North West Sittingbourne Land adjacent Quinton Farmhouse, Quinton Road
Appendix 13.1
jb planning associates environmental statement Redrow Homes
Land at North West Sittingbourne
Preliminary Ecological Assessment
September 2012
Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 4 BACKGROUND ...... 4 SITE CONTEXT AND STATUS ...... 4 PLANNING POLICIES ...... 5 2.0 METHODOLOGY ...... 9 SITE INSPECTION ...... 9 BADGER SURVEY ...... 10 TREE ASSESSMENT FOR BATS ...... 11 HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR REPTILES ...... 12 HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR GREAT CRESTED NEWTS ...... 12 LIMITATIONS ...... 13 3.0 RESULTS ...... 13 DESKTOP STUDY ...... 13 UK and Kent BAP Priority and Broad Habitats ...... 13 Designated sites ...... 15 Protected Species ...... 16 Previous Surveys ...... 19 PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY ...... 21 Arable fields ...... 22 Semi-improved grassland ...... 22 Hedgerows and standard trees ...... 22 Water filled drainage ditch and pond ...... 23 Tall ruderal vegetation and scrub ...... 24 BADGER SURVEY ...... 24 ASSESSMENT FOR BATS ...... 25 HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR REPTILES ...... 25 HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR GREAT CRESTED NEWTS ...... 25 OTHER SPECIES ...... 26 4.0 DISCUSSION ...... 26 ECOLOGICAL VALUE, MITIGATION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND ENHANCEMENTS ...... 26 REPTILES ...... 27 BADGERS ...... 28 GREAT CREST NEWTS ...... 30 BATS ...... 31 BREEDING AND GROUND NESTING BIRDS ...... 33 GENERAL SITE ENHANCEMENTS ...... 34 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 35 6.0 REFERENCES ...... 37 APPENDIX 1: HABITAT MAP ...... 39 APPENDIX 2: PHOTOGRAPHS ...... 40
The Ecology Partnership 2 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 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.
The Ecology Partnership 3 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
1.0 Introduction
Background
1.1 The Ecology Partnership was commissioned by JB Planning to undertake an extended
Phase 1 Habitat Survey on land in North-West Sittingbourne, Kent.
1.2 This report presents the results of the surveys in and around the proposed site, which
aims specifically to assess the sites potential to support protected species and protected
habitats that may be affected by the proposed development.
1.3 Section 2 of this report sets out the methodologies of the surveys. In section 3 the results
of the surveys are presented. Discussions and implications for development are found in
section 4. Section 5 presents the enhancements and mitigation plan. Conclusions drawn
from the report in section 6.
Site Context and Status
1.4 The site is situated on the north-west side of Sittingbourne in Kent (OS Grid Ref: TQ 901
660). The surrounding local area comprises agricultural fields, residential and
commercial properties, marshland, hedgerows, tree lines, woodland and waterbodies,
such as ponds and the River Swale. Residential properties are situated to the south and
east of the site. Immediately to the west of the site is the main A249 with agricultural
land further afield. To the north of the site extends the main A249, areas of marshland
and commercial properties.
Description of Proposed Development
1.5 The site has been identified as the North West Sittingbourne Strategic Allocation in Swale
Borough Council’s Draft Core Strategy: Bearing Fruits (March 2012) and covers an area of
approximately 83.5 ha.
1.6 The Council’s proposals are for a mixed use development comprising:
The Ecology Partnership 4 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
• 880 dwellings;
• 69,100 m2 employment floor space;
• At least 22 ha of major strategic open space/landscape;
• Proposed secondary and primary schools;
• Enhancement to bus and rail facilities;
• Highway access via Grovehurst Road; and
• A renewable energy strategy based on a district heating system.
1.7 The site is identified in the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
(SHLAA) as a potentially suitable site for development.
1.8 It is envisaged that the findings of previous surveys undertaken by URS Scott Wilson Ltd
and Ecosulis Ltd, along with the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey undertaken by PJC
Consultancy Ltd and this report will feed into the preparation of a comprehensive
masterplan for the strategic allocation. The Phase 1 survey covers the red line boundary,
which extends from the south of Grovehurst Road and to the north of Quinton Road. See
appendix 1 for the site surveyed. The site to the north of the red line boundary is the
Great Grovehurst Site. The southern portion of this is allocated for housing and the
northern part of B class industrial. Surveys on this land have been undertaken and an
overview is included within this report.
Planning Policies
1.9 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.
1.10 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’.
The Ecology Partnership 5 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
1.11 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”.
1.12 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.
1.13 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 unstable
land, where appropriate’
The Ecology Partnership 6 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
1.14 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.’
1.15 The site is situated adjacent to Sittingbourne, which lies within the borough of Swale. The
Swale Borough Local Plan (adopted February 2008) has several policies that may be
pertinent to review in regard to nature conservation. In July 2010, Swale Borough Council
made an application to save policies from the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008, beyond 20
February 2011. These saved policies (as detailed below) are considered to be still relevant
as the core strategy has yet to be adopted.
1.16 Policy E10 - Trees and Hedges
• ‘The Borough Council will make Tree Preservation and Hedgerow Protection Orders
where removal of the tree(s) or hedgerow(s) would have a significant impact on the local
environment and its enjoyment by the public. Where removal takes place, the Borough
Council may require appropriate replacements.
• On sites proposed for development, the Council will protect trees (including old orchards
and fruit trees, hedgerows, woodland and scrub) that make an important contribution
either to the amenity, historic, landscape or nature conservation value of the site or the
surrounding area. Development proposals should retain trees as far as possible and
provide for new tree planting to maintain and enhance the character of the locality’.
1.17 Policy E11 - Protecting and enhancing the Borough's Biodiversity and Geological
Interests.
‘The Borough's biodiversity and geological conservation interests will be maintained, or enhanced,
particularly where they have been identified as national and county priorities in the UK and Kent
Biodiversity Action Plans or through protected species legislation. Developments will be
The Ecology Partnership 7 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
permitted that conserve or enhance the biodiversity of the area and/or locality. Where proposals
would potentially adversely impact upon biodiversity or geological interests, the Council will:
• ensure that site evaluation is undertaken to establish the nature conservation and/or
geological interest;
• require the acceptable accommodation, and where appropriate, management and creation,
of the interest within development proposals;
• encourage the incorporation of beneficial features within the design of development,
including the retention and provision of habitat to form a connected series of green
corridors or stepping stones; and
• expect development proposals to include measures to avoid adverse impacts wherever
possible.
Subject to the relative importance of the biodiversity or geological interest, where there may be
significant harmful effects, directly, indirectly or cumulatively, development will only be
permitted when the Council is satisfied that:
• there is an overriding need for the development that outweighs the harmful effect(s);
• there is no reasonable alternative site that would result in less or no harm;
• adequate mitigation measures are in place to minimise the harmful effect(s); and
• where harmful effects cannot be prevented or mitigated, appropriate compensation
measures will be undertaken by the developer in accordance with current best practice’.
1.19 Policy E12 Sites designated for their importance to biodiversity or geological
conservation.
‘Within the areas designated, as shown on the Proposals Map, or any subsequently designated, the
Borough Council will give priority to their protection in accordance with their relative importance
for biodiversity as follows:
• Within a European Site, a proposed European Site, or a Ramsar site, development that may affect
the site that is: a) not directly connected with, or necessary to, the management of the site for
The Ecology Partnership 8 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
nature conservation; b) likely to have significant effects on the site (individually or in combination
with other plans or projects); and c) where it cannot be ascertained that the proposal would not
adversely affect the integrity of the site, will not be permitted unless there is no alternative
solution, and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest for the development.
Where the site hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, development will not
be permitted unless the Borough Council is satisfied that it is necessary for reasons of human
health or public safety or for beneficial consequences of primary importance for nature
conservation.
• Where development may have an adverse effect, directly or indirectly on the special interest of a
Site of Special Scientific Interest, it will not be permitted unless the reasons for the development
clearly outweigh the nature conservation value of the site, and the national policy to safeguard
such sites. In such cases, conditions and/or planning obligations will be required to mitigate the
harmful aspects of the development and ensure the protection and enhancement of the sites nature
conservation or geological interest.
• Development likely to have an adverse effect on a Local Nature Reserve, Ancient Woodland a Site
of Nature Conservation Interest or a Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Site, will
not be permitted unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there is a need for the development
which outweighs the interest of the site and that adverse impacts have been adequately mitigated,
or where not possible, compensated for’.
1.20 This report addresses the site in relation to nature conservation and wildlife and indeed
to the local planning requirements as well as national planning and nature conservation
legislation.
The Ecology Partnership 9 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
2.0 Methodology
Site Inspection
2.1 Chris Jennings BSc (Hons) MSc GradIEEM and Vicky Hale BSc (Hons) CEnv MIEEM
undertook an extended Phase 1 habitat survey on 24th July 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 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.
Badger Survey
2.2 A badger survey was undertaken at the site to assess if badgers were using the area and
if any setts were located on the site and 30m away from the site that might constrain
development.
2.3 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 (pawprints), dung piles with latrines, badger hairs
and feeding signs such as snuffle holes.
2.4 During the survey, all habitat 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
according to 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 with the social group territory. These sites serve as
means of inter- and intra-group communication.
The Ecology Partnership 10 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 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.
2.5 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
2.6 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.
2.7 Trees were recorded as having high, medium or low potential following standard
practise where:
The Ecology Partnership 11 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
• 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.
Veteran trees typically exhibit many of these features and should usually be regarded as
sites with clear potential, but any tree, which possesses 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.
2.8 The trees on site were assessed for their potential to support roosting bats. The trees were
assessed visually for evidence of bats as well as for features that increase the likelihood
such as the following:
• 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.
Habitat Suitability for Reptiles
2.9 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;
The Ecology Partnership 12 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
• Grass tussocks within the grassland that can act as shelter and burrowing sites;
• 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
2.10 Habitat surveys were carried out on the 26th 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
2.11 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.
2.12 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
The Ecology Partnership 13 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
evidence on site. It should not be taken as providing a full and definitive survey of any
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
Desktop Study
UK and Kent BAP Priority and Broad Habitats
3.1 Table 1 below shows UK and Kent BAP priority and broad habitats identified within the
site.
Table 1: UK and Kent BAP Priority and Broad Habitats identified within the Site
UK BAP UK BAP Kent BAP Kent BAP
Habitat Priority Broad Priority Broad
Habitat Habitat Habitat Habitat
Ponds
Hedgerows
Arable field margins
Standing open water
Boundary and linear features
Standing open water and canals
Neutral grassland
Arable and Horticultural
3.2 Table 2 below shows UK and Kent BAP Priority species either present or potentially
present on the site.
The Ecology Partnership 14 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
Table 2: UK and Kent BAP species either present or potentially present within the Site
UK BAP Kent BAP Kent BAP UK BAP Species Species Species Common Name Scientific Name Species Potentially Present Potentially Present Present present
House sparrow Passer domesticus
Starling Sturnus vulgaris
Linnet Carduelis cannabina
Song thrush Turdus philomelos
Corn bunting Emberiza calandra
Skylark Alauda arvensis
Tree sparrow Passer montanus
Great crested newt Triturus cristatus
Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus
Pipistrelle bat Pipistrellus sp
Slow worm Anguis fragilis
Grass snake Natrix natrix
Common lizard Zootoca vivipara
Designated sites
3.3 The site does not fall within any statutory designated sites. Several other designated sites
are located within 10km of the site. These are presented in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Designated Sites within 10km of the Site Site Name Designation Approximate Distance and Direction Elmley NNR 2.5km NE
The Swale SPA, Ramsar, SSSI 1km N
Medway and Marshes SPA, Ramsar, SSSI 2.2km N
Queensdown Warren SSSI 6.3km SW
The Ecology Partnership 15 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
Purple Hill SSSI 8.2km SW
Sheppey Cliffs and Foreshore SSSI 9km NE
Diggs and Sheppey Court SNCI 6km N
Lower Halstow Brickworks SNCI 4km NW
Grazing Marsh at Upchurch SNCI 6.7km NW
Yaughter Woods SNCI 7.5km SW
Trundle Woods SNCI 6.4km S
Stockwood and Chalk Slope SNCI 7km S
Gorham Woods SNCI 6.7km S
Hucking Hill House, Pasture and Woods SNCI 9km SW
Stockbury Woods SNCI 6.7km SW
Cox Street Valley Woods SNCI 8.8km SW
Highstead Quarries SNCI 2.9km S
Hawes Wood and Wardwell Wood SNCI 2.5km W
Milton Creek SNCI 1km E
Bredhurst Woods SNCI 9.1km SW
Endings Wood and Chalk Grassland SNCI 7.6km SE
Ospringe Valley SNCI 9.2km SE
Bysing Wood and Oare Gravel SNCI 9.9km SE
Darland Banks and Adjacent Woodland SNCI 9.3km W
Doddington Churchyard SNCI 8.6km SE
Grain Pit SNCI 9.9km N
Conyer Pits SNCI 5.7km E
Queensdown Warren East SNCI 6.4km SW
Queensdown Warren LNR 6.3km SW
Foxburrow Wood LNR 8.1km SW
Leven Strice LNR 9.1km SW
Berengrave Chalk Pit LNR 7.7km W
SPA: Speial area of Protection; SSSI: Site of Special Scientific Interest; NNR: National Nature Reserve; SNCI: Site of Nature Conservation Interest; LNR: Local Nature Reserve
Protected Species
3.4 Several protected species have been recorded within 10 km of the site within the last 10
years. Table 4 below gives details of these species records.
The Ecology Partnership 16 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
Table 4: Protected Species Recorded within 10km of the Site within the last 10 years
Common Name Scientific Name Approximate Distance and Original Source Direction from Site
Serotine Bat Eptesicus serotinus 2.9km W BCT Noctule, Serotine and Pipistrelle Field Survey 5.5 km S
9.8 km BCT Bats and Roadside Mammals Survey
Badger Meles meles 1.3km SW PTES Living with Mammals Survey Sightings 2003-2011 8.2km SW
Dormouse Muscardinus Along M2 Corridor - Within PTES National Dormouse avellanarius 10km Database
Bechstein’s Bat Myotis bechsteinii 6.7km SW BCT Bechstein’s Bat Survey Project
Daubenton’s Bat Myotis daubentonii 5.2km E BCT Daubenton’s Waterway Survey
5.7km SE BCT Hibernation Survey
6.3km SE
6.7km SE
6.9km SE
7.3km SE
7.8km SW
8km S
8km SW
Natterer’s Bat Myotis nattereri 6km SW BCT Hibernation Survey
6.3km SE
6.9km SE
The Ecology Partnership 17 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
7km SE
7.8km SW
8km SW
8.7km SE BCT Bechstein’s Bat Survey Project
Leisler's Bat Nyctalus leisleri 8.8km SW BCT Bats and Roadside Mammal survey
Common Pipistrellus 2.2km E BCT Colony Count Survey Pipistrelle pipistrellus 2.8km SE
3.4km SE BCT Bats and Roadside Mammals Survey
3.5km SE BCT Bats and Roadside Mammals Survey 3.6km SE
4.1km SE
4.5km NW
5km SE
5.6km NW BCT Colony Count Survey
5.8km S BCT Bats and Roadside Mammals Survey 6km SW
6.7km S
6.8km SE
7km NE BCT Colony Count Survey
7km SE BCT Bats and Roadside Mammals Survey 7.3km SW
Soprano Pipistrellus pygmaeus 2.3km SE BCT Colony Count Survey
The Ecology Partnership 18 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
Pipistrelle 2.9km W BCT Noctule, Serotine and Pipistrelle Field Survey
3.5km W BCT Colony Count Survey
3.6km SE BCT Bats and Roadside Mammals Survey
4.5km NW BCT Noctule, Serotine and Pipistrelle Field Survey 5.5km S
Brown Long- Plecotus auritus 5.7km SE BCT Bechstein’s Bat Survey eared Bat Project
6km SW BCT Hibernation Project
6.1km S BCT Bechstein’s Bat Survey Project
6.3km SE BCT Hibernation Project
6.7km SE
6.9km SE
7.3km SE
8.7km SE
Previous Surveys
3.5 Ecological surveys and reports have previously been carried out for land adjacent to the
site in North-West Sittingbourne. Of particular relevance is the Environmental Statement
produced by URS Scott Wilson Ltd in April 2012 for a new transport depot at land to the
north of Grovehurst Farm, located on land north of Swale Way in Sittingbourne. In order
to inform the Environmental Statement, a suite of surveys was carried out in late 2011
and during 2012. These surveys included an extended Phase 1 habitat survey, along with
surveys for breeding and overwintering birds, reptiles, amphibians, badgers and water
voles. The findings of these surveys are detailed below.
The Ecology Partnership 19 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
Water voles
3.6 Occasional signs of water vole activity comprising two burrows and a single occurrence
of droppings were observed along the main ditch extending northward through the site.
Water voles were also recorded in the pond adjacent to the south-west corner of the site,
with signs comprising three burrows with associated feeding remains and droppings.
Reptiles
3.7 The presence/likely absence surveys undertaken by URS Scott Wilson Ltd identified
widespread reptiles within the site, where ‘good’ populations of slow worm and
common lizard were recorded and a ‘low’ population of grass snake was also identified.
Amphibians
3.8 Presence/likely absence surveys for great crested newts identified a ‘small’ population of
great crested newts within the balancing pond in the south-west of the application site.
Numerous smooth newts were also recorded during these surveys, along with both
common frogs and marsh frogs. Habitats within the application site were also deemed
suitable for great crested newts in their terrestrial phase.
Badgers
3.9 No badger setts or signs of badgers, such as latrines, runs or foraging signs were
recorded within the application site.
Breeding and overwintering birds
3.10 Three amber list bird species were recorded foraging within the application site. These
included green woodpecker, mistle thrush and dunnock. In addition to this, a large flock
of goldfinch and a few chaffinch were recorded foraging within tall ruderal vegetation
along the main drainage ditch. The breeding bird surveys concluded that the application
The Ecology Partnership 20 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
site did not appear to support any species associated with the nearby SPA or typical
wildfowl and wader species that would be associated with the nearby Swale waterways.
This was attributed to a lack of suitable habitat within the application site.
3.11 The wintering bird survey undertaken identified a small number of bird species within
the application site, including blackbird, blue tit, carrion crow, woodpigeon, robin, and
great tit. In addition to this, lapwing were observed on one visit in January 2012 with a
maximum count of 84 individuals. Small numbers of the Schedule 1 protected species
redwing were observed to be foraging within boundary features within the site on one
visit. However, they were considered to be winter visitors only.
3.12 Following the survey findings, the site was considered to have low value for wintering
birds, due to the low numbers of individual species and a non-diverse assemblage of
wintering bird species present.
3.13 The overall conclusions of the Environmental Statement for land to the north of
Grovehurst Farm identified possible significant effects in relation to the construction
phase of the development. The identified effects relate to disturbance to water voles and
great crested newts. Notwithstanding this, it was considered that proposed mitigation
measures will reduce the magnitude of these effects and, following mitigation, the
proposed development is not likely to result in significant effects.
3.14 In addition to the Environmental Statement produced by URS Scott Wilson Ltd, an
Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey was previously undertaken in March 2006 at land to the
south of Grovehurst Farm by Ecosulis ltd. This survey focussed on land adjacent to the
B2005 to the north-east of PJC’s site. The accompanying Extended Phase 1 Habitat
survey report identified presence and potential presence of a number of protected
species. The survey report detailed the presence of a great crested newt breeding pond
located between the B2005 and the Ecosulis survey boundary. With regard to PJC’s
survey boundary, this pond is located to the north of the B2005, adjacent to the most
northerly arable field. In addition to this, Ecosulis’ survey identified an active badger sett
with four active holes on the north-eastern boundary of their survey area. Fresh spoil was
The Ecology Partnership 21 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
noted outside of the entrances and several well-worn paths radiated from the sett into
Ecosulis’ site and adjacent woodland. The surveys are currently being updated by Llyod
Bore Associates.
3.15 With regard to potential for protected species, Ecosulis’ survey identified moderate
potential for roosting bats within the stables, barn and house within the site, due to the
presence of gaps within wooden soffits. It was also considered that bats may use the
adjacent railway embankment and associated vegetation as a foraging corridor. Potential
for foraging and ground nesting birds was also identified within the site, along with
potential for reptiles within fringing grassland and scrub on the boundaries of the site.
Habitat Phase 1 Survey
3.16 The site comprises predominantly arable fields (corn, barley and wheat), species-poor
hedgerows, tall ruderal vegetation, semi-improved grassland, scrub, scattered deciduous
and coniferous trees, a water-filled drainage ditch and pond.
Arable fields
3.17 The majority of the site comprises arable fields, primarily corn, wheat and barley. These
are immediately bounded in the most part by tall ruderal vegetation, scrub, deciduous
and coniferous trees and species-poor hedgerows.
Semi-improved grassland
3.18 Areas of semi-improved grassland are scattered throughout the site, but are
predominantly located around the margins of the barley field to the north-east of the site
(See target notes 13 and 14), particularly at the northern end of this field. In this area
typical plant species include; cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerata), Yorkshire-fog (Holcus
lanatus), false oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), smooth tare (Vicia tetrasperma), common
vetch (Vicia sativa), mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), poppy (Papaver sp), common mallow
(Malva sylvestris), spotted medick (Medicago arabica), brome (Bromus sp), yarrow (Achillia
The Ecology Partnership 22 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
millifolium), common ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), bristly oxtongue (Picris echioides) and wall
barley (Hordeum murinum).
Hedgerows and standard trees
3.19 Several hedgerows are present as boundary features within the site. Theses hedgerows
are generally species-poor and defunct with scattered deciduous trees. Where hedgerows
are present (predominantly extending north to south through the centre of the site and as
boundary features in the north of the site), they predominantly comprise hawthorn
(Crataegus monogyna) and blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) with frequent elder (Sambucus
nigra) and bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg) (See target note 3). The base of the hedgerows
are generally fringed with tall ruderal vegetation comprising common nettle (Urtica
dioica), umbellifers and prickly sow-thistle (Sonchus asper) and herbs, such as scarlet
pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis), hedge mustard (Sisymbrium officinale), common field
speedwell (Veronica persica), shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris), field penny-cress
(Thlaspi arvense), burdock (Arctium sp) and pineappleweed (Matricara matricarioides). In
some instances, the hedgerows are fringed with semi-improved grassland, particularly in
the north of the site.
3.20 The majority of trees present within the site comprise mature, semi-mature and young
broadleaved trees situated within field boundaries throughout the site. Very few
coniferous trees are present within the site, however, where present species tend to
comprise cypress (Chamaecyparis sp). Coniferous trees are generally located on the
boundaries of residential properties in the north and south of the site.
3.21 A line of planted semi-mature poplar (Populus sp) are present extending south-west of
south-east along the field boundary in the centre of the site. The majority of the poplar
trees have relatively dense ivy (Hedera helix) growth on their stems, identified as having
low potential for roosting bats. This line of planted poplar then extends into the species-
poor hedgerow that continues northwards through the centre of the site. Additional tree
species here include cherry (Prunus sp), oak (Quercus sp) and hawthorn. The western
boundary of the site, adjacent to the main A249 comprises newly planted broadleaved
The Ecology Partnership 23 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
trees, including oak, ash (Fraxinus excelsior), sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa), Prunus sp
and sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus). A mature crack willow (Salix fragilis) tree is present
at the northern end of the water filled drainage ditch in the centre of the site (See target
note 6). This willow tree possesses several broken limbs and areas of loose bark, as well
as evidence of galls on the smaller branches of the tree. This tree was identified as
providing features suitable for roosting bats.
Water filled drainage ditch and pond
3.22 A water filled drainage ditch extends south-west to north-east through the centre of the
site. At the southern end of the ditch, the immediate banksides are very shallow with
limited marginal, emergent or submerged vegetation present. The north-eastern side of
the ditch then rises and becomes more steep with semi-mature deciduous trees present at
the top of the embankment. The water within the ditch channel is very shallow and slow
flowing with large amounts of leaf litter and fallen dead wood present. As the ditch
extends towards the north-east through the site, the ditch channel becomes more
vegetated in places with species including fool’s water cress (Apium notiflorum). Some
sections of the ditch channel, particularly adjacent to the culvert, were completely
covered in bramble scrub and tall ruderals. As the ditch extends north through the site,
with the exception of the embankments by the culvert, the northern embankment
predominantly comprises a species-poor hedgerow with deciduous trees. The southern
embankment predominantly comprises tall ruderal vegetation and areas of scrub. In
areas that could be accessed, the water filled ditch was identified as having low potential
for great crested newts and no potential for water voles or otters.
3.23 A small pond was identified adjacent to residential properties in the south-eastern corner
of the most northerly arable field within the site. The pond comprised shallow
embankments, which were overgrown with sedges and yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus),
which extended into the pond. Water within the pond was shallow, with very few open
areas visible on the day of survey. The pond was identified as having low potential for
great crested newts.
The Ecology Partnership 24 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
Tall ruderal vegetation and scrub
3.24 Areas of tall ruderal vegetation, predominantly common nettle with mugwort, thistles
(Cirsium sp), dock and umbellifers were present throughout the site. These areas were
predominantly located on the boundaries of arable fields. Areas of scrub were also
present throughout the site, predominantly comprising bramble and elder. A large dense
area of predominantly blackthorn, hawthorn and elder scrub with scattered semi-mature
deciduous trees, including oak and hazel (Corylus avellana) and tall ruderals, comprising
common nettle, umbellifers, mugwort, burdock and thistles is present in the centre of the
site, adjacent to the line of planted poplars. Several birds’ nests were identified within the
blackthorn scrub, along with areas of mammal digging. In addition to this, large amounts
of litter, indicating human activity was observed within accessible areas of blackthorn
scrub.
Badger Survey
3.25 The site appears to be used extensively by dog walkers and evidence of human activity
(litter) was found within an area of dense blackthorn scrub on the boundary between
arable fields in the centre of the site (See target note 2).
3.26 Several mammal holes, areas of fresh digging and mammal paths were identified within
the site. These were generally located within embankments bounding the water-filled
drainage ditch in the centre of the site and railway embankments to the east of the site.
Several mammal ‘push throughs’ were also noted between arable fields and boundary
features, such as hedgerows. No conclusive evidence of badgers, such as latrines or setts
were identified within the site on the day of survey. Several rabbit burrows and areas of
rabbit droppings were also identified within the site.
Assessment for Bats
3.27 It is understood that no buildings are located within the site boundary. Notwithstanding
this, several residential buildings, along with Grovehurst Farm buildings and railway
buildings are located adjacent to the boundaries of the site. These buildings were not
The Ecology Partnership 25 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
included within the extended Phase 1 habitat survey, as they are located outside of the
survey boundary.
3.28 Few trees were identified as having features suitable for roosting bats. A line of planted
semi-mature poplar were identified as having low potential to support roosting bats
owing to dense ivy growth on their stems. In addition to this, a mature crack willow,
located adjacent to the drainage ditch in the centre of the site was noted to have
numerous broken limbs and areas of loose bark with potential to support roosting bats,
such as pipistrelles.
3.29 Linear features, such as hedgerows and tree-lines located on the boundaries of the site
and along the water-filled drainage ditch in the centre of the site provide suitable habitat
for foraging and commuting bats.
Habitat Suitability for Reptiles
3.30 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, such as the railway embankment on the eastern boundary of the site
and around arable fields, particularly the barley and wheat fields to the north of the site.
Habitat Suitability for great crested newts
3.31 Low potential for great crested newts was identified in the wet drainage ditch located in
the centre of the site and a small well-vegetated pond in the south-east corner of the
arable wheat field on the northern boundary of the site. Surrounding terrestrial habitats,
such as hedgerows, tall ruderal vegetation and rough grassland have potential to support
great crested newts in their terrestrial phase.
The Ecology Partnership 26 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
Other species
3.32 All mature trees, shrubs and areas of dense scrub have potential to support nesting birds.
In addition to this, arable fields, particularly barley and wheat fields in the north of the
site have potential to support ground nesting birds, such as skylark.
3.33 Tall ruderal vegetation and semi-improved grassland located on the boundaries of arable
field were identified as having potential for terrestrial invertebrates. In addition to this,
whilst on site, several male and female ruddy darter (Sympetrum sanguineum) dragonflies
were noted in the vicinity of the water-filled drainage ditch.
3.34 Due to the nature of the site and a lack of suitable habitat, no potential for any other
protected species, such as dormice, water voles or otters was identified within the site.
No invasive non-native species, such as Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) were
identified on site on the day of survey.
4.0 Discussion
Ecological Value, Mitigation, Recommendations and Enhancements
4.1 The Swale SPA, Ramsar and SSSI is located approximately 1km north-east of the site and
the Medway and Marshes SPA, Ramsar and SSSI is located approximately 2.2km to the
north of the site.
4.2 Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, the Local Planning
Authority have a duty to assess whether there is a risk of any plan or proposal having a
significant impact on the integrity of a SPA or SAC. These assessments are undertaken
through an Appropriate Assessment as part of a Habitats Regulations Assessment, the
first stage of which is a Habitats Regulations Screening Assessment to analyse any likely
significant effects, either alone or in combination, as a result of the scheme proposals. The
outcome of the screening assessment then determines whether an Appropriate
Assessment is required for the scheme. Due to the proximity of the proposed
The Ecology Partnership 27 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
development scheme to the two internationally designated sites, it is considered
necessary to undertake a Habitats Regulations Screening Assessment.
4.3 The extended Phase 1 survey identified a mosaic of different habitats present within the
site including; arable fields; semi-improved grassland; species-poor hedgerows;
deciduous and coniferous standard trees; tall ruderal vegetation; scrub a water-filled
drainage ditch and pond. These habitat types are common and widespread throughout
the UK and are considered to be of value at site level only.
4.4 Several habitat and species-specific surveys have previously been undertaken by both
URS Scott Wilson Ltd and Ecosulis Ltd on land to the north of the site (outside of the
redline boundary). Surveys are currently being updated on the land at Grovehurst Farm
(south) by Lloyd Bore Associates. The findings of these surveys are both relevant and
important to the assessment of protected species potential on PJC’s site and as such have
provided insight in the potential use of the site by protected species. The implications of
these results are discussed in the following sections below.
4.5 The potential presence of protected species using the site requires an appropriate
mitigation strategy. These are discussed individually below.
Reptiles
4.6 Areas of rank grassland and tall ruderal vegetation were identified as having the
potential to support reptiles, particularly slow worm. These areas were primarily located
at the base of hedgerows and boundary features, such as the railway embankment on the
eastern boundary of the site and around arable fields, particularly barley and wheat
fields to the north of the site. In addition to this, rough grassland and tall ruderal habitats
surrounding a balancing pond, immediately adjacent to the south-western boundary of
the site has previously been used as a reptile receptor site for the Isle of Sheppey crossing
scheme. Reptile species translocated into the receptor site include; slow worm, common
lizard and grass snake. It is therefore possible that reptiles are also present on the arable
field margins adjacent to the reptile receptor site.
The Ecology Partnership 28 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
4.7 Surveys undertaken by URS Scott Wilson Ltd in 2012 to inform an Environmental
Statement for land at Grovehurst Farm identified ‘good’ populations of slow worm and
common lizard and a ‘low’ population of grass snake to be present within their site.
Nevertheless, the site where URS Scott Wilson Ltd identified reptiles is separated from
the site that is the focus of this report by several hardstanding roads, primarily Swale
Way. The only corridor which reptiles may be able to disperse along between these two
sites is the railway embankment to the east.
4.8 It is likely that vegetation suitable for reptiles will be lost through development of the site
and therefore it is recommended that a reptile presence / likely absence survey is
undertaken within all areas suitable for reptiles. This survey involves placement of
artificial refugia within 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.
4.9 The survey involves seven 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.
4.10 It is recommended that, where possible, grassland, tall ruderal vegetation and patches of
scrub around the perimeter of the site and at the base of retained hedgerows is left
unmanaged to support terrestrial invertebrates and reptiles. Creation of log piles and
brash piles within suitable areas of vegetation may be created for use by common reptile
species as 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.
The Ecology Partnership 29 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
Badgers
4.11 The site appears to be used extensively by dog walkers and evidence of human activity
(litter) was found within an area of dense blackthorn scrub on the boundary between
arable fields in the centre of the site.
4.12 Several mammal holes, areas of fresh digging and mammal paths were identified within
the site, however, no conclusive evidence of badgers, such as latrines or setts were
identified within the site on the day of survey. Several rabbit burrows and areas of rabbit
droppings were identified within the site.
4.13 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey undertaken at Grovehurst Farm by Ecosulis ltd
identified an active badger sett with four active holes on the north-eastern boundary of
their survey area (approximately 300m north-east of PJC’s site boundary). Fresh spoil
was noted outside of the entrances and several well-worn paths radiated from the sett
into the site and adjacent woodland. It is therefore likely that badgers are using the site
for foraging. It should be noted that some parts of the site, particularly along the water-
filled drainage ditch in the centre of the site, could not be accessed due to dense scrub
and as such, it is possible that evidence of badgers, such as single entrance setts or
latrines could have been missed due to the inaccessibility of parts of the site.
4.14 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 minimised.
4.15 It is recommended that trees, which bear fruit are incorporated into the final scheme, in
order to provide foraging opportunities for badgers. Tree species may include; apples
The Ecology Partnership 30 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
(Malus domestica), pear (Pyrus pyraster), wild cherry (Prunus avium), bird cherry (Prunus
padus), plums (Prunus domestica ssp domestica). Any grassland areas which are part of the
scheme could be enhanced with a wildflower mix.
Great Crest Newts
4.16 Low potential for great crested newts was identified in the wet drainage ditch located in
the centre of the site and a small well-vegetated pond in the south-east corner of the
arable wheat field on the northern boundary of the site. Surrounding terrestrial habitats,
such as hedgerows, tall ruderal vegetation and rough grassland have potential to support
great crested newts in their terrestrial phase.
4.17 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey report for Grovehurst Farm written by Ecosulis ltd
gave details of a great crested newt breeding pond located to the north-east of the B2005.
In addition to this, the Environmental Statement produced by URS Scott Wilson Ltd in
2012 identified a ‘low’ population of great crested newts in a balancing pond on land at
Grovehurst Farm to the north of Swale Way. Both of these waterbodies are located
outside of PJC’s site boundary separated by significant barriers to dispersal.
4.18 As it is likely that both the water-filled drainage ditch and the pond are to be either
impacted or lost as part of the proposed development scheme and a great crested newt
breeding pond has previously been identified less than 50m from the site boundary, it is
recommended that Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Assessments are undertaken of the
drainage ditch and pond within the site and the balancing pond immediately adjacent to
the western boundary of the site. It is not considered necessary to undertake HSI
Assessments for waterbodies outside of the immediate site boundary, as the site is
bounded on all sides by barriers to great crested newt dispersal, such as hardstanding
roads, residential areas and a railway line.
4.19 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
The Ecology Partnership 31 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
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.
4.20 Creation of swales and/or SUDs for the drainage of the site can also be used to enhance
the site for newt and reptile species, especially grass snakes. These SUDs schemes should
be linked to the wider landscape through the protection and enhancement of the
hedgerows and associated grassland strip. Wetlands and ponds, swales or ditches can be
planted to enhance invertebrate species on the site. These should be planted with species
of ecological value:
• 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).
4.21 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
newts in their terrestrial phase, along with terrestrial invertebrates and reptiles. It is
further recommended habitats, such as hedgerows, tree-lines, vegetated embankments
and areas of tall ruderal vegetation, grassland and scrub within the site are enhanced and
new wildlife corridors created to link wildlife corridors within the site to those adjacent
to the site. This will not only provide native wildlife with additional foraging areas and
shelter, but it will also facilitate the movement of wildlife across the site and the wider
area.
The Ecology Partnership 32 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
Bats
4.22 No buildings are present within the red line boundary of the site. Notwithstanding this,
several residential buildings, along with Grovehurst Farm buildings and railway
buildings are located adjacent to the boundaries of the site. The buildings at Grovehurst
Farm will be subject to further surveys undertaken by Lloyd Bore Associates who are
currently surveying this site. The residential buildings on the edges of the PJC site are to
remain unaffected by the development and therefore will not be subject to further
surveys. These buildings were not included within the extended Phase 1 habitat survey,
as they are located outside of the survey boundary.
4.23 Few trees were identified as having features suitable for roosting bats. A line of planted
semi-mature poplar were identified as having low potential to support roosting bats
owing to dense ivy growth on their stems. In addition to this, a mature willow, located
adjacent to the drainage ditch in the centre of the site was noted to have numerous
broken limbs and areas of loose bark with potential to support roosting bats, such as
pipistrelles (Pipistrellus sp).
4.24 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 protection and opportunistic foraging. Tree lines should therefore be
maintained or enhanced where possible.
4.25 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.
The Ecology Partnership 33 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
4.26 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.
4.27 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:
• 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
Breeding and Ground Nesting Birds
4.28 Breeding birds are likely to use the tree lines and scrub on site as nesting habitat. Surveys
undertaken by URS Scott Wilson in 2011 and 2012 as the baseline for an Environmental
Statement for land at Grovehurst Farm identified several bird species within their
application site to the north of Swale Way. These included green woodpecker, mistle
thrush and dunnock, as well as goldfinch and a few chaffinch, which were recorded
foraging within tall ruderal vegetation along the main drainage ditch.
4.29 The wintering bird survey undertaken by URS Scott Wilson Ltd identified a small
number of bird species within the application site, including blackbird, blue tit, carrion
crow, woodpigeon, robin, and great tit, as well as lapwing, which were observed on one
visit in January 2012. Small numbers of the Schedule 1 protected species redwing were
observed to be foraging within boundary features within the site on one visit. However,
they were considered to be winter visitors only.
4.30 Following survey findings, the site surveyed by URS Scott Wilson Ltd was considered to
have low value for wintering birds, due to the low numbers of individual species and a
non-diverse assemblage of wintering bird species present.
The Ecology Partnership 34 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
4.31 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. Potential for ground nesting birds, such as
skylark and corn bunting was also identified within arable fields, particularly wheat and
barley fields to the north of the site. However, it must be noted that dog walking across
the site is likely to cause such species disturbance, reducing the likelihood of the species
using the site for breeding. Regardless of this it is recommended that clearance at ground
level should also take place outside bird nesting season.
4.32 Bird boxes may be hung on 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
General Site Enhancements
4.33 Potential for common terrestrial invertebrates was identified in areas of grassland, tall
ruderal vegetation and scrub within the site. The use of wildflower mixes to increase the
biodiversity of existing species poor arable land 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 and reptile species, as well as refugia
for small mammals and invertebrates.
4.34 Creating and enhancing hedgerow edges would provide a layering of different habitats
that can be utilised by different species. There are some trees that are already established
therefore shrubs and understorey planting should be the focus of enhancements. Shrubs
such as dog rose (Rosa canina) or dogwoods (Cornus spp) are important sources of food for
native wildlife. Planting the base and edges of the hedgerow with herbaceous plants and
bulbs attract bees, butterflies and other insects as well as providing ground cover for
The Ecology Partnership 35 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
smaller animals. Seeds that are tolerant of semi-shade and is suitable for sowing beneath
newly planted or established hedges. The following species can included in the mix:
• Yarrow - (Achillea millefolium)
• Agrimony – (Agrimonia eupatoria)
• Garlic mustard – (Alliaria petiolata)
• Common knapweed – (Centurea nigra)
• Wild Basil – (Clinopodium vulgare)
• Hedge bedstraw – (Galium album)
• Wood avens – (Gerum urbanum)
• Oxeye daisy – (Leucanthemum vulgare)
• Ribwort plantain – (Plantago lanceolata)
• Cowslip – (Primula veris)
• Selfheal – (Prunella vulgaris)
• Red campion – (Silene dioica)
• Hedge woundwort – (Stachvs sylyatica)
• Upright hedge parsley – (Torilis japonica)
• Tufted vetch – (Vicia cracca)
4.35 The enhancements focusing on the hedgerows and a grassland strip in front of the
hedgerows is considered a valuable enhancement – providing good quality habitats
which are connected to the wider landscape.
4.36 The site could benefit from having native tree species planted in areas, suitable species
that could be included within the planting schemes include: hornbeam (Carpinus betulus),
beech (Fagus sylvatica), rowan (Sorbus aucuparia), hazel, wayfaring tree (Viburnum lantana),
guelder rose (Viburnum opulus). Any of these species will benefit the native species
diversity on site, a combination will be most valuable to wildlife.
The Ecology Partnership 36 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
5.0 Conclusions
5.1 The Swale SPA, Ramsar and SSSI is located approximately 1km north-east of the site and
the Medway and Marshes SPA, Ramsar and SSSI is located approximately 2.2km to the
north of the site. Due to the proximity of the proposed scheme to the internationally
designated sites, it is considered necessary to undertake a Habitats Regulations Screening
Assessment. Information in support of this assessment is provided in a separate report.
5.2 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. Nevertheless, 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 habitats surrounding the
drainage ditch in the centre of the site provide connectivity, which would allow
amphibians, reptiles and small mammals to move across the landscape and provide good
opportunities for foraging.
5.3 It is therefore recommended that existing habitats, such as hedgerows and associated
grassland, tall ruderal vegetation and scrub be considered in any development scheme.
Surveying for reptiles within suitable vegetation along field boundaries and hedgerows
is recommended, as these areas are likely to be lost through development.
5.4 Although no conclusive evidence of badgers, such as latrines or setts were identified
within the site on the day of survey, several mammal holes, areas of fresh digging and
mammal paths were identified within the site, particularly within embankments
bounding the water-filled drainage ditch in the centre of the site and railway
embankments to the east of the site. It is therefore considered that a repeat badger survey
is undertaken once the scheme has been finalised and prior to any works on site to assess
badger use on site.
5.5 The drainage ditch and pond within the site were identified as having low potential for
great crested newts, this information combined with evidence of a great crested breeding
The Ecology Partnership 37 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
pond outside of the north-eastern boundary of the site and suitable terrestrial habitat
within the site, leads to the recommendation of HSI Assessments of the ditch and pond
within the site and the balancing pond adjacent to the western boundary of the site.
5.6 All mature trees and hedgerows within the site provide good foraging and commuting
habitat for bats. In addition to this, a line of planted semi-mature poplar were identified
as having low potential to support roosting bats owing to dense ivy growth on their
stems and a mature willow, located adjacent to the drainage ditch in the centre of the site
was also noted to have numerous broken limbs and areas of loose bark with potential to
support roosting bats. No signs of roosting bats were recorded on the day of survey.
Should any trees identified as having potential for roosting bats require removal as part
of the scheme, it is recommended that these trees are surveyed for evidence of bats prior
to removal.
5.7 The site is considered to have potential for breeding and ground nesting birds and as
such, should vegetation require removal as part of the scheme, it is recommended that
this is undertaken outside of the bird nesting season, as detailed in this report.
5.8 Due to a lack of suitable habitat, no potential for any other protected species, such as
water vole, dormouse or otter was identified. No non native-invasive species, such as
Japanese knotweed were recorded during the survey.
5.9 Recommendations for enhancements have been made within this report, aimed at
improving the ecological value of the site post development. Other general
enhancements have been given as part of this report.
6.0 References
Bat Conservation Trust (2012). Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines (2nd Edition). Bat
Conservation Trust, London.
CIRIA C567 (2005) working with wildlife – site guide. CIRIA, London.
The Ecology Partnership 38 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
Ecosulis Ltd (April 2006) Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Desk Based Study of Land at
Grovehurst Farm, Sittingbourne, Kent.
Froglife (1999) Advice Sheet 10 - Reptile Survey: An introduction to planning, conducting and
interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation. Froglife, Peterborough.
Swale Borough Council The Natural Environment Topic Paper 3 (version 1.0).
URS (March 2012) The Swale Borough Draft Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal, URS,
London.
URS Scott Wilson Ltd (April 2012) Nicholls Transport Depot - Environmental Statement.
Kent Landscape Information System: www.kent.gov.uk/klis
Magic Interactive Map: www.magic.gov.uk
Multimap: www.multimap.com
NBN Gateway: www.searchnbn.net
Swale Borough Council: www.swale.gov.uk
The Ecology Partnership 39 Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
Appendix 1: Habitat Map
The Ecology Partnership 40
Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
Appendix 2: Photographs
The Ecology Partnership 41 Photo 1. Arable field and central field boundary to the south of the site
Photo 2. Central field boundary and line of poplar trees
Photo 3. Area of scrub and tall ruderal vegetation on central field boundary
Photo 4. Dense blackthorn scrub on central field boundary
Photo 5. Drainage ditch on central field boundary
Photo 6. Drainage ditch culvert on central field boundary
Photo%7.%Willow% % identified%as%having% potential%to%support% bats%located%adjacent% to%drainage%ditch%on% central%field% boundary%
% % Photo%8.%Arable%field% at%northern%end%of% site,%adjacent%to% railway%line%
% % % Photo%9.%Arable%field% boundary%adjacent% to%railway%line%and% drainage%ditch.% Potential%for%reptiles%
% % % Photo%10.%Arable% field%boundary%in% northAeast%corner%of% site,%adjacent%to% medical%practice.% Potential%for%reptiles%
% % % Photo%11.%SemiA % improved%grassland% and%tall%ruderal% vegetation%in%northA east%corner%of%site,% adjacent%to%medical% practice.%Potential% for%reptiles%
% % Photo%12.%Arable% field%boundary%with% tall%ruderal% vegetation%,%adjacent% to%residential% properties%in%northA east%of%site.%Potential% for%reptiles%
% % % Photo%13.%Area%of% semiAimproved% grassland%and%tall% ruderal%vegetation% with%cypress%trees,% adjacent%to% residential% properties%in%northA east%of%site.%Potential% for%reptiles%
% % % Photo%14.%%NorthA western%arable%field% boundary%with% speciesApoor% hedgerow%and%tall% ruderal%vegetation.% Potential%for%reptiles%
% % % Photo%15.%SemiA improved%grassland% on%boundary%with% railway%in%south%of% the%site.%Potential%for% reptiles%
% % % Photo%16.%Area%of%tall% ruderal%vegetation% on%boundary%with% railway%line%in%%south% of%the%site.%Potential% for%reptiles%
% % % Photo%17.%Planted% broadleaved% woodland%and%tall% ruderal%vegetation% on%northAwest% boundary%of%site,% adjacent%to%A249%
% % % Photo%18.%Tall% ruderal%vegetation% on%boundary%with% A249.%Potential%for% reptiles%
% % % Photo%19.%Tall% ruderal%vegetation% and%speciesApoor% hedgerow%adjacent% to%A249%overpass%to% the%north%of%the%site.% Potential%for%reptiles%
% % % Photo%20.%SemiA % improved%grassland% and%tall%ruderals% adjacent%to%most% northerly%arable% field.%Potential%for% reptiles%
% % Photo%21.%Area%of% semiAimproved% grassland%in%northA east%corner%of%most% northerly%arable% field.%Potential%for% reptiles%
% % % Photo%22.%SpeciesA poor%hedgerow%and% tall%ruderal% vegetation%adjacent% to%eastern%boundary% of%most%northerly% arable%field.% Potential%for%reptiles%
% % % Photo%23.%Well% vegetated%pond% surrounded%by%semiA improved%grassland% and%scrub%on%eastern% boundary%of%most% northerly%arable% field.%Potential%for% reptiles%and%great% crested%newts%
% % % Photo%24.%Area%of% scrub%and% broadleaved%trees%in% eastern%corner%of% most%northerly% arable%field.%
% % % Photo%25.%SpeciesA % poor%hedgerow,%tall% ruderal%vegetation,% scrub%and%rank% grassland%on%either% side%of%pedestrian% walkway%between% A249%overpass%and% residential%area.% Potential%for%reptiles%
% Land at North-West Sittingbourne, Kent September 2012
The Ecology Partnership
Thorncroft Manor
Thorncroft Drive
Leatherhead
KT22 8JB
TEL: 01372 364 133
http://www.ecologypartnership.com
Approved: Alexia Tamblyn MA (Oxon) MSc CEnv MIEEM FRGS
Date: 14/09/2012
The Ecology Partnership 42