures on existing capacity to collect and manage construction waste in an environmentally compliant manner. Waste minimisation at all stages must be considered to not only reduce strain on the local infrastructure but also reduce the financial burden of waste management and promote good environmental practice.

Potential operational effects

Operational effects could arise as a result of poor waste management provision and / or poor waste management in the development. Lack of planning for onsite storage, movement and collection of operational waste could lead to unhygienic or non compliant waste activities. Predicted waste generation patterns for the site will be compared against existing and future local and regional waste baselines to assess significance of effects.

5.10.2 Assessment methodology Baseline assessment

In order to assess the effects of the Sherfield School development on waste management, the following baseline data will be examined:

 Current waste generation rates for the site will be obtained from existing operators of the site;

 New demolition, construction and operational waste generation rates will be determine through best practice research; and

 Review of local facilities for waste management and their capacity will be undertaken.

Effect prediction and assessment of effect significance

Effects of construction and demolition works on the management of waste for the locale will be assessed by consideration of sources and generation rates of construction waste from the development. This will be compared as a percentage against current and future waste generation quantities in Sherfield.

The assessment will make use of the Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) data provided on quantities of expected construction and demolition waste and how it is eliminated, or recovered. An evaluation of effects on waste infrastructure will then be made (negligible, low, moderate or high).

There are currently no fixed or recommended criteria for assessing the significance of effects arising from the management of waste. Therefore, the development proposal is evaluated according to its predicted individual waste characteristics and how they interact with the surrounding provisions for waste management. This assessment is then used to identify opportunities and to respond to policy via means that reduce any adverse effects, and increase the likelihood of beneficial effects of waste management.

The significance of waste effects is determined by the type, location and capacity of local and regional waste management facilities and their ability to manage waste in an environmentally and sustainably proficient manner. Effect significance is based on the sensitivity of local waste infrastructure alongside the percentage change against local generation rates in the area. The effect significance before and after mitigation is either: negligible, low, moderate or high.

5.11 Traffic and Transportation

5.11.1 Assessment Context

The Traffic and Transport chapter will draw upon the findings of the Transport Assessment (TA) submitted with the planning application. This chapter will summarise the methodology to assess the baseline conditions for each mode of transport, with each mode representing a receptor; each receptor will be sub-divided to represent pupil, staff, visitor or external travel movements.

Technical scope

Trip generation associated with the site will be based upon pro-rata consideration of existing trip movements, as extrapolated from traffic counts taken in accordance with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. The traffic counts and forecast data will then be submitted to industry accepted PICADY software to determine the implications for junction capacity and safety. All other assessment will be carried out against guidance relevant to the locality and mode.

Potential construction effects

The material construction effects are likely to be constrained to the on-site condition, with negligible residual impacts to the off-site highway network.

Potential operational effects

The operation of the development will result in an increase in traffic and pupil movements which will have implications for off-site highway capacity and on-site parking capacity, with an increased demand for public transport and other sustainable modes of transport. The suitability of the existing highway network and public service provision to cater for demand will be determined.

5.11.2 Assessment Methodology

Baseline assessment

The baseline assessment for pedestrians and cyclists will draw upon a qualitative assessment of routes to and from the site, with public and private mass transit assessed by a desktop study to determine existing public bus service provision and any existing school coach travel arrangements. An on- site assessment will also be carried out to determine the quality of local bus stops and linkages with those bus stops.

For private car vehicles, the assessment will draw upon capacity assessments for local junctions and parking, as derived from the TA. These capacity assessments will group results against whether the capacity is approached or exceeded, as per the following table, or as deemed necessary following the retrieval of results:

Table 5-4 Baseline Capacity summary

Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) Description RFC > 100% Beyond Theoretical Capacity 85% < RFC <100% Between Design Capacity and Theoretical Capacity 60% < RFC <85% Up to Design Capacity RFC < 60% Material available capacity Construction Impact Analysis

Construction impact will be assessed against the schools ability to operate against the backdrop of construction activities and for the highway network to accommodate increased HGV demand. From this assessment, a series of mitigation measures will be determined and the residual impacts explored.

Operational Impact Analysis

For the development impact analysis, the methodology will consider the ‘Do Minimum’ scenario, where the school achieves its certificated maximum without improvements and the ‘Do Maximum’, where the school is subject to improvements.

For walking, cycling and mass transit, the infrastructure and service provision will be assessed for its ability to accommodate the increased demand arising from both scenarios. Where insufficiencies are found, appropriate mitigation proposed and the residual impacts stated.

For vehicle generated impact, for each of the scenarios, the junction and parking will be assessed against the following matrix to determine the magnitude of impact:

Table 5-5 Operational Impact Magnitude

RFC > 100% 85% < RFC <100% 60% < RFC <85% RFC < 60% RFC < 60% Major Major Moderate Negligible 60% < RFC Major Moderate Minor Negligible <85% 85% < RFC Moderate Minor Minor Negligible <100% RFC > 100% Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

From these impacts a series of mitigation measures will be determined and the residual affects explored.

5.12 Ground Conditions

5.12.1 Assessment context

In the UK the assessment of risk from contamination follows the source- pathway – receptor approach. If one of these three elements is absent, it is considered that there is no risk of harm. On this site, there is no history of contaminative land uses. Fuel storage has taken place for school heating but there is no evidence of any loss or leakage. A mound of earth materials is present in one part of the site which contains some bricks etc, but is likely to comprise primarily natural soils excavated during previous construction activity. No source of potential significance has been identified and if present, any contamination associated with these possible sources is likely to be very minor (in terms of concentration and nature and highly localised. The relevant receptors are restricted to people (construction workers, pupils, staff, visitors and neighbours) and the school buildings/ below ground infrastructure. There are no water resource receptors, in the form of groundwater, within the vicinity of the site. There is a lake to the north-east and to the south of the site and these will be dealt with by the Water Resources and Flood Risk section of the ES. Ecological resources in the vicinity of the site will be addressed by the Ecology section of the ES.

Considering the nature of sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the site and the likely impacts during construction and operation, it is proposed that a full land quality assessment is scoped out of the ES. It should be noted that an intrusive investigation primarily for geotechnical purposes will be undertaken and that geoenvironmental testing of any Made Ground or suspect materials will take place as an integral element of that site investigation.

The specific reasons for scoping out a full Land Quality Assessment from the ES are provided below:

Potential construction effects

A combined geotechnical and geoenvironmental investigation will take place as a preliminary enabling activity prior to construction in accordance with relevant British Standards (BS5930 and BS10175). Any geoenvironmental assessment will accord with the Environment Agency Model Procedures (CLR11). An appropriate health & safety regime will be implemented to protect construction workers and neighbours from direct contact with soil materials and also to minimise windblown dust etc. in accordance with HSE guidance.

Potential operational effects

The nature of development means that in addition to the absence of a credible contaminative source, there is no plausible exposure pathway to relevant receptors. The buildings provide an effective barrier between people on site (pupils, staff and visitors) and the underlying ground.

5.13 Wind Microclimate

5.13.1 Assessment context

Building heights are envisaged to be below 4 storeys. Therefore the assessment of wind microclimate is not considered appropriate for this development and we propose to scope out consideration of wind microclimate in the ES.

5.14 Artificial Lighting

5.14.1 Assessment context

It is noted that Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council have included a Lighting Assessment as a requirement for the planning application in their pre-planning response. We would seek to scope this out of both the ES or as a standalone requirement as we do not believe that the development proposals have the potential to result in significant adverse effects. It is noted that the pre-planning response makes reference to the inclusion of flood lighting with the all weather sports pitch. It should be noted that it is now not proposed to include flood lighting as part of the development plans for the scheme.

In terms of nearby receptors, views from residential buildings adjacent to the A33 are likely to be restricted, in part, by wooded areas to the north of the site. Considering the locations of residential buildings within proximity of the site, effects are likely to be negligible. The specific reasons for scoping out a full Lighting Impact Assessment from the ES are provided below:

Potential construction effects

Construction will be undertaken during day-time hours hence this is not considered to have the potential to cause significant effects. Some security lighting will be in place however this will designed in accordance with the recommendations of relevant Institute of Lighting Engineers (ILE) guidance, British Standards and CIBSE and CIE publications.

Potential operational effects

Night-time activity is likely to be associated with buildings providing accommodation and amenity to boarders on site. The new buildings will be developed with lighting in mind during detailed design to reduce lighting spill. The lighting strategy for the development will be designed in accordance with the relevant guidance and in particular in accordance with the recommendations set out in the ILE Guidance notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light. This will ensure that light pollution is kept to a minimum and will comply with best practice.

The nature of development means that vehicular activity during periods of darkness will be limited, with most movements likely to be associated with school commuters.

No other sources of light that could result in light pollution are proposed for the site. On this basis it is considered that artificial lighting should be scoped out of further assessment within the ES.

5.15 Sunlight / Daylight and Overshadowing

5.15.1 Assessment context

Considering the distance of residential buildings from the development, and the likely impacts during construction and operation, it is proposed that sunlight / daylight and overshadowing assessment is scoped out of the ES. The specific reasons for scoping out Sunlight / Daylight and Overshadowing from the ES are provided below:

Potential construction effects

Sources of shading are restricted to construction features such as construction barriers. Offsite residential buildings are too far away to be effected by these features.

Potential operational effects

Considering the heights of the buildings proposed are expected to be a maximum of 3 storeys, and the distance of these from offsite residential receptors, no significant impacts are likely. In addition, the design will be developed to ensure there is good access to daylight/sunlight within public spaces on site. Given the low density nature of this development, is not considered that there is potential for significant effects.

5.16 Socio-Economics

5.16.1 Assessment context

No significant adverse impacts are expected with the development, and therefore it is proposed that social and economic impacts are scoped out of inclusion in the ES.

Potential construction effects

The development will create jobs throughout the construction period.

Potential operational effects

An increase in school population is likely to coincide with an increase in employment on site. The development will see an increase in social infrastructure through increased school places available at the school.

5.17 Environmental Statement general chapters

Further to the technical chapters the following chapters will also be provided as part of the ES:

 Introduction;

 Development description;

 Alternatives and Design Evolution;

 Methodology;

 Technical Chapters;

 Cumulative and interactive effects; and

 Residual effects and conclusions.

6 Summary of Key Potential Environmental Issues

Table 6-1 provides a summary of the key potential environmental effects that will be addressed as part of the EIA.

Table 6-1 Environmental topics to be included in full EIA

Environmental Proposed for Potential environmental effects / reason for inclusion in Scoping Topic inclusion in ES Report Noise Yes Demolition and construction has potential to generate high levels of noise and vibration. Additional vehicle movements will potentially increase road traffic noise levels on the local road network. Air Quality Yes Potential for dust generation and other air emissions during construction. Traffic generated by the proposed development and emissions from the CHP during operation will give rise to nitrogen oxides and PM10 emissions. Landscape Visual Yes Loss or damage to the landscape attributes of the site, including semi Impact mature and mature trees and semi natural ancient woodland. Assessment Impacts on the settings of Listed Buildings and other heritage features within or adjacent to the site. Impacts on the character and condition of the registered parkland. Impacts on the public right of right to the south of the main access drive. Impacts on views from the A33, the public right of way and other publicly available viewpoints. Local impacts on the surrounding landscape character. Archaeology Yes During the construction phase the proposals would have the potential to generate a range of effects on the archaeological resource. The effects to be considered by the Assessment would include; Direct Effects – Those which physically affect archaeological assets e.g. truncation of buried archaeological deposits through excavation of foundations; Indirect Effects – Those which affect the setting of an archaeological asset e.g. a Scheduled Ancient Monument; and Cumulative Effects – Those that can either arise from multiple effects on a single asset or from a combination of several developments on an asset. Potential operational effects are likely to be limited to indirect effects on the settings of Designated and un-Designated Assets. Any direct effects on buried archaeological remains will be limited to the construction phase. The Residual effects, once mitigation has been undertaken, will also be assessed. Built Heritage Yes Vibrations from the vehicular movement could have structural implications for buildings and structures Structural movement and potential long term damage to listed buildings Visual harm in terms of screening/shoring of historic buildings and increased traffic Noise - harm to the parkland setting Potential loss of historic fabric through changes to buildings, roads and landscape layout on the site Changes to the appearance of the buildings and the setting of the heritage assets Changes to views and vistas within the site Improved landscaping on the site Beneficial repairs to buildings Visual changes to the Registered Parkland

Environmental Proposed for Potential environmental effects / reason for inclusion in Scoping Topic inclusion in ES Report Water Resources Yes Potential localised changes in surface water flow regime during rainfall and Flood Risk events during construction and operational phase Potential surface water run-off from the site which may deteriorate the quality of nearby water bodies, Accidental leaks and spillages of hazardous material which could adversely affect the quality of water bodies Increased water supply and foul water disposal capacity Ecology Yes Vibrations from the vehicular movement could have structural implications for buildings and structures. Structural movement and potential long term damage to listed buildings. Visual harm in terms of screening/shoring of historic buildings and increased traffic. Noise - harm to the parkland setting. Potential loss of historic fabric through changes to buildings, roads and landscape layout on the site. Changes to the appearance of the buildings and the setting of the heritage assets . Changes to views and vistas within the site. Improved landscaping on the site. Beneficial repairs to buildings. Visual changes to the Registered Parkland. Waste Yes Larges pulses of waste creation during construction Potential for large increase in operation waste could lead to unhygienic or non compliant waste activities. Traffic and Yes The operation of the development will result in an increase in traffic and Transportation pupil movements which will have implications for off-site highway capacity and on-site parking capacity, with an increased demand for public transport and other sustainable modes of transport. The suitability of the existing highway network and public service provision to cater for demand will be determined. The material construction effects are likely to be constrained to the on-site condition, with negligible residual impacts to the off-site highway network. Ground No A combined geotechnical and geoenvironmental investigation will take Conditions place as a preliminary enabling activity prior to construction in accordance with relevant British Standards (BS5930 and BS10175). Any geoenvironmental assessment will accord with the Environment Agency Model Procedures (CLR11). An appropriate health & safety regime will be implemented to protect construction workers and neighbours from direct contact with soil materials and also to minimise windblown dust etc. in accordance with HSE guidance. The nature of development means that in addition to the absence of a credible contaminative source, there is no plausible exposure pathway to relevant receptors. The buildings provide an effective barrier between people on site (pupils, staff and visitors) and the underlying ground. Wind Microclimate No The buildings proposed are low rise in nature. Artificial Lighting No Construction will be undertaken during day-time hours hence this is not considered to have the potential to cause significant effects. Night-time activity is likely to be associated with buildings providing accommodation and amenity to boarders on site. The new buildings will be developed with lighting in mind during detailed design to reduce lighting spill. Sunlight / Daylight No Sources of shading are restricted to construction features such as and construction barriers. Offsite residential buildings are too far away to be

Environmental Proposed for Potential environmental effects / reason for inclusion in Scoping Topic inclusion in ES Report Overshadowing effected by these features. Considering the heights of the buildings proposed are expected to be a maximum of 3 storeys, and the distance of these from offsite residential receptors, no significant impacts are likely. Socio-Economics No An increase in school population is likely to coincide with an increase in employment on site. The development will see an increase in social infrastructure through increased school places available at the school. The development will create jobs throughout the construction period.

7 Other planning documents

A number of documents will be submitted as part of the Outline Planning Application, as indicated which relate to topics covered in the EIA. These are summarised below.

 Planning Statement;

 Design and Access Statement;

 Transport Assessment;

 Travel Plan;

 Biodiversity Survey and Report;

 Flood Risk Assessment;

 Foul Sewage and Utilities Assessment;

 Parking Provision; and

 Tree Survey/Arboricultual Implications.

A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and Heritage Statement were requested by Basingstoke and Deane in their Pre-Planning Response (15 August, 2012). It is proposed that these will be covered by the ES, rather than forming standalone assessments.

Buro Happold

Appendix A - Phase 1 Ecology Survey

Sherfield School Sherfield on Loddon Hampshire ** Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

July 2012 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 4

BACKGROUND ...... 4 SITE CONTEXT AND STATUS ...... 4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 4 PLANNING POLICIES ...... 5

2.0 METHODOLOGY ...... 9

DESKTOP STUDY ...... 9 SITE INSPECTION ...... 9 BADGER SURVEY ...... 10 TREE ASSESSMENT FOR BATS ...... 11 HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR REPTILES ...... 12 HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR GREAT CRESTED NEWTS ...... 13 LIMITATIONS ...... 13

3.0 RESULTS ...... 14

DESK STUDY ...... 14 SITE VISIT ...... 18 Off-Site Habitats ...... 24 BADGER SURVEY ...... 24 TREE AND BUILDING SURVEYS FOR BATS ...... 24 HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR REPTILES ...... 25 OTHER SPECIES ...... 25

4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 26

ECOLOGICAL VALUE OF THE SITE ...... 26 BADGERS ...... 27 BUILDING AND TREE ASSESSMENT FOR BATS ...... 28 HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR REPTILES ...... 30 OTHER SPECIES ...... 31 ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENTS ...... 32

5.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 34

6.0 REFERENCES ...... 38

APPENDIX 1: PHOTOGRAPHS ...... 39

APPENDIX 2: HABITAT MAP ...... 40

PJC Consultancy 2 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

LIABILITIES: Whilst every effort has been made to guarantee the accuracy of this report, it should be noted that living creatures are capable of migration and whilst protected species may not have been located during the survey duration, their presence may be found on a site at a later date.

The views and opinions contained within this document are based on a reasonable timeframe between the completion of the survey and the commencement of any works. If there is any delay between the commencement of works that may conflict with timeframes laid out within this document, or have the potential to allow the ingress of protected species, a suitably qualified ecologist should be consulted.

It is the duty of care of the landowner/developer to act responsibly and comply with current environmental legislation if protected species are suspected or found prior to or during works.

PJC Consultancy 3 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

1.0 Introduction

Background

1.1 PJC Consultancy Ltd (PJC) was commissioned by Buro Happold to undertake an ecological appraisal of land at Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon. The assessment included an extended Phase 1 habitat survey.

1.2 This report presents the findings of the ecological surveys in an around the site, which aims specifically to assess the sites potential to support protected species and habitats. Potential mitigation measures and recommendations for the site will be included within this report.

1.3 Section 2 of this report sets out the methodology of PJC’s survey. In Section 3 the results of the desk and field survey are presented. The discussion and implications for development are found in Section 4. Finally, conclusions are provided in Section 5.

Site Context and Status

1.4 The site is situated to the south-east of Sherfield on Loddon, Hampshire immediately to the east of the A33 and is set within a rural landscape. The immediate surroundings consist of Sherfield Oaks golf course to the south and east, arable land to the west and residential buildings and woodland to the north. The OS grid reference for the site is SU 681 570.

Description of the Proposed Development

1.5 A phased programme is proposed to improve and enhance the existing facilities at Sherfield School. Proposals include the following:

Phase 1: enabling works – not subject to proposed outline planning application.

Phase 2: Programmed completion 2013 • installation of a 50m swimming pool;

PJC Consultancy 4 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

• construction of a 30 bed boarding accommodation house; • new Little Gems classroom accommodation; • refurbishment of the chapel; • astro pitch field and changing facilities.

Phase 3: Programmed completion 2014 • sports hall; • kitchen and dining facility; • 30 bed boarding accommodation block.

Phase 4: Programmed completion 2015 • performing arts centre; • 30 bed boarding accommodation block; • demolish existing sports hall; • demolish existing dining hall.

Potential future Phase 5: Programmed completion date 2016+ • science block; • future classrooms.

1.6 The exact details of any proposed development are yet to be finalised. Any proposed master plan for the site will be informed by a number of surveys of which ecology is one.

Planning Policies

1.7 National and local planning policies may have an affect on the proposed development. The following paragraphs identify relevant planning policies and discuss these in the context of the site.

1.8 The United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP), published in 1994, is the national response of the Convention on Biological Diversity signed in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The key objective of the UK BAP is avoidance of harm to ‘Species of Conservation Concern’.

PJC Consultancy 5 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

1.9 Under the CROW Act (2000) it is now the duty of every Government department in carrying out its functions “to have regard, so far as it is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biological diversity in accordance with the Convention”.

1.10 National policy guidance is provided by National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how they should be applied. Whilst there is no clear definition for sustainable development, the NPPF does now include the UK Sustainable Development Strategy's five guiding principles of sustainable development (Box pg2), namely:

• Living within the planet's environmental limits; • Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; • Achieving a sustainable economy; • Promoting good governance; and • Using sound science responsibly.

1.11 Section 11 of the document is entitled ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment’. This section highlights the following:

‘The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: • Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils; • Recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services; • Minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; • Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and • Remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and

PJC Consultancy 6 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

unstable land, where appropriate’

1.12 In addition to this the following paragraphs are also considered to be relevant:

‘In preparing plans to meet development needs, the aim should be to minimise pollution and other adverse effects on the local and natural environment. Plans should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework.’

1.13 With regard to ancient woodland and veteran trees, the NPPF states that:

’Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss’.

1.14 The development site comes under the jurisdiction of Hart District Council. The Hart Local Plan was adopted on 23rd December 2002. The following policies have been identified as being relevant to development of the site and conservation of protected species:

1.15 Policy CON1 – Nature Conservation

‘Development which would adversely affect the nature conservation value of classified or proposed Special Protection Areas or candidate or designated Special Areas of Conservation (designated under European legislation in recognition of their international importance) will not be permitted unless there are no alternative solutions and there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature. In the case of SPA and SAC which support a “priority” habitat or species, planning permission may only be granted in the development can be justified on the grounds of human health, public safety or beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment’.

1.16 Policy CON2

PJC Consultancy 7 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

‘Development which would adversely affect the nature conservation value of a Site of Special Scientific Interest or National Nature Reserve either directly or indirectly will only be permitted if it can be subject to conditions that will prevent damaging impacts on wildlife habitats or other natural features of importance of the site or if other material factors are sufficient to override the nature conservation interest’.

1.17 Policy CON3

‘Development which would adversely affect the nature conservation interest of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation will only be permitted if other material considerations outweigh the importance of the site to local nature conservation’.

1.18 Policy CON4

‘Where development is permitted which would be likely to have a material adverse effect on features of nature conservation interest in a designated area covered on policies CON1, CON2 and CON3 or species or their habitats referred to in policy CON5, that adverse effect should be reduced where it is practicable to do so by the provision of adequate replacement habitat on the site or in other appropriate location’.

1.19 Policy CON5

‘Planning permission will not be granted for development that would have a significant adverse effect on plant or animal species or their habitats protected by law unless conditions are attached or planning obligations entered into requiring the developer to take steps to secure their protection’.

1.20 Policy CON7

‘Development proposals which would have a significant adverse impact on the nature conservation, landscape or recreational value of riverine environments (which include those of the rivers Hart, Whitewater and Blackwater), wetlands and ponds will not be permitted’.

PJC Consultancy 8 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

1.21 This report aims to address the requirements as set out in the above policies. The site is not located on or adjacent to any SSSI’s, or other statutory designated sites for nature conservation. The ecology surveys undertaken by PJC have been undertaken to ensure that the nature conservation value of the site has been characterised and local and national planning policies are addressed.

2.0 Methodology

Desktop Study

2.1 A desk top study search was completed using an internet-based mapping service (www.magic.gov.uk) for statutory designated sites and two internet-based aerial mapping services (www.multimap.com and maps.google.co.uk) were used to understand the habitats present in and around the survey area and habitat linkages and features (such as ponds, woodlands etc) within the wider landscape

2.2 A 10km search was also completed using an internet-based database (www.searchnbn.net) for recent protected species records. Records older than 10 years were not considered.

Site Inspection

2.3 PJC ecologists Chris Jennings BSc (Hons) MSc GradIEEM and Vicky Hale BSc (Hons) CEnv MIEEM, undertook an extended Phase 1 habitat survey, which included assessing the site for the potential for badgers, great crested newts, and other protected species on 29th June 2012. The surveyors identified the habitats present, following the standard ‘Phase 1 habitat survey’ auditing method developed by the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC). The site was surveyed on foot and the existing habitats and land uses were recorded on a map. In addition, the dominant plant species in each habitat were recorded, as was any evidence of protected species and the habitat suitability for reptiles. The potential for the site to support protected species was also assessed.

2.4 The likelihood of occurrence of a particular species is ranked as follows and relies on the current survey:

PJC Consultancy 9 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

• Unlikely – while presence cannot be absolutely discounted, the site includes very limited or poor quality habitat for a particular species or species group. The site may also be outside or peripheral to known national range for a species; • Low – on-site habitat of poor to moderate quality for a given species/species group. Presence cannot be discounted on the basis of national distribution, nature of surrounding habitats, habitat fragmentation, recent on-site disturbance etc; • Medium – on-site habitat of moderate quality, providing all of the known key- requirements of given species/species group. Factors limiting the likelihood of occurrence may include small habitat area, habitat severance and fragmentation, disturbance; • High – on site habitat of high quality for a given species/species group. Good quality surrounding habitat and good connectivity; • Present – presence confirmed from the current survey or by recent, confirmed records.

Badger Survey

2.5 A badger survey was conducted to assess the level of badger activity on site and locate any badger setts both within the site boundary and if possible within a 30m radius of the site.

2.6 The evaluation of badger activity was based on methodology developed for the National Survey of Badgers (Creswell et al., 1990) and includes searching for badger field signs such as setts, badger pathways, tracks (paw prints), dung piles with latrines, badger hairs and feeding signs such as snuffle holes.

2.7 During the survey, all habitats potentially suitable for badgers were systematically examined for evidence of badger activity including:

• Setts: several sett types may be present within a social group territory, ranging from a single hole to numerous interconnecting tunnels. Setts can be categorised into main, annexe, subsidiary and outlier (Wilson et al., 1997). • Latrine sites: badgers characteristically deposit dung in pits, which may be located along the boundaries and within the social group territory. These sites serve as means of inter- and intra-group communication.

PJC Consultancy 10 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

• Paths and runs: well used routes between setts and/or foraging areas. Often used by generations of badgers. • Snuffle holes: areas of disturbed vegetation often formed by badgers foraging for ground dwelling invertebrates such as earthworms and larvae and the underground storage organs of plants. • Hair: often found among spoil and bedding outside entrances to setts or snagged on fences (such as barbwire) along well-used runs. • Footprints: easily distinguishable from other large mammal species. Often found along paths and runs or in spoil outside sett entrances.

2.8 Particular attention was paid to areas where the vegetation and/or the topography offered suitable sett sites such as embankments and wooded areas.

Tree Assessment for Bats

2.9 As well as roosting in buildings, bats can use trees to rest, give birth, raise young and/or hibernate. Roosts may be found in the following features:

• Woodpecker holes, natural cracks and rot holes in trunks and branches • Frost cracks. • Trunk and branch splits. • Hollow sections of trunk and branches. • Loose bark. • Cavities beneath old root buttresses and coppice stools. • Dense epicormic growth. • Dense ivy cover.

2.10 Veteran trees typically exhibit many of these features and should usually be regarded as sites with clear potential, but any tree possessing one or more such feature, may host bats. Any tree species can be suitable but oak and beech often seems to be the preferred option. However, bats rarely restrict themselves to one tree. They change their roost sites frequently, sometimes every two to three days, looking for small differences in temperature and humidity.

PJC Consultancy 11 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

2.11 Roosts of bats in trees may be identified from the following field signs:

• Black stains beneath cracks, splits and other features where bat dropping have fallen; • Dark marks at entrance points where bats have rubbed against the wood and left natural body oils; • Feeding remains beneath roosts, such as insect wings; • Chattering of bats; • Bat droppings under access points; • Scratch marks around a feature (cavity or split) caused by bat claws; • Urine stains below the entrance or end of split; • Large roosts or regularly used sites may produce an odour; • Flies around the entrance, attracted by the smell of guano.

2.12 Trees were recorded as having high, medium or low potential following standard practise where:

• High potential = upward developing holes, splits and crack and woodpecker holes. Old trees with complex growth forms are of particular interest. • Medium potential = downward developing holes, splits and cracks, features which could support several bats or a group of bats. • Low potential = ivy covering only, few or no holes, splits or crevices. • Confirmed roosts = evidence of use by bats (bats chattering, seen flying in and out of roost, presence of droppings etc).

Habitat Suitability for Reptiles

2.13 Habitat surveys were carried out to assess the potential of the site to hold populations of reptile species. This involved looking for the presence of factors that would increase the suitability of the site for reptiles such as:

• Scrub and grassland (long sward) mosaic across the site; • Features that can be potential hibernation sites for common reptiles such as log piles; • Grass tussocks within the grassland that can act as shelter and burrowing sites;

PJC Consultancy 12 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

• Water bodies or damp places on site (grass snakes); • Compost heaps or decaying vegetation (slow worms); • Features that can act as refugia on the ground such as disused roofing felt.

Habitat Suitability for Great Crested Newts

2.14 Habitat surveys were carried out on the 2nd July 2012 to assess the potential of the site to hold great crested newts (Triturus cristatus). This involved looking at the wider landscape using Google Maps and Nature on the Map to types of habitat in the wider landscape. This also involved looking for the presence of factors that would increase the suitability of the site for great crested newts such as:

• The presence of suitable breeding places (water bodies) on site and within 500m of the site in the wider landscape; • Habitat connectivity between ponds (if present) in the wider landscape and on site; • The condition of the ponds and whether there were factors that would render them unsuitable for great crested newts (GCN’s) such as fish; • Land uses surrounding the site that may effect the potential of the site to hold GCN’s such as agriculture; • Type of suitable habitat on site such as scrub/grassland mosaic; • Patches of woodland in the wider landscape that can provide terrestrial habitat; • Any barriers between known populations of GCN’s such as motorways and roads; • Hibernation features on site for great crested newts such as log and rubble piles.

Limitations

2.15 It should be noted that whilst every effort has been made to provide a comprehensive description of the site, no single investigation could ensure the complete characterisation and prediction of the natural environment.

2.16 The protected species assessment provides a preliminary view of the likelihood of protected species occurring on site, based on the suitability of the habitat and any direct evidence on site. It should not be taken as providing a full and definitive survey of any

PJC Consultancy 13 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

protected species group. The assessment is only valid for the time when the survey was carried out. Additional surveys may be recommended if, on the basis of this assessment it is considered reasonably likely that protected species may be present.

3.0 Results

Desk Study

3.1 Some designated sites can be found within the local area but none are found less than 2km from the site. Sites within the local area are summarised in the table below:

Table 1.1 Summary of Internationally Designated Sites within 10km of the Site Name of Site Designation Approximate Distance from Site Thames Basin Heaths SPA 6.1km North-East

Table 1.2 Summary of Nationally Designated Sites within 10km of the Site Name of Site Designation Approximate Distance from Site Mapledurwell Fen SSSI 4.3km South

Hook Common and Bartley SSSI 4.7km South-East Heath Butter Wood SSSI 4.8km South-East Greywell Tunnel (Basingstoke SSSI 6.0km South-East Canal) Stanford End Mill and River SSSI 6.0km North Loddon Pamber Forest and Silchester SSSI 6.4km North-West Common Basingstoke Canal SSSI 6.5km South-East Warnborough Green SSSI 6.6km South-East Greywell Fen SSSI 6.7km South-East Hazeley Heath SSSI 7.0km East Odiham Common with SSSI 7.2km South-East

PJC Consultancy 14 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

Bagwell Green and Shaw Bramshill SSSI 8.0km North-East Ron Ward’s Meadow with SSSI 8.3km North-West Tadley Pastures Decoy Pit, Pools and Woods SSSI 8.8km North-West

Table 1.3 Summary of Locally Designated Sites within 10km of the Site Name of Site Designation Approximate Distance from Site Chineham Woods LNR 1.9km South-West The Mill Field LNR 3.2km South-West Daneshill Park Woods LNR 3.5km South-West Popley Ponds LNR 4.5km South-West Pamber Forest LNR 6.4km North-West Swallowfield Meadow LNR 8.5km North-East Padworth Common LNR 9.4km North-West

3.2 Several areas of ancient woodland have been located within 3km of site. These are summarised in Table 1.4 below:

Table 1.4 Summary of Ancient Woodland within 10km of the Site Name of Site Description Approximate Distance from Site Buckfield Copse Ancient and Semi-natural Woodland Within Site Hartley Wood Common Ancient and Semi-natural Woodland 0.8km north-east Forked Copse Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 0.9km south-east Unnamed Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 1.8km east Unnamed Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 1.9km south-west Winnells Copse Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland and 2km east Ancient Replanted Woodland Sedgemoor Copse Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 2km north-east Reeves Hill Copse Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 2km north-east Rushes Row Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 2.1 km south Bottom Row Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 2.2km south

PJC Consultancy 15 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

Unnamed Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 2.2km east Black Pond Copse Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 2.2km north-east Tubbs Copse Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 2.2km north Unnamed Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 2.3km south-west Great Sorrels Copse Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 2.5km south-west Grove Copse Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 2.6km east Street End Copse East Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 2.7km east Chandlers Copse Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 2.7km north-east Unnamed Ancient Replanted Woodland 2.7km west Unnamed Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 2.8km south-east Ashmore Copse Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 2.8km south-east Caesars Copse Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 2.8km north-east Galleries Copse Ancient Replanted Woodland 2.8km west Thorpes Copse Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland 3km north-east

3.3 In the last 10 years, several protected species have been recorded within 10km of the site. See Table 1.1 below for details of protected species records. It should be noted that species records are for 1km squares and therefore locations given in Table 1.1 are approximate, as the species may have been recorded anywhere within the 1km square.

Table 1.5 Protected Species records for the last 10 years located within 10km of the site Species Latin Location Source Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus 5km SW Bat Conservation Trust Noctule, Serotine and Pipistrelle Survey Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus 5km SW Bat Conservation Trust 7.8km SW Colony Count Survey Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii 5.0km SE Natural England Sites 5.6km SE Inventory for England 6.3km SE Bat Conservation Trust 7.5km E Bat Waterway Survey

PJC Consultancy 16 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

Natterer’s bat Myotis nattereri 6.9km SE Natural England Sites Inventory for England; Bat Conservation Trust Hibernation Survey Noctule bat Nyctalus noctula 6.8km SE Bat Conservation Trust Noctule, Serotine and Pipistrelle Survey Nyctalus/Eptesicus agg. 5km SW Bat Conservation Trust Noctule, Serotine and Pipistrelle Survey Whiskered / Brandt’s Myotis mystacinus / 6.7km SE Bat Conservation Trust bat brandtii 6.6km SE Hibernation Survey Grass Snake Natrix natrix 4.5km SW Berkshire Reptile and 4.9km SE Amphibian Group 5.3km SW 5.6km S 7.8km SE National Amphibian and Reptile Recording Scheme 9.1km NW Berkshire Reptile and Amphibian Group 10km SE Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Common Lizard Lacerta vivipara 6.2km SE Amphibian and Reptile 8km NW Conservation 8.3km NW Berkshire Reptile and 9.1km NW Amphibian Group 9.2km NW 9.2km NW 9.9km NW Slow worm Anguis fragilis 7.1km NW Berkshire Reptile and 9.6km NW Amphibian Group Great crested newt Triturus cristatus 5.2km SW Berkshire Reptile and Amphibian Group 5.7km SW National Trust Selected BAP Species

PJC Consultancy 17 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

6km SW Berkshire Reptile and 6.2km N Amphibian Group 6.4km SW 6.5km N 6.7km SW 7.8km NW 8.2 km NE 8.5km N 9km NW 9.2km NW Hazel Dormouse Muscardinus 3.5km E Peoples Trust for avellanarius 3.8km SW Endangered Species 4.0km NW National Dormouse 5.1km SW Database 6.6km NW 8.9km SW 9.4km SW 8.1km NW Water Vole Arvicola amphibius 5.5km SW National Trust Badger Meles meles 10km NW Peoples Trust for Endangered Species Living with Mammals Survey

Site Visit

3.4 The site consists of hardstanding and buildings; amenity grassland; arable fields; broadleaved and mixed woodland; ornamental planting; semi-improved grassland; improved grassland; species-poor hedgerows; standing open water; deciduous and coniferous standard trees; tall ruderal vegetation; scrub and stands of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica). Further information regarding habitat types present within the site is detailed below.

PJC Consultancy 18 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

Hardstanding and Buildings

3.5 School buildings are predominantly located in the centre of the site, surrounded by areas of hardstanding and gravel with two hardstanding tracks leading from the main school building to the adjacent A33 main road. Residential buildings are also located within the site, which are primarily located on the boundaries of the site.

3.6 With the exception of a section of the Little Gems building which has a flat roof, all buildings located within the site comprise brick structures with pitched and tiled roofs. The majority of buildings within the site are well maintained with few roosting opportunities for bats, such as lifted or missing tiles and lead flashing.

3.7 Additional areas of hardstanding are present in the form of tennis courts, located on the south-east boundary of the site, between the school grounds and the adjacent golf course.

Arable Fields

3.8 A large newly planted arable field is present in the south-western corner of the site, bounded by broadleaved woodland, a hardstanding track and the adjacent A33 and golf course. Species poor intact and defunct hedgerows fringed with rank grassland and tall ruderal vegetation are present on the north-west and south-west boundaries of the field and a strip of tall ruderal vegetation extends north to south through the centre of the arable field.

Amenity grassland

3.9 Large areas of amenity grassland are present within the site, predominantly located in the northern half of the site. Grassland in these areas has been classified as amenity grassland due to the intensive mowing regime, however, the species composition is slightly more diverse than typical amenity grassland and therefore, should these areas be unmanaged, the grassland is likely to be classified as semi-improved. Areas of amenity grassland within the site are presently used as sports fields and student outdoor recreational areas.

PJC Consultancy 19 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

Improved and Semi-improved Grassland

3.10 The majority of the site is well maintained and therefore areas of long unmanaged grassland are only occasional. Areas of rank improved and semi-improved grassland are predominantly located on the boundaries of the site, particularly around the arable field to the south of the site, where improved grassland is present, along with tall ruderal vegetation and scrub (See Target Note 1) and within woodland clearings to the south of the site (See Target Notes 5 and 6).

Typical species recorded within areas of grassland include common birds-foot-trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), Yorkshire-fog (Holcus lanatus), dock (Rumex sp), thistle (Cirsium sp), cut-leaved cranes-bill (Geranium dissectum), meadow-grass (Poa sp), speedwell (Veronica sp), forget-me-not (Myosotis sp), cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata), cleavers (Galium aparine), common ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) and common nettle (Urtica dioica)

Broadleaved and Mixed Woodland and Standard Trees

3.11 Several areas of woodland are present within the site, predominantly located on the boundaries of the site with a large area of broadleaved woodland present in the south-east corner of the site. This area of woodland comprises predominantly broadleaved trees including sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa), silver birch (Betula pendula), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), willow (Salix sp) and pine (Pinus sp). Towards the centre of the woodland, trees are dominated by young birch and sycamore with more mature and diverse broadleaved trees, such as cherry (Prunus sp) and hornbeam, located on the boundaries of the woodland. The understorey is dominated by rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum) with frequent laurel (Prunus sp) and occasional Portugal laurel (Prunus lusitanica), holly (Ilex aquifolium) and honeysuckle (Lonicera periclymenum). Again, the understorey becomes more diverse and dense towards the boundaries of the woodland. Limited ground flora is present within the woodland. Species noted during the survey include ground ivy (Glenchoma hederacea), foxglove (Digitalis purpurea) and common figwort (Scrophularia nodosa). See Target Note 6.

PJC Consultancy 20 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

3.12 Areas of fallen and standing deadwood and clearings are present within the woodland. Woodland clearings predominantly comprise semi-improved grassland with tall ruderal vegetation. These areas were identified as providing suitable habitat for reptiles.

3.13 An area of mixed woodland is present on the northern boundary of the site. This woodland comprises mature and semi-mature ash, oak, hornbeam, sycamore, yew and pine. Broadleaved trees are more frequent on the edges of the woodland with planted coniferous trees predominantly located in the centre of the woodland. The understorey, where present, comprises holly, laurel, Portugal laurel and rhododendron. This area of woodland is well disturbed with numerous paths throughout (See Target Note 10).

3.14 Site boundaries predominantly at the northern end of the site comprise strips of broadleaved woodland with areas of tall ruderal vegetation and scrub. In particular, a broad strip of mature broadleaved woodland is present along the south-eastern boundary of the site, adjacent to the golf course. Species include ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Acer sp, lime (Tilia sp), sycamore, oak, yew (Taxus baccata) with an understorey of holly, elder (Sambucus nigra) and bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg) and ground flora comprising wood avens (Geum urbanum), speedwell, cleavers, common ragwort, herb-Robert (Geranium robertianum), meadow-grass, dock, forget-me-not, common nettle, cocks-foot and creeping cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans). Several trees in this area have broken or damaged limbs with potential to support roosting bats. A bird’s nest was also identified within broadleaved woodland in the far north-eastern corner of the site. A large established stand of Japanese knotweed is also present in this area (See Target Note 9).

3.15 In addition to this, a strip of broadleaved woodland extends along the north-west boundary of the site, adjacent to the A33, between New South Lodge and residential buildings in the far north-west corner of the site (See Target Note 12). Woodland in this area comprises predominantly semi-mature and young broadleaved trees including ash, field maple (Acer campestre), sycamore, silver birch, horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) lime, and oak with a limited understorey of Portugal laurel, laurel, elder, holly, box (Buxus sempervirens) and blackthorn (Prunus spinosa). Ground flora within this area of woodland is also limited and comprises predominantly common nettle.

PJC Consultancy 21 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

3.16 Several standard deciduous and coniferous trees, including ornamentals are scattered across the site. Species include (but are not limited to) oak (Quercus sp), silver birch, sycamore, willow and cypress (Chamaecyparis sp).

Hedgerows

3.17 Numerous species-poor hedgerows are present within the site. These are predominantly located on the boundaries of the site with few species-poor hedgerows intersecting the site.

3.18 A defunct species poor hedgerow dominated by hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) extends along the north-western boundary of the site, between the A33 and the arable fields. This hedgerow becomes more intact with additional species, such as semi-mature ash, young oak and elder as it extends further south along the field boundary (See Target Notes 1 and 2). An intact species poor hedge also extends along the southern boundary of the site, between the arable field and the adjacent golf course (See Target Note 3). This hedgerow is dominated by hawthorn with blackthorn, hazel (Corylus avellana), elder and dogwood (Thelycrania sanguinea) also present.

3.19 Several well maintained ornamental yew hedgerows are present adjacent to the tennis courts adjacent to the south-east boundary of the site (See Target Note 7) and surrounding the swimming pool, further north near the lake.

Tall Ruderal Vegetation and Scrub

3.20 Areas of tall ruderal vegetation and scrub are largely confined to the western side of the site either at the base of boundary features, such as hedgerows or as a transition between grassland and areas of woodland. Where these habitats are present, they are largely characterised by species such as common nettle, umbellifer sp, dock (Rumex sp), thistle buddleja (Buddleja davidii) and bramble.

PJC Consultancy 22 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

Standing Open Water

3.21 A large lake is present adjacent to the northern boundary of the site. Due to access restrictions, it was not possible to fully survey this area, as it was encompassed by a tall metal fence with locked gates. In addition to the fence, the lake is surrounded by mature and semi-mature trees including oak and willow and areas of Japanese knotweed and bamboo planting. The lake appears to be entirely covered by lily pads with limited emergent or bankside vegetation.

3.22 A water-filled disused swimming pool is located to the south of the lake, which is filled with debris. The swimming pool is surrounded by short mown improved grassland and a well maintained species-poor yew hedgerow.

Ornamental Planting

3.23 Several areas of ornamental planting were identified within the site. These were primarily located around the main school building in the centre of the site, in the vicinity of the tennis courts and adjacent to the disused swimming pool.

Invasive Non-Native Species

3.24 Several large established stands of Japanese knotweed were identified across the site. These are primarily located on the boundaries of the arable field to the south of the site; within and adjacent to Buckfield Copse; in the vicinity of the lake to the north of the site; within woodland adjacent to Carfor House and on the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the A33.

2.25 An area of Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) was also identified within woodland adjacent to Carfor House and common ragwort was abundant, particularly on the boundaries of the site.

PJC Consultancy 23 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

Off-Site Habitats

3.26 The site is bounded to the south and east by a golf course comprising amenity grassland with a large network of ponds and areas of woodland with connecting treelines and hedgerows. To the north of the site the landscape appears to be dominated by arable fields and areas of woodland also with connecting tree-lines and hedgerows. The main A33 extends to the west of the site, adjacent to the site boundary. Further afield the landscape appears to comprise arable fields and residential houses with strips of woodland and treelines.

3.27 A medium sized pond is located on the adjacent golf course, close to the southern boundary of the site (See Target Note 4). The pond comprises clear open standing water with emergent vegetation comprising common reedmace (Typha latifolia) and soft rush (Juncus effuses). A large infestation of crassula (Crassula helmsii) is present on the waters edge, surrounding the pond.

Badger Survey

3.28 An active badger sett with several well used entrances was identified within woodland to the north of the site, near Carfor House. Badger hairs were identified at the entrance to the sett and a well worn path was identified leading to / from the sett. Although no additional setts were identified within the site, evidence of fresh digging and mammal paths were identified within the site.

Tree and Building Surveys for Bats

3.29 Anecdotal evidence suggests that there is a known bat roost within the Little Gem building on the school grounds. Additional buildings within the site were identified as having potential to support roosting bats, in particular the main school reception building, the courtyard studio building and the sixth form Baccalaureate building.

2.30 Several trees within the site were identified as having potential to support roosting bats, in particular, mature deciduous trees primarily located on the edges of Buckfield copse

PJC Consultancy 24 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

and the woodland in the north of the site, in addition to mature trees located within the wooded strip on the boundary with the golf course. Two tree stumps with numerous woodpecker holes were also located within amenity grassland near the lake.

3.31 Bats are likely to use the tree lines and hedgerows along the field boundaries in the local area for foraging and commuting. Bats are known to use linear features such as hedgerows and tree lines for commuting between roosting sites and foraging habitats.

Habitat Suitability for Reptiles

3.32 Areas of rank grassland and tall ruderal vegetation have potential to support reptiles, particularly slow worm. These areas were primarily located at the base of hedgerows and boundary features on the extremities of the site, on woodland edges and within woodland clearings.

Other Species

3.33 Areas of standing open water, including the lake and disused swimming pool to the north of the site were themselves considered to have limited potential for great crested newts. Notwithstanding this, a network of several ponds and suitable connective terrestrial habitat were recorded in the local area, particularly within the golf course to the south and east of the site.

3.34 All mature trees, shrubs and areas of dense scrub have potential to support nesting birds.

3.35 Areas of woodland within the site were considered unlikely to support dormice (Muscardinus avellanarius) due to the open nature of the woodlands and a lack of suitable understorey vegetation. Woodland to the north of the site is also subject to high levels of disturbance from school pupils. Furthermore, deer were seen within Buckfield copse, which are likely to be foraging in this area.

3.36 Several large established areas of Japanese knotweed, along with a stand of Himalayan balsam and abundant common ragwort were identified within the site. Japanese knotweed

PJC Consultancy 25 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

was identified on the boundaries of the arable field, within Buckfield copse, in the vicinity of the lake in the north-east of the site and around Carfor House adjacent to the northern boundary of the site.

3.37 An area of Himalayan balsam is located on the northern boundary of the site, surrounding the identified active badger sett and common ragwort is located predominantly on the boundaries of the site within areas of tall ruderal vegetation.

4.0 Discussion and Recommendations

Ecological Value of the Site

4.1 The extended Phase 1 survey identified a mosaic of different habitats present within the site including; amenity grassland; arable fields; broadleaved and mixed woodland; ornamental planting; semi-improved grassland; improved grassland; species-poor hedgerows; standing open water; deciduous and coniferous standard trees; tall ruderal vegetation and scrub. These habitat types in themselves are common and widespread throughout the UK and are considered to be of value at site level only. Notwithstanding this, Buckfield Copse is identified as ancient and semi-natural woodland and therefore is considered as being of national importance.

4.2 Ancient woodland, such as Buckfield Copse is listed as a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitat. There are Natural England guidelines associated with such habitats and include buffer zone requirements (15m) and protection of features.

4.3 The areas of deciduous woodland present within the site boundaries and along the borders, excluding Buckfield Copse, are all UK BAP habitats. Priority species and habitats are those that have been identified as being the most threatened and requiring conservation action under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP). As such these habitat areas should be considered as part of the scheme.

4.4 It is recommended that mature trees and existing tree lines and hedgerows are maintained where possible. Mature trees have intrinsic value. Hedgerows and tree lines also provide

PJC Consultancy 26 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

landscape connectivity and green corridors allowing movement of species throughout the wider landscape.

4.5 The site is located approximately 6.1km from Thames Basin Heaths SPA, which supports important breeding bird populations, such as nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus), Dartford warbler (Sylvia undata) and woodlark (Lullula arborea). Natural England believes that recreational use of the heaths predominantly arising from residential developments up to 5km away (Zone of Influence) from a SPA are likely to have a significant effect on rare bird populations. As a result, development within 5km of a SPA is now subject to stringent tests and impact assessments. As the site is located more than 6km from Thames Basin Heath SPA, which is outside of the Zone of Influence, it is not considered likely that the proposed development will have a direct effect on the status of the breeding bird populations. Furthermore, indirect effects, such as increased social pressure are also not considered likely, as the local and wider landscape is predominantly rural with numerous opportunities for walking and outdoor pursuits away from the SPA.

Badgers

4.6 An active badger sett with several well used entrances was identified within woodland to the north of the site, near Carfor House. Badger hairs were also identified at the entrances to the sett, along with a well worn path leading to / from the sett. Although no additional setts were identified within the site, evidence of fresh digging and mammal paths were identified within the site.

4.7 It is understood that no works are proposed in the vicinity of the sett or in the surrounding mixed woodland at the northern end of the site. Furthermore, it is also understood that potential badger foraging areas, such as broadleaved woodland adjacent to the A33 and surrounding amenity grassland are to remain intact and undisturbed. It is therefore considered that badgers are not a constraint to development. Nevertheless, it should be noted that not all parts of the site, such as the lake and densely vegetated areas of woodland and scrub could be accessed on the day of survey and it is possible that evidence of badgers, such as latrines and single entrance setts could have been missed.

PJC Consultancy 27 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

4.8 As badgers are both dynamic and nomadic by nature and fresh digging and evidence of badgers may appear within a short period of time, it is recommended that once the proposed development plans have been finalised, an update badger survey is undertaken to confirm badger usage within the site and check for any additional evidence. As badgers are likely to be using the wider site as foraging grounds, it is further recommended that during the construction phase, all deep excavations and trenches are covered at night to prevent foraging badgers from accidentally falling into areas of digging. Disturbances, such as loud noises, vibrations and flood lighting in association with night working should be avoided or limited to areas well away from the sett.

Building and Tree Assessment for Bats

Building Assessment

4.9 The majority of the buildings were well maintained with few features suitable for roosting bats. Nevertheless, anecdotal evidence suggests that there is a known bat roost within the Little Gem building on the school grounds. Additional buildings within the site were identified as having potential to support roosting bats, in particular the main school reception building, the courtyard studio building and the sixth form Baccalaureate building, where missing and / or broken roof tiles were identified. No additional evidence of bat usage was identified, such as droppings or staining.

4.10 It is understood that the sports hall and dining room are to be demolished during Phase 4 of the development, which is programmed to be completed in 2015. In addition to this, the science block complex is also proposed to be demolished in future phases of the development, programmed for completion in 2016+. The sports hall building appears to be relatively newly built and as such it is well maintained with no obvious features suitable for roosting bats observed. This building appeared to lack a roof void, as the large windows on the north-west side of the building seem to extend up to the roofline. No missing or broken roof tiles were observed on this building during the survey and no additional evidence of bat usage was identified. This building was identified as having no potential for roosting bats.

PJC Consultancy 28 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

4.11 The dining room building comprises a predominantly flat roof with limited potential for roosting bats. Nevertheless, two small pitched areas were identified on top of the flat roof on aerial photographs, which could not be observed from ground level during the survey. These features may have potential for roosting bats. It should also be noted that this building is attached to the main school building, which itself was identified as having potential for roosting bats under lifted and / or missing roof tiles at the front (north-west) of the building. The level of impact on the main school building as a result of the demolition of the dining room is presently unknown and therefore it is recommended that internal surveys and/or dusk emergence / dawn return to roost surveys are undertaken prior to the demolition of the dining room.

4.12 The science block complex comprises several brick structures with pitched and tiled roofs. One of the buildings in this complex was named the international baccalaureate and sixth form centre. This building was observed as having missing roof tiles with potential to support roosting bats. No additional evidence of bat usage, such as droppings or staining was identified. As potential for roosting bats was identified during the survey, it is recommended that internal surveys and/or dusk emergence / dawn return to roost surveys are undertaken prior to demolition.

4.13 Should works to additional buildings be required as part of the final scheme, it is recommended that prior to these works, the buildings to be affected are inspected externally (and if possible, internally) for their potential to support roosting bats.

Tree Assessment

4.14 Several trees within the site were identified as having potential to support roosting bats, in particular, mature deciduous trees primarily located on the edges of Buckfield copse and the woodland in the north of the site, in addition to mature trees located within the wooded strip on the boundary with the golf course. Two tree stumps with numerous woodpecker holes were also located within amenity grassland near the lake.

4.15 All of the mature trees on site, including the trees growing along hedgerows provide good opportunities for foraging bats. These habitats are also connected to the wider landscape ensuring that bats can move with ease across this area using the tree lines for shelter and

PJC Consultancy 29 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

protection and opportunistic foraging. Tree lines should therefore be maintained or enhanced where possible.

4.16 If the trees which have been identified as showing potential to support bats need to be removed, it is recommended that surveys are undertaken prior to their removal. These should be surveyed either by endoscopic survey or dusk emergence / dawn return to roost surveys. This will show whether bats are using these trees and whether a licence for felling would be required by Natural England.

Habitat Suitability for Reptiles

4.17 Areas of rank grassland and tall ruderal vegetation have potential to support reptiles, particularly slow worm. These areas were primarily located at the base of hedgerows and boundary features on the extremities of the site, on woodland edges and within woodland clearings.

4.18 The majority of suitable reptile habitat is located outside of the proposed development area. However, it is possible that some small areas of suitable vegetation will be lost through development of the site, particularly within woodland clearings in Buckfield Copse, where the new sports hall is proposed. It is therefore recommended that where suitable reptile habitat is to be lost, a reptile presence / likely absence survey is undertaken. This survey involves supplementing the existing log and timber piles with artificial refugia placed on vegetated areas deemed most suitable for reptiles. Artificial refugia consist of roofing felt tiles, which are laid flat on the ground and allowed to ‘bed in’ for a period of at least one week prior to the start of the survey.

4.19 The survey involves five survey visits at the appropriate time of year (April – September) and during suitable weather conditions (dry, little or no wind with intermittent or hazy sunshine and at temperatures between 10 0C and 19 0C). During the survey, the tiles will be lifted and checked for reptiles. The number of reptiles under each tile will be recorded, along with the species, age and sex.

PJC Consultancy 30 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

Other Species

4.20 Breeding birds are likely to use the tree lines on site as nesting habitat. The UK breeding season for most bird species takes place between March and September. It is recommended that any works affecting the trees, hedgerows or scrub on site be carried out outside of this period.

4.21 Areas of standing open water, including the lake and disused swimming pool to the north of the site were themselves considered to have limited potential for great crested newts. Notwithstanding this, a network of several ponds and suitable connective terrestrial habitat were recorded in the local area, particularly within the golf course to the south and east of the site. It should be noted that direct access to the disused swimming pool was not possible during the survey.

4.22 It is understood that no works are proposed to the existing lake in the north of the site, however, it is also understood that the existing disused swimming pool is to be in-filled as part of the proposed scheme. Although the disused swimming pool is considered to offer limited suitable habitat for breeding great crested newts, as waterbodies within the site were identified as being part of a network of several ponds and suitable terrestrial habitat was identified within the site, it is recommended that Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Assessments are undertaken of all waterbodies within 500m of the site.

4.23 The HSI was developed by Oldham et al. (2000), as a means of evaluating habitat quality and quantity for great crested newts. The survey involves assessing pond characteristics in the field, which are factors thought to affect great crested newts. These factors include; location, a count of the number of ponds within 1km of the pond being assessed, pond area, pond drying, macrophyte cover, shading, presence of fish and water fowl, water quality and surrounding terrestrial habitat. Once all of the data has been gathered, the habitat suitability of each pond is calculated. The final score is then compared with Oldham’s score categorisation, where scores range between less than 0.5 and greater than 0.8. Where a score of less than 0.5 is considered to be of poor habitat quality for great crested newts and a score of greater than 0.8 is considered to be of excellent habitat quality.

PJC Consultancy 31 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

4.24 Areas of woodland within the site were considered unlikely to support dormice (Muscardinus avellanarius) due to the open nature of the woodlands and a lack of suitable understorey vegetation. Woodland to the north of the site is also subject to high levels of disturbance from school pupils. Furthermore, deer were seen within Buckfield copse, which are likely to be foraging in this area. No further dormouse surveys are considered necessary at this time.

4.25 Large established stands of Japanese knotweed, along with a stand of Himalayan balsam and abundant common ragwort were identified within the site. Stands of Japanese knotweed adjacent to Buckfield copse, in particular were noted to be spreading, as new growth was recorded adjacent to the established stand. In order to manage, control and eradicate stands of invasive non-native species and noxious weeds, it is recommended that a treatment strategy is developed and implemented. It is further recommended that this treatment strategy is devised in accordance with an ecologist and implemented by specialist invasive species contractors, as stands of Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam are located adjacent to the active badger sett to the north of the site and further stands of Japanese knotweed are located within and adjacent to Buckfield copse ancient and semi-natural woodland.

Ecological Enhancements

4.26 A number of enhancements can be made to the final development to help reduce potential ecological impacts. It is important to utilise native species of local provenance in landscaping schemes to enhance the ecological value of a development.

4.25 Bird boxes may be hung on retained mature trees to increase the number of breeding opportunities throughout the site. Recommended boxes include:

• Schwegler 1N Deep Nest Box – give added nest protection from predators • Schwegler 1B Bird Box – general purpose bird box, suitable for many species

4.26 Installation of bat boxes will also enhance the number of roosting opportunities for bats in the local area. Boxes should be hung on mature trees and have clear flight paths. Recommended boxes include:

PJC Consultancy 32 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

• Schwegler 2F – This box simulates crevices inside to allow suitable habitats for crevice-dwellers • Schwegler 1FD – This box is a larger version of the 2F • Schwegler 1FW – This box is suitable for maternity or hibernation roosts

4.27 Any trees that are removed should be replaced elsewhere on the site or with native species such as: oak, ash, hazel, beech and cherry, this will mitigate against the loss of habitat that could be considered important under planning local policies.

4.28 The use of wildflower mixes to increase the biodiversity of existing species poor arable land and amenity grassland, will enhance the ecological value of the site for a range of important invertebrates. This will provide suitable habitats for terrestrial invertebrates and in turn would be a benefit to birds that forage on seeds and invertebrates. Piles of logs and rubble may be placed in suitable areas on site to provide hibernacula for species such as common amphibian species and reptile species, as well as refugia for small mammals and invertebrates.

4.29 It is recommended that, where possible, grassland and tall ruderal vegetation around the perimeter of the site and at the base of retained hedgerows is left unmanaged to support terrestrial invertebrates and reptiles.

4.30 Areas of invasive non-native species and noxious weeds, in particular Japanese knotweed are very easy to spread and grow vigorously, out competing native plant species. Therefore, the control and eradication of these non-native species will give native plant species a chance to re-establish, which will in turn provide additional habitat and foraging opportunities for terrestrial invertebrates, reptiles and birds.

4.31 Creation of swales and/or SUDs as part of the development can further enhance the site. These waterbodies should be linked to the wider landscape through the protection and enhancement of tree lines and associated grassland strips. Wetlands and ponds, swales or ditches can be planted to enhance invertebrate species on the site and provide breeding opportunities for amphibian species. These should be planted with species of ecological value:

PJC Consultancy 33 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

• Water mint - (Mentha aquatica); • Common reed - (Phragmites australis); • Soft rush - (Juncus effuses); • Water plantain - (Alisma plantago-aquatica); • Meadowsweet - (Filipendula ulmaria); • Yellow flag iris - (Iris pseudacorus).

The incorporation of these in the design of the site will greatly enhance the site for local wildlife. Log piles can be incorporated into the design to encourage invertebrates, as well as hedgehogs and amphibian and reptile species.

5.0 Conclusions

5.1 The majority of habitats found on site are common and widespread throughout the UK and are considered to be of ecological value at a site level only. Notwithstanding this, Buckfield Copse is listed as ancient and semi-natural woodland on the Ancient Woodland Inventory and is therefore considered to be of national value.

5.2 Ancient woodland, such as Buckfield Copse is listed as a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitat. There are Natural England guidelines associated with such habitats and include buffer zone requirements (15m) and protection of features. The remaining woodland on site is considered to be UK BAP habitat as such should be considered as part of the scheme.

5.3 The site is located approximately 6.1km from Thames Basin Heaths SPA, which supports important breeding bird populations, such as nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus), Dartford warbler (Sylvia undata) and woodlark (Lullula arborea). Nevertheless, as the site is located more than 6km from Thames Basin Heath SPA, which is outside of the Zone of Influence, it is not considered likely that the proposed development will have a direct effect on the status of the breeding bird populations. Furthermore, indirect effects, such as increased social pressure are also not considered likely, as the local and wider landscape

PJC Consultancy 34 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

is predominantly rural with numerous opportunities for walking and outdoor pursuits away from the SPA.

5.4 Areas of semi-improved grassland, tall ruderal vegetation and scrub, along with habitats associated with field margins and hedgerows provide suitable habitat for reptiles, particularly slow worm. These habitat areas, combined with areas of woodland and associated understorey provide landscape connectivity, which would allow amphibians, reptiles and small mammals to move across the landscape and provide good opportunities for foraging.

5.5 It is therefore recommended that existing habitats, such as woodland, hedgerows and associated grassland, tall ruderal vegetation and scrub be considered in any development scheme. Surveying for reptiles within suitable areas, such as within woodland clearing in Buckfield Copse and around arable field margins is recommended, as these areas are may be lost through development.

5.6 There are numerous mature trees on site either as standard trees or within areas of woodland; these should be retained and incorporated into any development plan in line with local planning policy. Several trees within the site were identified as having potential to support roosting bats, in particular, mature deciduous trees primarily located on the edges of Buckfield copse and the woodland in the north of the site, in addition to mature trees located within the wooded strip on the boundary with the golf course. Two tree stumps with numerous woodpecker holes were also located within amenity grassland near the lake.

5.7 If the trees which have been identified as showing potential to support bats need to be removed, it is recommended that surveys are undertaken prior to their removal. These should be surveyed either by endoscopic survey or dusk emergence / dawn return to roost surveys. This will show whether bats are using these trees and whether a licence for felling would be required by Natural England.

5.8 Trees and scrub within the site were identified as having potential to support nesting birds. Therefore, any scrub/tree clearance must be done outside of the bird nesting season.

PJC Consultancy 35 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

5.9 An active badger sett with several well-used entrances was identified within woodland to the north of the site, near Carfor House. Although no additional setts were identified within the site, evidence of fresh digging and mammal paths were identified within the site.

5.10 It is understood that no works are proposed in the vicinity of the sett or surrounding woodland to the north of the site and potential foraging areas and corridors, such as wooded strips and amenity grassland are to remain intact and undisturbed. As impacts to badgers or their sett are not understood to be likely during the scheme, it is considered that badgers are not a constraint to development.

5.11 It is recommended that once the proposed development plans have been finalised, an update badger survey is undertaken to confirm badger usage within the site and check for any additional evidence. As badgers are likely to be using the wider site as foraging grounds, it is further recommended that during the construction phase, all deep excavations and trenches are covered at night to prevent foraging badgers from accidentally falling into areas of digging. Disturbances, such as loud noises, vibrations and flood lighting in association with night working should be avoided or limited to areas well away from the sett.

5.12 Areas of standing open water, including the lake and disused swimming pool to the north of the site were themselves considered to have limited potential for great crested newts. Notwithstanding this, a network of several ponds and suitable connective terrestrial habitat were recorded in the local area, particularly within the golf course to the south and east of the site.

5.13 It is understood that no works are proposed to the existing lake in the north of the site, however, it is also understood that the existing disused swimming pool is to be in-filled as part of the proposed scheme. Although the disused swimming pool is considered to offer limited suitable habitat for breeding great crested newts, as waterbodies within the site were identified as being part of a network of several ponds and suitable terrestrial habitat was identified within the site, it is recommended that Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Assessments are undertaken of all waterbodies within 500m of the site.

PJC Consultancy 36 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

5.14 Areas of woodland within the site were considered unlikely to support dormice (Muscardinus avellanarius) due to the open nature of the woodlands and a lack of suitable understorey vegetation. Woodland to the north of the site is also subject to high levels of disturbance from school pupils. Furthermore, deer were seen within Buckfield copse, which are likely to be foraging in this area. No further dormouse surveys are considered necessary at this time.

5.15 Large established stands of Japanese knotweed, along with a stand of Himalayan balsam and abundant common ragwort were identified within the site. Stands of Japanese knotweed adjacent to Buckfield copse, in particular were noted to be spreading, as new growth was recorded adjacent to the established stand. In order to manage, control and eradicate stands of invasive non-native species and noxious weeds, it is recommended that a treatment strategy is developed and implemented. It is further recommended that this treatment strategy is devised in accordance with an ecologist and implemented by specialist invasive species contractors, as stands of Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam are located adjacent to the active badger sett to the north of the site and further stands of Japanese knotweed are located within and adjacent to Buckfield copse ancient and semi-natural woodland.

5.16 Potential ecological enhancements that can be implemented into development plans have been recommended within the report. Recommendations include use of native species within any proposed landscaping schemes and include the use of a wild flower meadow to enhance the area for invertebrate and bird species.

5.17 It is recommended that the boundary tree lines / areas of woodland and hedgerows be incorporated into any development plan for the site. These areas are important to wildlife on a site level and should be left in situ or enhanced.

PJC Consultancy 37 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

6.0 References

Bat Conservation Trust (2007). Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Cresswell P., Harris S., & Jefferies D.J. (1990). The history, distribution, status and habitat requirements of the badger in Britain. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough.

English Nature (2001). Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. http://www.naturalengland.org.uk

Hart District Council (Nov 2010). Interim Avoidance Strategy for the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

Oldham R.S., Keeble J., Swan M.J.S. & Jeffcote M. (2000). Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal 10 (4), 143-155.

Natural England (May 2012). Standing Advice for Ancient Woodland.

Wilson G.J., Harris, S. & McLaren, G., (1997) Changes in the British badger population, 1988 to 1997. People’s Trust for Endangered Species.

Internet resources:

Google Maps: www.maps.google.co.uk

Magic Interactive Map: www.magic.gov.uk

NBN Gateway: www.searchnbn.net

Hart District Council – www.hart.gov.uk

PJC Consultancy 38 Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

Appendix 1: Photographs

PJC Consultancy 39 Photo 1. Arable field to the south of the site.

Photo 2. Large established stand of Japanese knotweed with tall ruderal vegetation on boundary of arable field.

Photo 3. Outside of site: Pond on golf course, adjacent to the southern boundary of the site.

Photo 4. Semi- improved grassland and tall ruderal vegetation between Buckfield Copse and the arable field. Japanese knotweed also present in this area.

Photo 5. Woodland in western side of Buckfield Copse.

Photo 6. Clearing within Buckfield Copse.

Photo 7. Woodland further to the east of Buckfield Copse.

Photo 8. Species- poor yew hedgerow between Buckfield Copse and the tennis courts.

Photo 9. Dry pond to the north-west of the tennis courts.

Photo 10. Amenity grassland school recreational area.

Photo 11. Tree stump with woodpecker holes adjacent to broadleaved woodland on south- east boundary of site.

Photo 12. Broadleaved woodland strip with tall ruderal vegetation on south- east boundary of the site.

Photo 13. Disused swimming pool adjacent to lake.

Photo 14. Tree stump with woodpecker holes near northern boundary of the site.

Photo 15. Lake on northern boundary of the site.

Photo 16. Area of rank improved grassland on northern boundary of the site. Reptile potential.

Photo 17. Woodland on northern boundary of the site.

Photo 18. Woodland edge with tall ruderal vegetation on southern side of woodland.

Photo 19. Contractors yard adjacent to Carfor House on northern boundary of the site.

Photo 20. Mature oak within contractors yard on northern boundary of the site. Potential for roosting bats.

Photo 21. Badger sett entrance on northern boundary of site.

Photo 22. Well worn badger path leading through Himalayan balsam and tall ruderal vegetation to / from sett on northern boundary of site.

Photo 23. Broadleaved woodland strip extending along north-western boundary of site.

Photo 24. Broadleaved woodland strip extending along north-western boundary of site. Woodland becomes more mature at it extends southwards.

Photo 25. Poor semi- improved grassland to the west of the main school building.

Photo 26. Large established stand of Japanese knotweed between Buckfield Copse and school entrance road.

Photo 27. Sports hall building. No potential for roosting bats.

Photo 28. Little Gems building. Anecdotal evidence of a known bat roost in this building. Missing tiles and gaps in ridge tiles identified.

Photo 29. Main school building. Missing roof tiles identified - potential for roosting bats.

Photo 30. Dining hall building attached to main school building.

Photo 31. Courtyard studio building - potential for roosting bats.

Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

Appendix 2: Habitat map

PJC Consultancy 40

Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon July 2012

PJC Consultancy Ltd Chapter House Priesthawes Farm Hailsham Road Polegate, East Sussex Tel. 01323 768 155 Fax. 01323 768 244 www.pjcconsultancy.com

Written by: Vicky Hale BSc (Hons) CEnv MIEEM Approved for PJC by: Alexia Tamblyn MA (Oxon) MSc CEnv MIEEM FRGS, Managing Director

Date: 18/07/12

PJC Consultancy 41

Buro Happold

Appendix B - Surveys for Reptiles, GCNs and Bats

Land at Sherfield School Sherfield on Lodden

Reptile Presence/Likely Absence Survey, GCN Habitat Suitability Survey Internal Bat Survey, Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy

A report for Buro Happold

September 2012 Sherfied School September 2012

Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 3 BACKGROUND ...... 3 2.0 REPTILE SURVEY ...... 4 METHODOLOGY ...... 4 RESULTS ...... 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 5 MITIGATION STRATEGY ...... 6 ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY ...... 7 CONCLUSION ...... 7 3.0 BAT SURVEYS ...... 8 INTERNAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 8 RESULTS ...... 8 IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT – APPROPRIATE MITIGATION ...... 14 BATS AND TREES ...... 15 GENERAL SITE RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 16 TIMINGS AND GENERAL WORKS ...... 17 CONCLUSIONS ...... 17 4.0 GCN SURVEYS ...... 18

METHODOLOGY ...... 18 RESULTS - HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR GCNS ...... 19 DISCUSSION ...... 23 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION ...... 25 CONCLUSION ...... 26 5.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS ...... 27 APPENDIX 1: LOCATION OF REPTILE MATS ...... 29

It is the duty of care of the landowner/developer to act responsibly and comply with current environmental legislation if protected species are suspected or found prior to or during works.

PJC Consultancy 2 Sherfied School September 2012

1.0 Introduction

Background

1.1 PJC Consultancy Ltd (PJC) was commissioned by Buro Happold to undertake a reptile survey, bat surveys and a GCN site assessment on land proposed for development at Sherfield School, Sherfield on Loddon. This report has been required to support a planning application.

1.2 Previous ecological surveys have been undertaken by PJC Ecology in 2012. The phase 1 survey highlighted the potential for the site to support reptile species around the edges of the site, especially around the agricultural field and the edges of the lake on site.

1.3 The phase 1 survey also highlighted several water bodies in and around the site, with one lake within the school ownership, but outside the development boundary, and several ponds on the adjacent golf course off site. It was recommended that an HSI for these ponds was undertaken to assess the likelihood of GCNS being present in and around the site.

1.4 The phase 1 survey also identified several buildings were there was potential for roosting bats. It was advised that any building which was subject to demolition or refurbishment would require an internal bat survey to identify if bats were present. Further surveys may well be required depending on the level of works involved to each building.

1.5 This report presents the results of PJC’s surveys in and around the site, which aims specifically to determine the likely presence or absence of reptiles on the site, the levels of bat use across the site and whether bats are using the buildings for roosting and whether GCNs are likely to be using the site.

1.7 Section 2 of this report details the methods and results of the reptile survey, section 3 the bat survey and section 4 the GCN survey. Overall conclusions are given in section 5.

PJC Consultancy 3 Sherfied School September 2012

2.0 Reptile Survey

Methodology

2.1 A terrestrial survey of the site for reptiles (presence or absence) was carried out at land at Sherfield School between the dates of 14th August – 7th September 2012. Prior to the commencement of the survey, the site was set up with artificial refugia (roofing felts), for reptiles.

2.2 The refugia were placed around the edges of the agricultural field, in patches through the woodland, Buckfield Copse, and in rough grassland patches around the pond. Mats were set up prior to the commencement of the reptile survey, (as recommended in published advice from Natural England), the timing and number of surveys completed were based on guidelines produced by Froglife (1999) and Gent and Gibson (1998). A total of seven survey visits were made to the site to check the refugia for the presence of reptiles. Visits were only carried out if the weather conditions were suitable for locating reptiles. On each visit to the site, a minimum of one circuit to check all refugia was carried out.

2.3 Natural refugia were also surveyed during these visits. Any natural refugia, such as log piles and brash piles, were lifted and hand searched for evidence of reptiles.

Results

2.4 The timing and number of surveys completed were based on guidelines produced by Froglife (1999) and Gent and Gibson (1998). A total of seven survey visits were made to the site to check the refugia for the presence of reptiles. Visits were only carried out if the weather conditions were suitable for locating reptiles.

2.5 Grass snakes were found on 5 of the 7 surveys around the site. One mature adult was located along the A33 on the edge of the agricultural field. During this visit juvenile toads were located under mats adjacent to the lake on the site. The second visit nothing was found, with the third visit 2 juvenile grass snakes being found in the grassland area neaer the boarding houses and the woodland to the north of the site. Further survyes found grass snakes around the lake to the east of the site. Common amphibians were

PJC Consultancy 4 Sherfied School September 2012

found along this area during the surveys. The final visit found 2 sub adults on the edge of the woodland around the boarding houses. No other reptiles were found on site during the survey visits.

Photographs above: grass snakes found under mats during the reptile surveys.

2.6 Grass snakes were discovered on site. No other reptile species were found during the survey.

Discussion and Recommendations

2.7 Reptiles were found to be using the site. Only grass snakes were found and therefore the site is not considered to be a key reptile site receptor.

2.8 The size of the reptile population can be estimated using the Froglife (1999) scoring system. This system assumes a density of 10 refugia per hectare. A population size class assessment, which is based on the number of adults recorded in one survey visit can be made using Table 1.

PJC Consultancy 5 Sherfied School September 2012

Table 1 Population class assessment categories (Froglife, 1999)

Low population Good population Exceptional

(Score 1) (Score 2) population Adder <5 5 - 10 >10 Common lizard <5 5 - 20 >20 Grass snake <5 5 -10 >10

Slow-worm <5 5 - 20 >20

2.9 Therefore it can be assumed the site supports a low population of grass snakes. No other reptiles were found. Based on the findings during the field work stage of reporting, a mitigation strategy is required to ensure that no grass snakes are killed or harmed during the development works. This is discussed further in the following section.

Mitigation Strategy

2.10 The presence of grass snakes on site requires a mitigation strategy for undertaking works. The grass snakes are present on the edges of the site, around the lake and on a small area of grassland adjacent to the boarding houses.

2.11 The majority of the site does not support suitable reptile habitat, with a large portion of the site supporting well maintained grass land. The edges of the site are unlikely to be affected, and the lake area is considered outside the zone of development. Therefore the only area which has potential to support reptiles is the area around the boarding houses. This area is to be affected as part of the development and it is this area where mitigation will be required.

2.12 Due to the low numbers of individuals and small area of suitable habitat which will be affected by the proposals, it is recommended that works to this area are undertaken under ecological watching brief, with sensitive vegetation removal. It is considered that use of reptile exclusion fencing is not necessary as no significant amount of habitat for grass snakes is to be lost, and the habitat remaining maintains its habitat linkages across the site.

PJC Consultancy 6 Sherfied School September 2012

2.13 It is recommended that the vegetation be removed sensitively. The grassland will be searched for individuals prior to clearance, will then be strimmed to 150mm, checked, and then finally strimmed down to ground level. This will be undertaken under ecological supervision. The arisings can be taken off site, or placed in a compost heap (or several) off site, providing good habitat for breeding grass snakes. Any larger areas of vegetation will be removed sensitively.

2.14 Final clearance works and sensitive soil removal will also be carried out under the supervision of an ecologist. Once this is compete, development works can start.

Enhancement Strategy

2.15 The site can be enhanced for wildlife as part of the design, and include features which are favoured by reptile species.

2.16 Creation of log piles and brash piles under hedgerows and areas of scrub for the use of refugia. Log piles should be located in a variety of locations, such as damp places, with some situated in more sunny locations. These should be stacked, and perhaps some amounts of leaf litter added. Planting around log piles with such species as honeysuckle or clematis can also add value. Such refugia can attract reptiles, small mammals, and invertebrates.

2.17 Creation of compost heaps and areas where grass clippings and similar detritus may be stockpiled to provide suitable habitat for grass snakes to nest and lay eggs.

Conclusion

2.18 Grass snakes are known to use the site, along the edges of the site and around the pond. Only a small area of this habitat is to be affected. Site clearance will be done sensitively, under supervision of an ecologist. Enhancements for the site have been included within this report.

PJC Consultancy 7 Sherfied School September 2012

3.0 Bat Surveys

Internal Assessment Methodology

3.1 Internal bat surveys were undertaken on 14th August 2012 by PJC ecologist Alexia Tamblyn MA (Oxon) MSc CEnv MIEEM FRGS Natural England Bat Licence holder 20122588. The surveyor undertook an internal and external examination of the building including the roof void. The surveyor assessed the buildings visually and searched for evidence such as:

• Staining beneath or around a hole caused by natural oils in bat fur. • Bat droppings beneath a hole, roost or resting area. • Bat droppings and/or insect remains beneath a feeding area. • Audible squeaking from within a hole. • Insects (especially flies) around a hole. • Dead bats.

3.2 The building within the red line boundary was accessed during the day. An external investigation assessed the tiles, weather boarding and structural timber joints of the buildings. This was undertaken in order to see if there were access points readily available for bats to utilise or crevices that bats could be roosting in.

Results

3.3 During the course of the survey the following buildings were investigate for bats:

• The sports hall • Little Gems • Science building 1 (physics and chemistry block) • Science building 2 (biology block) • The canteen • The building adjacent to the canteen with a double pithed roof

PJC Consultancy 8 Sherfied School September 2012

3.4 The sports hall did not support a roof void, with the building being opened up to the apex. The external tiles were flush with each other and did not show obvious holes or slipped tiles. One side supported an overhang, however, there were no features which would be considered suitable to support roosting bats, and no external evidence was found.

Photograph: The internal and external environment of the sports hall. The building and structure is considered to be sub optimal for bats.

3.5 The science blocks were also investigated. These again were relatively modern in design. The tiles and roof showed no obvious damage and no obvious entrance and exit holes that could be used by bats. The physics and chemistry block supported 2 voids separated by a fire wall. The voids were mirror images of each other. They were extremely hot, supported many internal joists and beams. No evidence of bats was found in either void. The second science block, the biology bock, was of similar build. Again no obvious entrance or exit holes in the roof. There was only one void present in this building. It was similar in build and construction, was hot and dry internal environment. No evidence of bats was found in the void.

PJC Consultancy 9 Sherfied School September 2012

Photographs: The photographs below show the science block (Block 1) and the internal voids.

Photographs: The photographs below show the science block (Block 2) and the internal voids.

3.6 The canteen block is flat roofed and supports negligible opportunities for roosting bats. The adjacent building, which forms part of the old school structure, supported a double pitched roof. Both of these pitched roofs were internally surveyed for evidence of bats. A couple of very old droppings was found in one of the pitches roofs, the second roof supported 5 asps nests and was not fully accessed. No evidence of roosting bats was found in this roof void.

PJC Consultancy 10 Sherfied School September 2012

Photographs: Below left the flat roof of the canteen and below right the pitched roofs adjacent to the canteen.

Photographs: Below both voids of the double itched roof. Below right shows numerous wasps nests.

PJC Consultancy 11 Sherfied School September 2012

3.7 The building ‘Little Gems’ is an extensive semi modern block. The majority of the building supports a flat roof and therefore was not considered likely to support roosting bats. However, one section of the building, an older portion, supports a pitched roof. This was previously surveyed by an ecologist several years ago who documented that a roost was present. The ecologist report has not been made available, but emergence and activity surveys were undertaken. It was also considered that the roost was a maternity roost from brown long eared bats. PJC’s survey confirm that the roost is present, and very much active. Piles of droppings were found throughout the roof void. Exit locations at the apex of the roof were also identified due to droppings seen underneath the exit point within the void itself. The roof was confirmed to be a maternity roost for brown long eared bats.

Photographs below: Left shows Little Gems building with the pitched roof and the flat roofs behind. The right hand photo shows the opening at the very apex of the building. Inside this apex numerous bat droppings were found.

PJC Consultancy 12 Sherfied School September 2012

Photographs: Showing the numerous droppings throughout the void, under the roof apex and ridge. The photo top right shows the exit hole for the bats were numerous droppings are attached to the wall and a pile of droppings (top left) are seen.

3.8 No other buildings were considered to be part of the application. The science blocks, canteen and sports centre are scheduled for demolition. Little Gems has been highlighted for refurbishment.

3.9 There is anecdotal evidence of bats roosting in The Stables (the art centre) and in one of the boarding houses on site. These buildings are to remain unaffected by the proposals and therefore no further surveys for these buildings are required. However, it is recommended that if any works to these buildings are to be included in the site redevelopment then bat surveys are undertaken.

PJC Consultancy 13 Sherfied School September 2012

Implications for Development – Appropriate Mitigation

3.10 The buildings which are subject to demolition have been internally investigated for evidence of roosting bats. Bats are a material consideration and therefore the implications of development must be considered.

3.11 The two science blocks which are subject to demolition supported roof voids which showed no evidence of roosting bats. The relative modern nature of the blocks supported voids which although large, supported a cluttered internal space. The roof tiles were flush with each other, and the building was considered to be in good condition, with no obvious entrance or exit holes. At the time of the survey, these buildings did not support bats. It is recommended that prior to demolition that an internal survey is conducted to ensure that the status quo has not altered since the 2012 visit.

3.12 The canteen supported a flat roof and was considered to have negligible potential to support bats. However, the canteen block was attached to an older part of the building which supported two pitched roofs. These were investigated. Only a couple of very old droppings (species could not be determined) were found. These are not likely to be affected by the proposals. However, if these voids are to be affected then it is recommended that an update survey is conducted prior to works to ensure that the status quo has not altered since the 2012 visit.

3.13 The sports hall did not support a roof void, and supported a roof of modern construction. The roof was in good condition with tiles lying flush with each other. The overhang supported several gaps, however, the nature of the building and the materials used, make it unlikely that bats will be using these areas. No external evidence of bat use was found. It is recommended that when demolished the soffit boards are removed by hand to ensure that in the unlikely event of a bat accessing these, that there will be no harm to individual bats.

3.14 Little Gems supported an extensive flat roof building with negligible potential to support roosting bats. However, the older section of Little Gems supported a pitched roof structure. This supported an active long eared maternity roost, described as such due to the number and levels of droppings involved. The access point for bats was clearly seen inside and outside the roof structure.

PJC Consultancy 14 Sherfied School September 2012

3.15 This section of the Little Gems is to be refurbished. However, it is unknown as yet whether any works are required to the roof. It is recommended that no structural changes are made to the roof. However, if this is to change then a licence from Natural England may need to be sought.

3.16 As the roost is a maternity roost , small scale works outside the maternity season can be undertaken without the need for a licence. Works over winter, such as re wiring, pipe works or insulation works, can occur if preceded by an internal inspection by a competent ecologist. Works can be supervised to ensure that the workers do not make any accidental incursion on the structure of the exist locations. Any works which are more significant may well require a licence.

Bats and Trees

3.17 General site works should be considered with respect to bats. If any trees are to be removed then these will need to be checked by an ecologist prior to removal. If these trees do not support a bat roost then it is recommended that soft felling techniques are used.

3.18 Soft felling techniques involve the gentle removal of a tree in sections. This process can be undertaken once a tree has been given the all clear from ecologist and that it is considered that bats are not using the tree. This technique can also be used as part of licensable works in the correct seasonal timings. The following method is recommended:

• Final check with endoscope, if possible. • Remove the small and young branches with no bat potential, to ensure that access to the main trunk or main features of the tree are accessible. • Where possible, avoid cross cutting in proximity to cavities or hollows. • Limbs with internal fissures should be pruned carefully to maintain integrity of features as potential roost sites before final removal and lowering of the potential roost sites down to the ground. These logs can be stack or re attached to other trees as part of a mitigation strategy.

PJC Consultancy 15 Sherfied School September 2012

• Any sections felled containing cavities should be lowered carefully and left on the ground (preferably for 24 hours) with the openings clear, allowing anything inside an opportunity to escape. • Split limbs that are under tension may need to be wedged open to prevent their closure when pressure is released, potentially trapping bats. • If ivy covers areas of a tree’s trunk or branches, there is roosting potential behind it. If possible the ivy should be removed in section before felling to ensure that no significant cavities have been missed. These can then be investigated further. • If the ivy is very thick in places then the tree should be felled in sections and then can then be inspected on the ground • All parts of the trees will be lowered to the ground slowly and via a MEWP so as to minimise the risk of killing/injuring bats by crushing. • Each section will be inspected thoroughly for the presence of bats and/or signs of bats by the named bat ecologist and/or the accredited agent.

3.19 If a bat is found during the felling works, all works to the tree will be stopped, if safe to do so, and the advise of the ecologist on site sought. Further surveys may well be required and a licence applied for. If a bat is found after felling, then it should be moved, if safe to do so, and transported to bat boxes which have been erected on site. This should be undertaken by a licensed ecologist.

General Site Recommendations

3.20 Incorporating specially designed bat boxes onto mature trees on site an enhance the habitat on site for bats. Bat boxes will be erected on the trees prior to works starting on site. Suitable bat boxes include:

• Schwegler 1FW Bat hibernation box – these boxes provide good protection through winter months and are suitable for hibernation. One should be used on site, on the tree lined edge of the site; • Schewegler 1FD Bat box – these provide crevices for roosting bats and can be established on trees. Four of these should be used amongst the tree lined edge of the site;

PJC Consultancy 16 Sherfied School September 2012

• Schwegler 2F –Bat box – these are general purpose bat boxes and can be attached to a variety of trees in a variety of positions within the site.

3.21 The nature of the site and the wider landscape provides good foraging habitats for brown long eared bats as well as other bats. The erection of these bat boxes in areas which are currently being used by bats will increase the chances of bats finding them and using them. The Schwegler bat box is used as these are maintenance free and are very long lasting.

Timings and General Works

3.22 Prior to any works starting, bat boxes should be erected on some trees in the immediate area, so if bats are found s during the they can be gently moved by hand to another appropriate roosting place. Bat boxes provide alternative roosting throughout the redevelopment of the site so bats will always have roosting sites available to them.

3.23 Lighting must also be considered as part of the proposal. Lighting can be detrimental to roosting, foraging and commuting bats and many bats, including brown long eared bats are known to light sample - only leaving the roost if the ambient light is considered viable. Any new lighting around the building Little Gems must be focused away from the tree lines and roof void, hooded or baffled to ensure minimal light spillage. Lamps of greater than 2000 lumens (150 W) must not be installed. Lights should not be directed at any areas where bats may use as entrance and exit locations. No lights should be directed to the Buckfield Copse area or any other tree line edge.

Conclusions

3.24 The majority of the buildings which are to be affected by the proposals are considered to be unsuitable for bats and therefore are not constrained by the presence of bats. It is always recommended that if there is a lapse in time between the surveys and the demolition, that the buildings which support roof voids are re checked to ensure that the status quo of the buildings has not changed.

PJC Consultancy 17 Sherfied School September 2012

3.25 Little Gems is to be refurbished and as such the pitched roof is not to be lost due to demolition. The roost within the pitched area of Little Gems is a long eared maternity roost and is therefore considered to be significant in terms of local bat population. The roost is to remain in situ. Is small scale works are required for refurbishment then it is considered that these can be undertaken without a licence, outside the maternity season and under ecological supervision. It is considered that the mitigation as discussed above is followed then the favourable conservation status of bats in the local area will not be affected by the works.

3.26 The tree lines and Buckfield Copse are to be retained as part of the development ensuring that habitat connectivity is maintained throughout the re development works. It is recommended that if any tree is required for removal, that it is surveyed prior to felling.

3.27 The enhancements across the site for bats will also be significant in terms of providing additional roosting opportunities and strategies. The strategies used include alternative roosting in bat boxes and the maintenance of the significant features on site.

4.0 GCN Surveys

4.1 PJC were instructed to undertake GCN surveys of the water bodies that were found adjacent to the site during the phase 1 habitat survey. The water bodies were subject to HSI assessment prior to undertaking further detailed GCN survey work over a period of time.

Methodology

4.2 Habitat surveys were carried out on the 14th August 2012 to assess the potential of the site to hold great crested newts (Triturus cristatus). This involved looking at the wider landscape using Google Maps and Nature on the Map to types of habitat in the wider landscape. This also involved looking for the presence of factors that would increase the suitability of the site for great crested newts such as:

PJC Consultancy 18 Sherfied School September 2012

Results - Habitat Suitability for GCNs

4.3 The water bodies were assessed for their potential to support great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) using the Habitat Suitability Index criteria. The suitability index is calculated for each of the 10 categories. These are then analysed using the equation below to obtain the geometric mean or HSI score of the ten suitability indices.

1/10 HSI = (SI1 x SI2 SI3 x SI4 x SI5 x SI6 x SI7 x SI8 x SI9 x SI10)

The calculated score should be between 0 and 1 and will fall within one of several bands, which correspond to a given category for the pond.

4.4 The results for the various ponds/water bodies are given below:

4.5 Table 1. HSI Scores for the pond on site within the school boundaries

Suitability Indices No. Feature Pond Score 1. Location 1 2. Area N/a 3. Permanence 0.9 4. Water quality 1 5. Shading 0.7

PJC Consultancy 19 Sherfied School September 2012

6. Presence of waterfowl 0.67 7. Presence of fish 0.01 8. Pond density 1 9. Suitable newt habitat within 500m 1 10. Macrophyte content 0.5 10th root n/a Pond Suitability n/a

The suitability of this pond using the HSI can not be carried out. The size of the pond is off the scale of the HSI and it is classified as a lake. Due to the size and the presence of fish (carp) it is considered that this pond is unlikely

4.6 Table 1. HSI Scores for the pond off site, located adjacent to the agricultural field boundary.

Suitability Indices No. Feature Pond Score 1. Location 1

2. Area 0.92 3. Permanence 1

4. Water quality 0.67 5. Shading 1

6. Presence of waterfowl 0.01 7. Presence of fish 0.01

8. Pond density 1

9. Suitable newt habitat within 500m 1

10. Macrophyte content 0.7

10th root

Pond Suitability 0.56 The suitability of the pond was classified as:

This pond score comes out as below average suitability. This is likely due to the presence of fish within the pond.

PJC Consultancy 20 Sherfied School September 2012

4.7 Table 1. HSI Scores for the pond off site, nearest to the boundary of the school, within the golf course

Suitability Indices No. Feature Pond Score

1. Location 1

2. Area 0.8 3. Permanence 1

4. Water quality 0.67 5. Shading 1

6. Presence of waterfowl 0.67 7. Presence of fish 0.33

8. Pond density 1

9. Suitable newt habitat within 500m 1

10. Macrophyte content 0.7

10th root

Pond Suitability 0.78

The suitability of the pond was classified as being of good potential to support GCNs.

4.8 Table 1. HSI Scores for the pond off site, smaller pond on the golf course

Suitability Indices No. Feature Pond Score 1. Location 1 2. Area 0.8 3. Permanence 1 4. Water quality 0.67 5. Shading 1 6. Presence of waterfowl 0.67 7. Presence of fish 0.33 8. Pond density 1 9. Suitable newt habitat within 500m 1 10. Macrophyte content 0.7

PJC Consultancy 21 Sherfied School September 2012

10th root

Pond Suitability 0.78

The suitability of the pond was classified as being of good potential to support GCNs.

4.9 Table 1. HSI Scores for the pond off site, larger pond on the golf course

Suitability Indices No. Feature Pond Score 1. Location 1

2. Area n/a 3. Permanence 1

4. Water quality 0.67 5. Shading 1

6. Presence of waterfowl 0.67 7. Presence of fish 0.33

8. Pond density 1

9. Suitable newt habitat within 500m 1

10. Macrophyte content 0.7

10th root

Pond Suitability n/a

The suitability of the pond is not possible to calculate with the HSI as the pond area is over 2,000m2 and therefore not considered suitable to support GCNs. This pond is therefore considered to have negligible potential to support GCNs.

4.10 It is therefore considered that the pond on site (which is considered a lake) the pond adjacent to the site nearest the agricultural field and the largest pond on the golf course, are not considered suitable to support GCNs. These ponds are either too great in size or support significant populations of fish, or both.

4.11 The smaller ponds do have the potential to support GCNs when assessing their HSI suitability. However, it must be noted that all ponds are connected with each other by drainage channels and it is therefore likely that all ponds support fish. The numbers of

PJC Consultancy 22 Sherfied School September 2012

fish present are unknown, however, the pond/lake within the school grounds supports significant amount of carp. The pond off site adjacent to the agricultural field supports large carp which were introduced to the pond when the pond present in the plant nursery (further to the south of the site off Wildmoor Lane) over flowed and the fish escaped down the drainage channels into the ponds in the golf course. It was considered that all ponds support fish due the connection of drainage channel, however, no fish were observed in the smaller ponds during the survey time.

Discussion

4.12 The lake within the school ownership (surrounded by the iron railings) but outside the development boundary, the pond/lake on the edge of the agricultural field adjacent to the site, and the large pond/lake in the golf course, were all considered to have negligible potential to support GCNs due to their large size and their fish stock. All of these water bodies were off site. These are therefore not considered to be a constraint to any potential development.

4.13 The two smaller ponds off site, on the golf course and on the edge of the site, are considered to have good potential to support GCNs. It must be noted that PJC have predicted that there are some fish in the pond, although numbers are unknown. However, all the ponds are connected to each other by a series of drainage ditches, so it must be assumed that fish do pass between the ponds.

4.14 Whilst the smaller off site ponds were identified as having some potential, it must be noted that if the ponds that surround them are unsuitable, their suitability would decrease. This is not considered as part of the HSI calculation, therefore these smaller ponds may be calculated as a higher value then potentially they are.

4.15 The design of the development has yet to be finalised, however, works are to take place across the school site. It is considered that large portions of the school site will have negligible potential to support GCNs. The amenity grassland and well mown grass fields, are unlikely to support GCNs due to the high management regime.

PJC Consultancy 23 Sherfied School September 2012

4.16 However, there is always a possibility that GCNs may well use Buckfield Copse and the edges of the site. However, they would only be using small areas of the site and therefore whether they are present on not, sensitive working practises and the design of the development, would mean that individuals would not be harmed.

4.17 The most significant issue with European Protected Species (EPS) such as GCNs, is that their habitats are preserved and their ability to move across the landscape is retained. Fragmentation and the isolation of populations is significant in terms of the loss of populations and the demise of species in local areas. The maintenance of the favourable conservation status of species in the local area must therefore be considered as part of the development.

4.18 The habitats which present themselves in and around the Sherfiled school site are significant in terms of value. Golf courses can provide a variety of habitats, including , as is the case here, rough grassland, woodland edges, tree lines, ponds and scrub. The golf course present a large habitat surrounding the school grounds. Beyond the gold courses, arable fields, pastures, woodland and hedgerows all present themselves. This landscape is highly connective and as such there is no fragmentation between the school, the golf course and the wider landscape, allowing species to move with ease across the landscape.

4.19 The development at Sherfield School will not have a signification effect on the habitats on site or in the local area. The habitats which are to be altered (subject to final plans) are likely to be playing fields and agricultural fields, with potential a small loss of woodland dominated by leylandii. These habitats are not significant in terms of the requirements of GCNs and will not prevent GCNs to move across the landscape and through the site. The maintenance of Buckfield Copse, and the maintenance of the edges of the school site as rough grassland and tree lines, would ensure that if GCNs are present that they can continue to access all of their habitats.

4.20 Thus it must be considered that the development on the school is unlikely to have a significant effect on habitats on site. The development will not isolate or fragment the landscape. And therefore will not isolate or fragment any population of GCNs in the local area. Thus the development would not be considered significant in terms of the

PJC Consultancy 24 Sherfied School September 2012

conservation status of GCNs and the favourable conservation status of GCNs will not be affected.

4.21 While there is some possibility of GCNs being in the local area, it must be noted that the surrounding habitats, the golf course and the wider landscape, provide very good opportunities for GCNs. If GCNs are present then it is unlikely that a significant number would be present within the site itself, simply as the wider landscape provides ample opportunities for GCNs. Furthermore, it is unlikely that significant numbers would be present in areas to be affected by the proposals.

Recommended Mitigation

4.22 Although it is presumed that GCNs do not use the majority of the site, as the majority of the site is considered to support sub optimal habitat of amenity lawn, it is important to ensure that any development works proceed with caution due to the close proximity of the ponds to the site. A mitigation plan will need to be implemented for the site works.

4.23 The possible presence of a low number of great crested newts is not thought to be a major constraint to the development due to the nature of the proposed works. The edges of the site, the habitats which are considered to be of value, are to be protected and to remain in situ. The area where great crested newts are more likely to be present will not be touched therefore no individuals are likely to be damaged or disturbed if the mitigation as laid out in this report is followed.

4.24 The borders of the site, with mature trees associated with the borders, does provide a link to off site habitats which may provide opportunities for GCNs. This includes commuting and foraging. Ponds that are connected to this area may be used for breeding.

4.25 It is recommend that following a precautionary approach to building on the site, including the amenity grassland habitat, to ensure that in the unlikely event that GCNs are present on site, that no individuals will be harmed.

• Any areas which support vegetation other than amenity grassland should be removed sensitively under ecological supervision. The process would entail: visual inspected and finger tip search by an ecologist for the presence of GCNs.

PJC Consultancy 25 Sherfied School September 2012

• This is followed by a cut of the vegetation to 150mm above ground. This cut is inspected once more for the presence of GCNs. Finally vegetation is cut to ground level under supervision of an ecologist. • Final clearance works and sensitive soil removal will also be carried out under the supervision of an ecologist. The use of diggers with toothed buckets will ensure that gentle soil movement can occur on the top soil layer, where GCNs may be present.

4.26 The borders of the site can be enhanced to encourage the use of the edges of the site for local wildlife and GCNs.

Conclusion

4.27 It is considered that the lake within the school ownership but outside the development area and several of the ponds/lakes adjacent to the site do not have potential to support GCNs due to their size and fish stock. These are not considered to be a constraint to development.

4.28 There are smaller ponds in the wider landscape which are likely to support fish populations. However, their HSI results have come up as having good potential to support GCNs. These ponds are off site. However, it must be considered that they do have some potential to support GCNs and thus GCNs must be considered as part of the scheme.

4.29 The development design is yet to be finalised, however, Buckfield Copse and the edges of the site (around the agricultural field edges adjacent to the golf course and the edges of the site boundary adjacent to the golf course) are to remain unaffected by the development. It is these areas that if GCNs were present, are most likely to be.

4.30 It is therefore considered that the proposed development will not have an effect on the favourable conservation status of GCNs in the local area. There will be no habitat fragmentation, and minimal habitat loss. Habitat enhancements are proposed as part of the development which will mitigate for any small loss of suitable habitats. Suitable habitat will be cleared sensitively under ecological watching brief to ensure that if individuals are present that they will not be harmed.

PJC Consultancy 26 Sherfied School September 2012

4.31 It is considered that an EPS licence is not required for this work. It is also considered that this is a pragmatic approach to development, protecting suitable habitat, such as edges and woodland, and developing on habitats which present less risk and are less ecologically sensitive.

5.0 Overall Conclusions

5.1 The site was surveyed for tis potential to support a variety of specially protected species. Reptile surveys, GCN HSI surveys, and bat surveys were undertaken as recommended by the previous PJC report.

5.2 Reptile surveys found the site was being used by grass snakes. No other reptile species was found. The grass snakes were found to be present around the edges of the site and around the lake area. No other reptiles were found across the site. A mitigation strategy is recommended to ensure that no individual grass snakes are harmed during site works.

5.3 Internal bat surveys undertaken showed that Little Gems supports a maternity roost of brown long eared bats. The level of activity was considered to be significant, with piles of droppings found. The science blocks did not support bats and the sports hall and canteen did not support suitable structures for bats to utilise. It is recommended that the bat roost be retained in Little Gems. If works to this roof space are required then further surveys will have to be undertaken and a licence from Natural England will be required. The science blocks, sports hall and canteen are not considered to be constrained by bats.

5.4 HSIs were conducted on various ponds and lakes in the local area. The lake on site was not considered suitable to support GCNs. Several of the ponds off site support populations of carp, therefore reducing the likelihood of GCNs present. It is considered that if GCNs are in the local area they may well use some of the features on site. However, features of significance, such as Buckfield Copse are to remain in situ. It is considered that a sensitive approach to works on site including sensitive vegetation removal is considered to be pragmatic response to the potential of GCNs in the wider landscape. The proposals will not affected the favourable conservation status of GCNs as there is no habitat fragmentation or isolation as a result of the development.

PJC Consultancy 27 Sherfied School September 2012

5.5 Mitigation and enhancement strategies for the species associated with this site have been documented. The most significant would be the maintenance of the mature trees and the tree lines around the site and Buckfield Copse ensuring long term habitat connectivity across the site and into the wider landscape.

5.6 It is considered that if the mitigation methods and working practises are followed the site can be redeveloped without harm to individuals or populations. It is considered that the redevelopment of the site can occur without detrimental effect on the nature conservation value of the site or the wider landscape.

PJC Consultancy 28 Sherfied School September 2012

Appendix 1: Location of Reptile Mats

PJC Consultancy 29

Sherfied School September 2012

PJC Consultancy Chapter House Priesthawes Farm Hailsham Road Polegate BN26 6QU

Tel: 01323 768 155

http://www.pjcconsultancy.com

Approved: Alexia Tamblyn MA (Oxon) MSc CEnv MIEEM FRGS Date: 13/09/2012

PJC Consultancy 30 Buro Happold

Mark Crowther Buro Happold Limited 71 Newman Street London W1T 1PD UK Telephone: +44(0) 207927 9700 Facsimile: +44(0) 870787 4145 Email: [email protected]