Environmental Statement Volume 4: Technical Appendices Part I: Appendices 2.1‐7.2 March 2014
Salisbury Gateway Environmental Statement Volume 4: Appendices
List of Appendices
Appendix Report/Content Source or Consultant 2.1 Scoping Report EPAL 2.2 Scoping Opinion Letter and Statutory Consultee responses Wiltshire Council 4.1 Ecological Management Strategy Capita 7.1 Updated Phase 1 Habitat Survey RT-MME-108361-01 Middlemarch September 2010 Environmental Ltd. (MEL) 7.2 Botanical Survey (Phase 2) RT-MME-105589 August 2009 MEL 7.3 Updated Ecological Surveys 2011 RT-MME-109777-01 MEL November 2011 7.4 Bat Survey RT-MME-105590 August 2009 MEL 7.5 Breeding Bird Survey RT-MME-105591-01 March-July 2010 MEL 7.6 Winter Bird Survey RT-MME-106241-07 November MEL 2009–February 2010 7.7 Snail Survey RT-MME-105592 August 2009 MEL 7.8 Aquatic Fauna Survey RT-MME-105593 August 2009 MEL 7.9 Reptile Survey RT-MME-105594 August–September 2009 MEL 7.10 Arboricultural survey RT-MME-106126 September 2010 MEL 7.11 Botanical Survey (Phase 2) 2013 RT-MME-113614-07 MEL September 2013 7.12 Bat Survey 2013 RT-MME -113614-06 October 2013 MEL 7.13 Breeding Bird Survey 2013 RT-MME-113614-05 September MEL 2013 7.14 Wintering Bird Survey 2013 RT-MME-113614-04 2013 MEL 7.15 Water Vole and Otter Survey 2013 RT-MME-113614-09 MEL October 2013 7.16 Phase 1 Habitat Survey Salisbury WWT boundary works MEL areaRT-MME-113614-10 January 2014 7.17 Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme MEL 7.18 Construction Ecological Protection Plan MEL 8.1 Phase I Desk Study Data Report Landmark Envirocheck 8.2 Phase II Site Investigation Report 2011 A F Howland Associates 9.1 Water Quality Survey 2011-2013 EPAL 9.2 Aquatic Invertebrate and Fish Data Environment Agency 13.1 Odour Report Air Quality Consultants 13.2 Verification and 2009 Sensitivity Tests Air Quality Consultants 15.1 Archaeology Desk-top Oxford Archaeology 15.2 Archaeology Site Evaluation Oxford Archaeology 17.1 Energy Strategy Synergy Salisbury Gateway Environmental Statement Volume 4: Appendices
Appendix 2.1: Scoping Report EPAL Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
CONTENTS Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PREAMBLE 1 1.2 SCREENING OPINION AND DIRECTION 1 1.3 BACKGROUND TO SCOPING OF THE EIA 3
2.0 METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE OF THE EIA 5 2.1 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS 5 2.2 OVERALL APPROACH 6 2.3 EVALUATION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS 7 2.4 CONSULTATION 8 2.5 EIA TEAM 9
3.0 THE SITE AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 10 3.1 THE SITE 11 3.2 OUTLINE OF THE DEVELOPMENT 12 3.3 TRANSPORT MATTERS 13
4.0 KEY ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICS TO BE ADDRESSED 4 4.1 INTRODUCTION 14 4.2 LANDSCAPE,TOWNSCAPE, AND VISUAL IMPACTS 14 4.3 ECOLOGY 15 4.4 ARCHAEOLOGY 21 4.6 TRANSPORT 23 4.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION 26 4.8 AIR QUALITY 29 4.9 FLOOD RISK AND WATER RESOURCES 30 4.10 SOIL CONTAMINATION AND GROUND CONDITIONS 33 4.11 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS 34 4.12 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ENERGY ISSUES 36 4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 37
5.0 THE INVENTORY OF EFFECTS 39
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping report Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Preamble
An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is being undertaken of the proposals for a major retail development on Southampton Road (A36), Salisbury (the ‘Development’), Wiltshire. The site plan given in Appendix 1 shows the land (the ‘Site’) that is anticipated to be required for the redevelopment of the Salisbury Gateway Development. The Site is located to the south of the A36, an existing Tesco store, and a Park and Ride site.
The EIA of the proposed Development will be undertaken in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations, 2011 (the EIA Regulations 2011)1. The latter regulations implement into English Law EC Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. The regulations are supported by good practice guidance2. The findings of the EIA are reported in the form of an Environmental Statement (ES), which will be submitted with the planning application.
1.2 Screening Opinion and Direction
In November 2010 a request for a screening opinion was made to Wiltshire Council in relation to a retail-led development at the Site. The proposal at that time was of a different form and content from the current scheme. Thus the information upon which the Council determined whether that scheme would constitute EIA development differed from the current proposals.
Wiltshire Council issued a screening opinion on 21st December 2010, confirming that the proposal, in its form at that time, would constitute EIA development. Wiltshire Council concluded that: “the proposal falls within Schedule 2 of the Regulations, that it can be defined as being part of a sensitive area, and that the development as proposed is likely to have significant effects on that sensitive area. As a result, it is the opinion of the LPA that the proposal should be defined as EIA development as stipulated in the Regulations.”
1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2011 SI 2011 No. 1824, August 2011 2 DETR Environmental Impact Assessment A Guide to Procedures, November 2000 and Department of Communities and Local Government (2006) Amended Circular on Environmental Impact Assessment, Consultation paper June 2006
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 1 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
Subsequently, a screening opinion was sought from the Secretary of State, under Regulation 6 of the EIA Regulations in force prior to August 20113, as to whether the retail store proposals constituted EIA development for the purposes of those regulations. The EIA Regulations 2011 are consistent with those previously in force on most matters, and the Screening Direction issued by the Government Office for the South West (GOSW) on 28th January 2011 applies with equal effect in relation to the EIA Regulations 20114. The Screening Direction confirmed the Screening Opinion of Wiltshire Council to the effect that the project is EIA Development, as follows:
“The development proposed, although precise elements are yet to be fixed is expected to include a retail foodstore, petrol filling station, pub/restaurant, bespoke garden centre, parking for approximately 580 vehicles plus wildlife area, falls within the description at section 10(b) of Schedule 2 to the 1999 Regulations. The Secretary of State considers your client’s proposal to be ‘Schedule 2 development’ within the meaning of the 1999 Regulations and the proposal exceeds the threshold in column 2 of the table in Schedule 2 (10) to the 1999 Regulations.”
Furthermore, in the opinion of the Secretary of State having taken into account the selection criteria in Schedule 3 to the 1999 Regulations that development would be likely to have significant effects on the environment, because of its nature, size and location having regard to the following points:
(a) The site area of 8.5ha with a proposed development area of 3.9ha exceeds the threshold of 0.5 hectares in column 2 of schedule 2 (10) of the 1999 Regulations.
(b) The proposal is near to a ‘sensitive area’ as defined in the Regulations with potential for significant effects upon the adjoining SAC/SSSI which will need to be carefully considered particularly in relation to the hydrological regime of the river.
As a whole the development is likely to give rise to significant environmental effects sufficient to require an environmental impact assessment.”
3 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/293) (The EIA Regulations), as amended by Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) (England And Wales) Regulations 2008 4 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2011 SI 2011 No. 1824, August 2011
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 2 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
1.3 Background to Scoping of the EIA
The current proposals are described broad terms in Section 3.0 of this report. The scheme involves a different mix and quantum of retail floorspace, as well as changes in car parking, from the scheme upon which the Screening Opinion and Direction were based. In this sense then the EIA is being undertaken on a voluntary basis. Regulation 13 of the EIA Regulations 20114 provides for an applicant to request a “scoping opinion” from the local planning authority.
This report is submitted Wiltshire Council to initiate the scoping process under regulation 13 of the EIA Regulations. It is noted that the Regulations do not specifically prescribe topics to be addressed in an EIA. However, Schedule 4 provides:
“the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development [may include] 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.”
The main aims of the EIA process are summarised as follows:
to assess the main effects arising from the construction and operation of the proposed development in relation to environmental media and sensitive environmental receptors;
to assess the likely significant effects, taking account of measures that can be incorporated into the design to reduce adverse, or enhance beneficial effects (mitigation measures); to prepare an ES presenting the results of the EIA process; and
to prepare a non-technical summary of the ES.
The principal steps taken in preparing the ES will comprise the following:
describing the proposed development;
determining the scope of the EIA;
describing baseline environmental conditions;
predicting, and evaluating the likely significance of, environmental effects of the proposed development on sensitive receptors; and
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 3 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
determining measures to mitigate significant adverse environmental effects, and describing the residual effects of the proposed development.
This report provides an overview of the environmental effects potentially associated with the currently proposed development on Southampton Road. As noted above, and described in Section 3.0, the current proposals differ from those of the scheme details submitted pursuant to the December 2010 screening and subsequent Direction. It highlights those issues that are likely to be important, and whether any predicted impacts would be likely to be adverse or beneficial. In addition, the report identifies areas where further research work is necessary, and, where applicable, the methodology which is proposed for the assessment of impacts.
Scoping is a preliminary environmental appraisal that allows the coverage and level of detail of the EIA to be defined. The primary objective of scoping is to provide a framework for the identification and evaluation of significant effects that may arise from the construction and operation of the proposed development. In so doing, the first task is to distinguish between those issues and/or locations likely to be associated with “significant effects”, and those that are highly unlikely to be. The latter may then be “scoped out” of the assessment, although in the event of any changes in information available, they may be reintroduced in the scope of the assessment. Scoping is useful in avoiding the submission of irrelevant information, in order to focus attention on the important environmental impacts of the proposal.
Under the EIA Regulations 20115 (as amended), an outline of the alternatives considered by the developer and the reasons for their choice have to be included in the Environmental Statement (ES). EU guidance on scoping6 points out that scoping should also outline the alternatives to the project, which should be addressed in the full ES.
The scoping exercise may also serve to identify methodology to be used for further data collection (i.e. details of surveys) or for the prediction of significance. In the present case, pre-application consultation is being undertaken with Wiltshire Council and other Statutory Consultees and stakeholders to agree the scope of the technical assessments in respect of a number of key issues, including:
landscape and visual impact;
ecology;
5 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/1824) 6 Environmental Resource Management (2001) Guidance on EIA – Scoping. Issued in June 2001 on the Directorate General for Environment of the European Commission website: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/eia-support.htm.
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 4 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
flood risk;
noise;
air quality, including odour.
In addition, there will be an appropriate programme of public consultation in relation to the Development.
The scoping of the transport assessment, which would inform the EIA process, is being agreed separately by David Tucker Associates Transport Consultants with the Highways Agency and Wiltshire Council. Thus the scoping of transport issues does not form part of this report or the request for a scoping opinion.
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 5 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
2.0 Methodology and Scope of the EIA
2.1 Statutory Requirements
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the scheme will consider the environmental effects of the development during the construction and operation of the building, and will propose ways of mitigating significant effects that may arise.
The EIA will be undertaken in accordance with the EIA Regulations 20117 , which implement Council Directive No.85/332/EC as amended by Council Directive No.97/11/EC.
Reference will also be made to currently available good practice guidance in EIA, particularly:
1. Preparation of Environmental Statements for Planning Projects that require Environmental Assessment – A Good Practice Guide, DOE. 1995;
2. European Union – Guidance on EIA, EIS Review, June 2001 by Environmental Resources Management;
3. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), Note on Environmental Impact Assessment Directive for Local Planning Authorities 1999 EIA Regulations, July 2002 and Updated Note, April 2004.
4. Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR) Circular 02/99 - Environmental Impact Assessment; and
5. Impact Assessment Guidelines and ES Review Criteria from the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA);
6. Environmental Impact Assessment: A guide to good practice and procedures, Department of Communities and Local Government, Consultation paper June 2006;
7. Amended Circular on Environmental Impact Assessment, Department of Communities and Local Government, Consultation paper June 2006;
7 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2011 SI 2011 No. 1824, August 2011
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 6 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
8. Letter to local planning authorities from Colin Byrne, Director for Town and Country Planning at Department of Communities and Local Government, in relation to Applications for Outline Planning Permission, Applications for approval of reserved matters and EIA procedure; The effect of ECJ judgments in the cases of Ex parte Barker and Crystal Palace/White City 30th June 2006;
9. The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 Department of Communities and Local Government Consultation Paper October 2007, 23pp;
10. Letter to local planning authorities from Steve Quartermain, Chief Planner at Department of Communities and Local Government, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Implications of recent judgments, 18th of November 2009, explaining the legal decisions leading to the EIA Regulations 2011
2.2 Overall Approach
Assessment methodologies will vary in each subject area, and may involve quantitative (e.g. determination of future air quality by modelling) or qualitative methods of assessment (e.g. assessment of landscape impacts). The method of assessment adopted will depend on the resource being affected. Methodologies that exist for specific types of assessment, where known and widely accepted, will be adopted as appropriate. An important part of the process of the assessment will be the identification of sensitive receptors that may be subject to environmental effects arising from the development.
“Sensitive receptors,” as referred to above, will include man-made features or natural resources with the potential to be affected by an environmental impact arising from either the construction or operation of the development. Sensitive receptors may include residential buildings and their occupants, which may be affected by, for example, noise or air quality impacts from construction or road traffic associated with shoppers using the store. Other receptors may include, for example, the River Avon Special Area for Conservation (SAC), which abuts the southern boundary of the Site and could potentially be indirectly affected by construction works for the Development. Natural resources might include, by way of example, water resources that might be affected by construction discharges or the impact of run-off on flow regime.
The proposed methodology and scope of assessment for each topic area is described in Section 4.0.
For each of the technical areas addressed as part of the EIA, the key steps in the process are as follows:
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 7 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
baseline conditions, in the absence of the development, are established in order to identify key sensitivities;
the primary, secondary and cumulative impacts of the development are identified, based upon a detailed assessment of the main characteristics of the proposals that may give rise to impacts given the baseline environmental sensitivities;
the impact of the development on the baseline condition is assessed, by way of description or forecast (e.g. predictive modelling);
evaluating the significance of the impact is evaluated on the basis of established criteria or in some cases expert judgment;
mitigation measures that may required are identified on the basis of the significance of the impacts; and
residual impacts are identified along with any further mitigation measures, if required.
As pointed out above, the scope of impacts to be assessed includes direct effects (e.g. land take and demolitions), indirect effects (e.g. effects resulting from traffic generation), secondary effects (e.g. need for reinforcement of infrastructure systems such as sewers, water supply, electricity or gas supplies). The temporal scope will cover, where relevant, the short-term (mainly construction related over say 3-4 years), the medium-term (typically 5-10 years) as well as long-term and permanent effects (e.g. land-take). A number of specific issues relating to the application of the EIA method outlined above to the current scheme are described in the following sections.
2.3 Evaluation of the Significance of Impacts
Once an effect has been predicted or described, it is necessary to evaluate its significance. This part of the process is the key element, since it is the significance of effects that determines the resources that are necessary to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts. In the case of positive effects evaluation of the significance of such impacts is important, particularly where these may offset other adverse effects that are difficult to mitigate. Overall, the cumulative significance of the various mitigated effects determines the overall environmental acceptability of any development.
As far as is possible, where quantitative predictions are to be made (e.g. from air quality modelling and noise forecasts), national standards (e.g. Air Quality Regulations 2000 (as
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 8 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
amended) standards), British Standards (e.g. BS5228 and BS4142 on construction and operational noise, respectively) or recommended guidance levels will be adopted for the evaluation of effects. In each section of the ES, as appropriate, the evaluation guidelines will be set out as part of the description of the assessment methodologies used.
In some cases, though, the evaluation of the significance of environmental effects may involve value judgements or expert interpretations about whether, and to what extent, an impact is environmentally significant. This is particularly important in the assessment of visual and townscape effects, where there is a strong degree of subjective judgement and, indeed, perception of impacts. The sources and justifications for the approaches taken will be set out insofar as this is possible, to show how the significance of effects has been evaluated. In respect of a number of categories of impact an identifiable resource is affected. Examples include archaeology, ecology and listed buildings. In these cases, the significance of an effect is determined by the interaction of: (1) the value, importance or sensitivity of the environmental resource (i.e. the receptor) being affected; and (2) the magnitude, scale or severity of the effect.
Table 1, below, sets out a very general indication of how the combinations of resource sensitivity or value and the severity of effects combine to allow the evaluation of the significance of effects.
Table 1: Indicative Matrix of Evaluation of Effects Scale of Effect Resource Value High Medium Low High Substantial Substantial Moderate Significance Significance Significance Medium Substantial Moderate Minor Significance Significance Significance Low Moderate Minor Negligible Significance Significance Significance
2.4 Consultation
Scoping and consultation usually form the first stages of the assessment process. Further details of these steps are given below. Contact with relevant consultees, including the Environment Agency, the Highways Agency and Natural England, has already taken place and will continue during the course of the EIA.
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 9 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
Table 2: Statutory Consultees Statutory Consultee Issue Wiltshire Council Planning, archaeology, landscape and visual impact, transport and environmental health aspects (air quality, noise, contaminated land etc.). Natural England Landscape impact and ecological sensitivity of the site, in terms of nature conservation designations impacts to protected flora and fauna issues arising from the Habitats Regulations 2010. English Heritage (EH) Archaeological, historic architectural and cultural heritage issues. Environment Agency Implications for controlled waters, drainage discharges, land (EA) drainage and flood risk, ground contamination, and effects on protected aquatic and riparian terrestrial organisms. Highways Agency Traffic and Highways matters
Other consultees may include:
Salisbury City Council and adjacent parish councils;
Salisbury Vision;
Adjacent Parish Councils.
2.5 EIA Team
The EIA consultant team is led by Environmental Planning & Assessment Limited, which will be responsible for the compilation of the final documents comprising the Environmental Statement (ES). The key members of the consultant team are as follows.
Consultant Disciplines Air Quality Consultants Ltd.(AQC) Air quality and Odour Assessment Canham Consulting Flood Risk, Ground Conditions and Engineering David Tucker Associates (DTA) Transport Assessment Environmental Planning & EIA coordination, noise, surface water quality and Assessment Ltd. (EPAL) resources Gillespies LLP Visual and Landscape Impact Assessment Martin Robeson Planning Practice Socio economic impact, as acting as planning and (MRPP) retail impact consultant Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Ecology, including all surveys as well as (MEL) arboriculture Oxford Archaeology Archaeology and Heritage Assets
The EIA process will also be assisted by the architects Lyons, Sleeman and Hoare.
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 10 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
3.0 The Site and Proposed Development
3.1 The Site
The site encompasses an area of 8.7 ha of former agricultural land. The site is located on the eastern edge of Salisbury, south of the A36 (see Figure 1).
The site is bounded to the west by the River Bourne, which is a tributary of the River Avon. To the west of the River Bourne is a DIY store (B&Q and its car park). To the south the Site is bounded by the River Avon. The River Avon and the River Bourne are both encompassed within the River Avon Special Area Conservation (SAC) designated under The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2010. The River Avon, including those parts of the River Bourne adjacent to the Site, are included with in the River Avon System Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Across the River Avon to the south and west of the Site are located areas of grazing land and semi-natural habitat, including the East Harnham Meadows SSSI.
To the east of the Site is the Petersfinger Sewage Treatment Works (STW). To the north the Site is bounded by Southampton Road (A36). To the north of Southampton Road are the Park & Ride facility, a Tesco Store and various other food and non–food retail stores. Southampton Road is a major transport corridor into the City. It is a busy route not only into Salisbury but also as a through-route to Bristol and Bath.
The site is outside of, but immediately adjoining, the settlement limit and within an area of urban fringe, characterised by a variety of urban features. These include, in particular, the A36, associated retail and commercial buildings, street lighting and electricity power pylons and cables. It cannot therefore, be said to fall within the open countryside.
The Site's character is currently undeveloped but not of uniform appearance. The Site contains a variety of different habitat types; primarily these comprise grasslands, with swamp occurring in conjunction with wet ditches in the southern part of the site. Scrub, hedgerows, scattered trees, and amenity grassland also occur across the Site. The northern part of the site is primarily bare ground where construction spoil has been deposited in the past. The site has minimal tree coverage, with the exception of several specimens on the eastern boundary and a single oak in the centre of the site. To the north, urbanising features include the aforementioned electricity power cables and attendant pylons. Access to the site is available from the Bourne Way junction of the A36.
In terms of land use, the Site is classified as Grade 4 agricultural land, with significant limitations arising from soil wetness, amongst other factors. Thus the land is not within the
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 11 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
categories of land that constitute the ‘best and most versatile land’ for agriculture, which comprise grades 1, 2 and 3A.
Figure 1: Site Location Plan (not to Scale)
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office Crown Copyright rights reserved Licence number 100046510
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 12 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
The northern part of the land has been used for grazing, although more recent uses have included construction worker parking, temporary stationing of vehicles and caravans and for storage. Further south, the effects of past land management are apparent but to a lesser extent than the land to the north. The southern-most edge is within the riparian zone of the River Avon and has three land drains. There are also several fishing stands. The Petersfinger STW is particularly notable here as an important industrial feature in the landscape to the east of the Site.
The greater part of the application site lies within Flood Zone 3 with a smaller area lying within Flood Zone 2. PPS25 classifies the land uses proposed as being “less vulnerable” and appropriate in both Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3. PPS25 goes on to caution that any development should not be put at risk of flooding nor should it increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. In practice, the effect of this caution are to require: (1) that the development should not result in any loss of existing storage during flood conditions; and (2) that the rate of run-off from the site should not change in a manner that would increase flood risk elsewhere.
3.2 Outline of the Development
The current proposals are for a: Proposed retail superstore (A1 food) with associated car park and petrol filling station, nature reserve and related parking, together with new landscaping, access, infrastructure and highway improvements. The Development for a food-led retail store would, with parking, occupy a footprint area of about 3.8ha. The petrol station would occupy a further 0.37ha. The total Site area is 8.7ha, including the nature reserve.
The main characteristics of the Development would comprise:
a foodstore (class A1) with a gross external floor area of approximately 13,400m2;
a Petrol Filling station with a land take of about 3,650m2 and 16 filling points;
car parking for about 750 spaces, which would be associated with the uses above;
the inclusion of a nature reserve area at the south and west of the Site abutting the River Avon SAC, including the River Bourne, which would open up public access to currently inaccessible land without necessarily causing increased disturbance of the SAC.
The proposal also includes comprehensive highway and public realm enhancements and improvements to Southampton Road from the site's frontage westwards to the College roundabout. This includes removal of the existing central reservation between the Bourne Way and College roundabouts, reintroduction of right-turn lanes into adjacent retail areas,
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 13 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
signal controlled pedestrian and cycle crossings, a continuous footway/cycle path along both sides of Southampton Road, a bus lane along the site frontage, remodelling of the Bourne Way roundabout to provide vehicular and pedestrian access into the site and improvements to its existing alignment, a bus turning and layover area with further improvements to the Petersfinger Park and Ride STW junction.
3.3 Transport Matters
A Transport Assessment will be submitted with the planning application for the proposed development. This work is being undertaken by David Tucker Associates, and is being separately scoped in parallel with is EIA Scoping Request.
The A36 Southampton Road is a trunk route and as such, falls within the jurisdiction of the Highways Agency. The road provides a strategic link between Bath and Southampton, as well as performing a local distributor role. Of note are the College roundabout, which provides a link with the City's gyratory, and the Bourne Way roundabout, which will provide access to the application site in addition to existing access to the Bourne Way industrial area and Tesco superstore.
A significant proportion of the traffic likely to be generated by the proposed Development would be linked to existing movements on Southampton Road, with a further component relating to diversions from the existing Tesco superstore. Physical improvements are proposed that would accommodate these additional movements to the extent that nil detriment will be achieved, consistent with the Highways Agency's requirements.
Highway proposals involve removal of the central reservation along this part of Southampton Road and the reintroduction of some right turn lanes into adjacent developments. Currently, the barrier is estimated to create some 1,500 u-turn movements at Bourne Way roundabout and around 700 u-turns at the College roundabout during each 12 hour period, in addition to side-friction caused by poor highway design and temporary stopping of vehicles. This and improvements to the geometry of the Bourne Way roundabout are considered to provide sufficient additional capacity for development traffic, as well as addressing a number of pre- existing key concerns relating to the quality and efficiency of the Southampton Road corridor.
This, and proposed bus priority measures along the Southampton Road corridor, will assist the movement of existing bus services (e.g. Park and Ride) making that initiative more effective and indeed those proposed to enhance the accessibility of the site. The development will also include high quality bus turning, stopping and passenger waiting facilities. The application will be submitted with a comprehensive Transport Assessment and Travel Plan.
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 14 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
4.0 Key Environmental Topics to be Addressed
4.1 Introduction
Under each section topic, a summary of the content of the section, the methodology and scope of assessment is given. Where relevant, the assumptions of the assessment are described. Current relevant legislation or recognised guidance for individual assessments will be adhered to, where necessary.
4.2 Landscape, Townscape, and Visual Impacts
This aspect of the EIA will deal with the impact of the proposed development on the landscape character of the Site and surrounding area, including impacts on views from sensitive viewpoints. `The landscape and visual impacts assessment (LVIA) of the Development is being undertaken by Gillespies.
4.2.1 Background
At the regional level landscape character assessment is defined by the former Countryside Agency’s assessment work, as set out in ‘Countryside Character, Volume 8: South West (Countryside Agency 1999)8’. This document identifies the City of Salisbury as falling within ‘Area 132 – Salisbury Plain and West Wiltshire Downs’. This character area has the following key characteristics:
At a county level, the Wiltshire Landscape Character Assessment9 encompasses the City of Salisbury and the surrounding area. The study further refines the regional character areas, identified by the Countryside Agency, into more detailed ‘sub regional Character Areas’. The application site is situated within the character type; ‘Chalk River Valley’.
The application site falls within ‘Narrow Chalk River Valley’ landscape character type and ‘Lower Avon Narrow Chalk River Valley Area’, as identified in the Salisbury District Landscape Character Assessment10.
The site is not located within any international or national landscape designation. However, two such designated areas for nature conservation (SAC and SSSI) are adjacent to the
8 Countryside Agency (1999) Countryside Character, Volume 8: South West 9 Land Use Consultants (2005) Wiltshire Landscape Character Assessment 10 Chris Blandford Associates (2008) Salisbury District Landscape Character Assessment
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 15 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
southern and western boundary of the site. These designations cover the river systems and floodplains of the River Avon and its tributaries (see Section 3.1). The Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is also located approximately 2.5 km south of the Site.
The Site is within an area subject to two local landscape designations set out in the Salisbury District Local Plan 2011. These relate to an Area of High Ecological Value and the Landscape Setting of Salisbury and Wilton. The main LVIA study area has considered land within 2km radius of the Site. This followed an initial appraisal of land within 3km radius. It was confirmed during the site visits that similar developments located near the application site are not visible from distances greater than 2km, and hence the initial study area was reduced. All designated landscape resources and heritage assets (e.g. Special Landscape Area, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Ancient Woodland, Registered Historic Parks and Gardens, County Wildlife Sites) located within approximately 2km from the Site have been considered within the landscape and visual baseline assessment.
The landscape immediately around the south and east of the application site is in good condition. The northern part of the site, adjacent to Salisbury Road, and the adjacent landscape are in moderate condition.
After consideration of the sensitivity criteria, the sensitivity of the existing landscape resource within the site and its immediate surroundings has been rated medium to high. However, areas of high sensitivity exist within the LVIA study area, in particular to the south of the site (within the River Avon corridor) and to the north-east (Ashley Hill and King Manor Hill).
Visual Baseline
The desktop study and fieldwork have identified the limited nature of the Site’s actual visibility in mid and long distance views and this is confirmed by the viewpoint photographs. The main areas of existing visual impact can be identified as:
views along the Southampton Road;
glimpsed views from rural areas of higher topography to the north of the Site;
views from public footpaths to the south of the Site;
views from Salisbury Cathedral.
The overall sensitivity of the surrounding area to visual impact is considered to be low to medium.
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 16 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
4.2.2 Methodology and Scope
The baseline assessments carried out by Gillespies for the LVIA for the Site are based on the principles set out by the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment in the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment11 and the Countryside Agency’s Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland12. The study of the landscape and visual components of the Site and the local area has been undertaken through desktop study and fieldwork. This work has identified the main landscape and visual receptors and resulted in a baseline appraisal, against which landscape and visual impacts of the Development will be assessed.
In order to understand the visual influence of the site several viewpoints surrounding the site were identified by desk study and fieldwork. The viewpoints represent a wide selection of views experienced by residents, pedestrians, users of public open space and motorists.
Appendix 2 illustrates the location of all viewpoints recorded initially. Photographs taken from each viewpoint to record the view have been produced in viewpoint sheets, with details of the image recorded.
The overall approach used in the assessment of impact on landscape and views is a professional judgement based on defining the:
1. importance of the landscape;
2. sensitivity or capacity of the landscape to accommodate change;
3. magnitude, duration and nature of impacts.
Importance relates to the contribution of the landscape element/feature to character or views within the local area and is a combination of its scenic quality, sense of place, visibility, accessibility and special qualities such as remoteness. Importance of viewpoints relates to the number of people likely to be affected and the recreational value of the site. Importance is graded as high, medium and low.
The overall sensitivity of the existing landscape resource is based on the following factors:
11 Institute/Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, (2002) Guidance for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (second edition), published by the Landscape Institute/Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2002 12 Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) Landscape Character Assessment. Guidance for England and Scotland
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 17 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
value placed on a landscape; quality of the landscape; compatibility of the proposed development with existing land uses and landscape character; condition of the landscape; contribution of the landscape within the site to the landscape character of the surrounding area; scope for mitigation of the proposed scheme; degree to which landscape elements and characteristics can be replaced or substituted.
For assessment purposes, the sensitivity of a landscape will be categorised as high, medium or low.
The nature of impact can be adverse, beneficial or neutral. The duration of the impact is described as:
Long term – 15 years plus; Medium term – 5 to 15 years; Short term – up to 5 years.
The potential significance of landscape and visual impacts will determined by a combination of the magnitude (nature and scale of the potential impact) and the importance and sensitivity of the landscape and visual setting to change. Effects will be classified adverse or beneficial, and the significance as Major, Moderate, Minor or Negligible (neutral).
The landscape strategy for the Development will be the main element in the approach to the mitigation of landscape and visual impacts of the Development. The landscape strategy will aim to meet the associated landscape designation policy objectives. Any potential development within the site must adhere to the relevant national, regional and county policies and guidance. The landscape strategy for the Development must take into account the assessment findings and minimise any adverse effects, be compatible with and enhance the landscape, and contribute positively to the character of the site.
4.3 Ecology
The assessment work is being undertaken by Middlemarch Environmental. The company is wholly owned by Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, and profits from its activities are passed by Gift Aid to the Trust to fund local conservation projects.
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 18 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
4.3.1 Background
The following types of ecological surveys have been undertaken for the Site by Middlemarch Environmental Ltd between June 2009 and the present time:
extended Phase 1 Habitat Surveys;
botanical survey;
bat survey;
bird habitat survey;
breeding bird surveys
protected snail survey;
aquatic fauna survey;
herpatofaunal surveys;
wintering bird survey (ongoing).
The surveys have been maintained up-to-date and repeated, as necessary, during the 2011 season.
Key Findings
Botanical
Twelve communities were identified on site, including mesotrophic wet and dry grasslands; open vegetation; woodland/scrub; and swamp/tall-herb fen. In addition a stand of Fallopia japonica Japanese knotweed and several mature/veteran trees were found on site. Both of these features are significant on account of the former being invasive and non-native status with subsequent legal implications; the latter have high ecological value.
A locally important species, Oenanthe crocata was recorded on site. The greatest interest is along the southern edge, south-east corner and along the old drainage ditches of the site where the vegetation communities formed highly complex mosaics.
Bats
The site provides potential trees, particularly the hollowing specimens, that could be used by roosting bats. The activity survey results recorded five species of bat foraging and commuting on site: 1. Daubenton's bats along the River Avon.
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 19 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
2. common pipistrelles along the River Avon corridor and associated adjacent habitats. 3. soprano pipistrelles along the River Avon corridor and associated adjacent habitats. 4. noctule along the northern edge and in the east of the site. 5. Leisler's bat along the River Avon.
The mature trees and the River Avon are of most value to bats; fewer bats were recorded along the northern edge of the site which experienced greater artificial light from the adjacent land uses such as the A36 and retail park.
Despite the potential and suitable conditions for bat roosts in several of the mature trees, no roosts were confirmed on site during the surveys.
Birds
The habitat assessment identified the site as providing habitat for a number of species for both breeding and foraging. The areas of most value to birds are the riparian corridor, mature trees and hedgerows and swamp habitats. The kingfisher, a Schedule 1 listed bird on the Wildlife and Countryside Act was noted using the River Avon in the south of the site.
Snails
The surveys confirmed suitable habitat occurs on site for Desmoulin's whorl snail, primarily the vegetated north-south ditch in the east of the site and the similarly vegetated ditch in the centre of the site. The field survey failed to produce any specimens and absence of dead shells suggests that the species has not been recently living on the site.
There is minimal/no suitable habitat for the large-mouthed valve snail and the field survey failed to produce any specimens and absence of dead shells from the bulk samples suggests that the species has not been recently living on the site.
Aquatic fauna
The site possess suitable habitat on site for otter, water vole, water shrew, and white clawed crayfish. The surveys confirmed that otter, water vole and water shrew utilise the River Avon and River Bourne and associated bank side habitats.
Reptiles
The site was considered to possess suitable habitat for common lizard, slow worm and grass snake. The results of the survey suggest a low population of grass snake are using the
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 20 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
western part of the site. As a juvenile grass snake was found there is likely to be a breeding population in the area.
Summary
Table 3 provides an overview of the site’s relative value in relation to each ecological feature assessed to date. The areas considered to be of most ecological interest are the riparian corridor habitats to the south of the site.
Table 3: Summary of the Importance of the Application Site for Ecology Ecological Feature Application Site Proposed Area for Area Retained for Retail Development Nature Reserve Botanical High Moderate High Bats Moderate Moderate High Birds High Low High Protected Snails Low Low Low Otter Moderate Low High Water vole High Low High Water shrew Moderate Low High White-clawed crayfish Low Low High Reptile Low Low High Overview Moderate Low High
4.3.2 Methodology
Further repeat surveys have been undertaken during the appropriate seasonal periods during 2011 to ensure that the ecological information on the Site has been kept updated and also increase understanding of the Site, its habitats and flora and fauna. In addition to the ecological surveys, which are summarised broadly above, Middlemarch has carried out arboricultural surveys of the Site.
The potential for protected species to be present has been assessed in accordance with the Institute of Ecological and Environmental Management (IEEM) current guidelines of July 200613 and relevant species-specific guidance.
The evaluation of the overall ecological value of the Site will follow the guidance of Natural England and IEEM14 or other appropriate guidance, as appropriate.
13 Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment, 58 pp
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 21 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
The assessment of effects will follow the (IEEM) guidelines13, which outline how the significance of each impact can be described. The assessment of effects in respect of trees will follow recommendations in BS5837 (see above). The overall approach to ascribing significance of effects will follow the principles set out in Table 2 above and the aforementioned guidance.
As a key part of the ecological assessment Middlemarch Environmental has been developing management plans for the proposed nature area to be include in the southern part of the Site. These encompass the main mitigation and impact avoidance measures to be adopted. These will be presented in two key parts;
A Construction Ecological Protection Plan to ensure that adverse effects on the River Avon SAC are avoided;
A Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme and Management Plan for the Site, which aims to enhance the retained habitat at the Site, which will also form a buffer zone between the Development and the SAC.
The principles of the Nature Conservation Strategy are to minimise harm and adverse impact to wildlife and provision of habitat to support species populations greater than currently occur on Site. The Strategy has been developed to positively contribute to local, regional and national environmental policy, with emphasis on avoidance, protection and enhancement of local ecological assets. The local BAP, green infra-structure and the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust’s “A Living Landscape” Project have also been key considerations in order to achieve net biodiversity gain.
4.4 Archaeology
The archaeological assessment is being carried out by Oxford Archaeology.
4.4.1 Background
Initial analysis has been carried out based on the National Monuments Record (NMR), as held by English Heritage. Further analysis will need to be carried out as part of a further assessment which is discussed below.
Designated Data
On present knowledge, the potential impact on designated sites is low. The NMR records no Scheduled Monuments within the site, but three within the Study Area, Milford Hill Bridge,
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 22 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
dated to the late 15th century (c 670m to the north of the site), medieval pottery kilns at Milford Farm (c 435m to the north of the site) and Woodbury Iron Age villages (c 1km to the south west of the site).
There are no Registered Parks and Gardens or Historic Battlefields within the proposed development area or study area.
There are no Listed Buildings within the proposed development area, although there are 50 within the study area, the closest to the site being a sluice house and eel trap c 375m to the west of the site. The Britford Conservation Area lies to the south of the Site across the River Avon.
Potential setting impacts will be further clarified, but on present knowledge, these are unlikely to be significant.
Non-designated Data
The NMR records no known archaeology within the Site. However, a study of the wider area shows the Site to be located within an area with numerous sites of prehistoric activity, in particular of the Iron Age. The proposed development area therefore has a good potential to contain archaeological deposits, especially of the prehistoric periods. The location of the Site, close to the River Avon, suggests that the Site would have been an attractive location for prehistoric activity, close to the water for transportation and food.
There have been limited recorded discoveries of the Roman period from within the Study Area, and as such there is an uncertain but low potential for Roman archaeology to be present within the Site.
The Site is located outside of the medieval town of Salisbury, and is likely to have been undeveloped open land throughout the medieval and post-medieval periods. There is a limited potential for archaeological deposits of the medieval and post-medieval periods to be present within the site.
The lack of previous development within the proposed development area suggests that any in situ archaeological deposits present are likely to be in a good state of preservation.
4.4.2 Methodology and Scope
Initial analysis has suggested that the Site has some potential to contain archaeological deposits and that these may be affected by development. The significance, scale and survival of these deposits is uncertain however, and further assessment will be required to
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 23 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
establish the nature and significance of the deposits and to clarify the extent of previous impacts on the archaeological resource. The recommended staged approach to further archaeological investigation would encompass:
Study of data held by the Wiltshire Sites and Monuments Record;
A detailed map regression;
A detailed study of all aerial photographs;
A targeted walkover survey;
Monitoring of boreholes and geotechnical surveys to assess any truncation or the presence of made ground in each area.
Dependant on the results of the desk-based and non-intrusive field surveys, it is possible that further examination of the nature and survival of archaeological deposits on the site may be required. This is likely to take the form of an archaeological trenching evaluation intended to ‘ground truth’ the archaeological potential of areas of the site likely to be directly impacted upon by the development proposals.
4.6 Transport
As noted previously David Tucker Associates will be separately agreeing the scope of the Transport Assessment. The following sections provide context about the scope of the work being undertaken.
4.6.1 Background
Highway Network
The site is located within an established retail and employment area to the south east of Salisbury City Centre. The surrounding built-up area includes a number of retail units and employment sites accessed directly from Southampton Road.
Southampton Road forms part of the Trunk Road network providing a strategic link from the South to Bristol and Bath. It also provides a key route from the city centre to the adjoining retail and employment uses. The existing flow on Southampton Road is approximately 26,500 vehicles 2-way over the 12 hour period 0700 to 1900.
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 24 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
Southampton Road joins Churchill Way at a roundabout junction (known as the College roundabout) approximately 0.7 km from the city centre. Churchill Way forms part of the city’s gyratory system. 1km to the east of the College roundabout Southampton Road has a further roundabout junction with Bourne Way. This is adjacent to the site. Bourne Way provides access to a Tesco Superstore and adjacent industrial estate.
The section of Southampton Road between the College and Bourne Way roundabouts is approximately 1km, generally with a carriageway width of 9.3 metres. A central barrier is in place over the majority of this length, banning right turns into and out of accesses and enforcing single lane working. This section is subject to congestion with traffic slow moving, particularly heading into the city, with lengthy queues regularly building up along the link. The barrier is an unattractive feature and creates some 1500 U-turn movements at Bourne Way and 700 U-turn movements at the College roundabout over a 12 hour day, significantly adding to the congestion at both these junctions.
Personal injury accident data for the past 5 years shows that there have been a total of 37 accidents on the section of Southampton Road between College roundabout and Bourne Way roundabout. Whilst the rate of accidents is not abnormal, a significant number have involved rear end shunts during congested conditions and 3 have involved cyclists colliding with vehicles exiting from accesses along the link. This supports the view that the current layout of Southampton Road is unsatisfactory.
Public Transport, Walking and Cycling
At present public transport provision in the vicinity of the site is limited with the principal services being long distance operating from the city centre and serving the surrounding small towns and villages. Whilst these services route past the proposed development, frequency is low and all terminate in the city centre. Consequently access to the site from the residential areas by the existing bus services would generally involving change of service within the city centre.
A new park and ride site at Peter’s Finger Road, which is adjacent to the site, opened in June 2010. However, this will have limited benefit for the Development as it is designed to intercept longer distance trips into the city centre rather than provide a linkage to the main supermarket catchment areas. The park and ride site Is no longer manned and its main purpose is now to accommodate city centre worker’s parking.
Segregated pedestrian and cycling facilities are present on both sides of Southampton Road to the west of the Bourne Way roundabout, although the route becomes unclear in several locations. This forms part of National Route 24 and provides an off-road route linking with the city centre.
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 25 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
Salisbury Transport Strategy
Wiltshire Council commissioned Atkins to prepare a transport strategy for Salisbury. This identifies that to accommodate growth in the most sustainable manner some highway improvements will be required on key routes but these must be supported and offset by improved public transport facilities and enhancements to cycling and walking routes. It also notes that the benefits of the improvements must be locked in by demand management measures.
The Atkins report identifies that one of the key requirements is to improve the A36 Southampton Road as an important gateway to the city to make it attractive for commuters and tourists. These improvements should include priority measures for buses and cyclists, rationalisation of the number of access points and general route ambience improvements. The study also proposes that there should be a west to east public transport link between Churchfields and Southampton Road which stops at key destinations within the city centre.
4.6.2 Scope and Methodology
On the basis of the preliminary transport assessment work it is concluded that in developing the site the following issues must be addressed:
Delivery of a sustainable transport strategy to minimise the transport impact of the proposed development.
Identification of necessary improvements to address the impact of additional traffic on the Trunk Road network.
Identification of a scheme for Southampton Road to meet and support the objectives of the Salisbury Vision and in particular the findings of the Atkins Transport Study.
A full assessment of the transport impact of the proposed development will be carried out in accordance with Guidance on Transport Assessment as published by the DfT in March 2007 and the criteria set down in DTLR Circular 02/2007.
Preliminary studies have established that the total gross traffic generation from the proposed development over a 12 hour period will be approximately 8,000 vehicles (2-way). However, a large proportion of those trips will be linked to existing movements including direct diversions from the existing Tesco Superstore. When allowance is made for the diversion of existing trips and the distribution of remaining traffic, the net traffic impact from the development on Southampton Road, in the absence of any mitigation measures, will be approximately 3,000 trips per 12 hour day (2-way).
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 26 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
To mitigate the potential impact of this additional traffic it is proposed to implement the following improvements:
Carry out improvements along Southampton Road to remove the unsightly central barrier, improving the street scene and removing the necessity for U-turning at the Bourne Way and College roundabouts. This will release additional capacity and generally improve the operation and safety of the link.
Provide improved facilities for public transport both along Southampton Road and within the site to enable local bus services to terminate within the proposed development. This will also support integration with the proposed west to east bus service. Facilities will include high quality stopping and waiting facilities and bus priority measures.
Improve access by non-car modes by providing a continuous link between the proposed development and existing walking and cycling facilities on Southampton Road with vehicle conflict kept to a minimum.
Development of a comprehensive Travel Plan to ensure that the use of non-car modes can be maximised.
All off-site improvements to both Southampton Road and walking and cycling facilities will be undertaken within the existing built form of Southampton Road or within the site masterplan.
4.7 Noise and Vibration
This part of the assessment will address the impacts of construction and operation of the Development. It will include, where appropriate, comparisons with the baseline background noise levels generated by existing noise sources, especially traffic. Any significant impacts to sensitive receptors will be identified and consequent mitigation measures will be proposed to counteract these effects. This assessment is being undertaken by EPAL.
4.7.1 Background
Being close to Southampton Road (A36), ambient noise levels are influenced by road traffic. On the northern side of the Site, traffic on the Southampton Road is the predominant contributor to background levels, whilst the Southern and eastern flanks of the Site are reasonably quiet. Site-specific and local baseline noise measurements have been undertaken in order to establish the ambient noise climate around the Site. Attended baseline surveys were undertaken during September 2011.
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 27 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
Potential receptors of noise effects related to the Development would include existing business and residential premises on Southampton Road that could be exposed to:
noise and vibration related to demolition and construction activities, which would need to consider particular sensitive uses (residential) and buildings (e.g. listed buildings);
noise impacts due to changes in road traffic associated with the proposal; and
other sources of operational noise, including building plant.
The effects of ambient noise on residents of the development, in the context of PPG24 Planning and Noise, are also being considered as part of the assessment. Plant noise emission limits will be determined in the context of BS414214.
4.7.2 Methodology and Scope
Key existing sensitive receptors will be identified for each phase of construction and in relation to the completed Development, which relates largely to operational noise sources. At this stage Willow Cottage and Lower Road have been identified as potential receptors closest to the Site, while properties in the vicinity of Tollgate Road may experience increased traffic noise.
Unmanned baseline noise surveys have been carried out at and around the site boundary, including receptor locations during late September 2011. Earlier measurements in were also carried out at three receptor locations in October 2009. Measurements have been taken to cover the evening, night and morning periods.
Noise predictions will estimate future noise levels at the identified sensitive receptors, using the following procedures.
Construction and demolition noise predictions will follow the BS 522815 methodology. Predicted construction noise levels will then be referred to the existing noise levels, and relative to target noise levels in guidance (AL7216) for specific phases of work.
14 British Standards Institute (1997) Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas BS 4142, 1997, BSI, London 15 British Standards Institute Code of Practice for Noise & Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites BS 5228 Part 1, 2009, Noise BSI, London, 156 pp 16 Department of Environment (DOE): 1976: Advisory Leaflet (AL) 72: Control of noise on building sites. HMSO
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 28 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
Vibration related to construction will be assessed in accordance with the criteria will be specified in relation to protection of structures (including retained structures), based on BS7385: Part 2: 199317 and BS 5228: Part 2:200918, and to avoid nuisance to building occupants (BS 6472-1: 2008)19.
Traffic noise will be predicted by the application of the CRTN20 methodology, and evaluated against significance criteria based on PPG2421, with predictions of the impact being made at receptors relevant to the Site and along the A36 where traffic increase may occur. This assessment will include consideration of appropriate traffic scenarios derived from the Transport Assessment (TA); see Section 4.6, in relation to the scoping of the TA by David Tucker Associates.
An assessment of the impact of service yard and related operations at receptors close to the Site. These would be anticipated to be at Lower Road and Willow Cottage.
The assessment of operational effects of emissions from plant will use the baseline data to derive emission specifications for the plant, based on criteria set out in BS414222. The key receptors would be expected to be those previously identified.
The assessment of significance of predicted changes in the noise environment will be based on relevant guidelines (World Health Organisation Guidelines on Community Noise23, PPG 2416, BS823324, AL7211, IOA/IEMA Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessment25) and the results of the baseline survey.
17 BS7385 (1993) ‘Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings Part 2. Guide to damage levels from ground-borne vibration’. 18 BS5228: Part 2: 2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on Construction and Open Sites. Part 2 Vibration. 89 pp. British Standards Institute 19 British Standard 6472-1:2008 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings, part 1 20 DoT and Welsh Office (1988) Calculation of Road Traffic Noise. HMSO, London. 21 DoE and Welsh Office (1994) Planning Policy Guidance: Planning and Noise. PPG 24. 22 British Standards Institute (1997) Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas BS 4142, 1997, BSI, London 23 WHO (1999) Guidelines for Community Noise. Berglund, B., Lindvall, T. and Schwela, D.H. Eds. World Health Organization, Geneva 24 BS8233:1999: ‘Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction For Buildings’ 25 Institute of Acoustics / Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment Working Party: 2002: Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessment. IOA/IEMA
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 29 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
4.8 Air Quality
This assessment will deal with current air quality, and the statutory framework within which controls to air emissions from future developments will be applied. The air quality assessment will assess both construction and operational phases. This assessment is being undertaken by Air Quality Consultants (AQC) Limited. In addition AQC is undertaking an assessment of odour emissions from the Petersfinger sewage treatment works (STW).
Background
Wiltshire Council (WC) has declared three Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) in the
Salisbury area due to exceedences of the annual average NO2 and the 24-hour PM10 objectives. The Site is located adjacent to the A36 (Southampton Road) approximately 800m east of the Salisbury City centre AQMA. The Site is not affected by the AQMA, although a proportion of the traffic generated is likely to travel through the AQMA.
Effects on air quality are mainly anticipated to result from:
construction works, due to dust emissions from construction site activities, storage areas and lorries – construction traffic will also result in additional vehicle emissions in the short- term;
emissions from traffic related to the site, which will be assessed using the ADMS Roads 3 model, and encompass projected service vehicle and shopper movements.
Methodology and Scope
In relation to construction the prime concern is the control of construction dust emissions. A dust risk assessment will be carried out. The dust risk assessment will take account of: baseline wind and meteorological data for the area; the relative disposition of receptors to sources of dust; and the construction programme and traffic assessment.
The main air quality impact of operation will relate to traffic emissions associated with the development, as well as potential fixed sources such as CHP or large boiler plant should these be included.
The air quality assessment would use the ADMS Roads 3 model or Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), based on traffic flow data from the Transport Assessment.
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 30 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
The significance of any changes in air quality of the completed Development will be assessed during the course of the EIA at residential properties in the proximity of the Development and the A36.
The assessment of significance will refer, inter alia, to the criteria and principles set out in the current UK National Air Quality Strategy 200726, EC Directive 2008/50/EC27 and the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.28 The National Society for Clean Air (NSCA) has also published guidance for planning authorities29, which will be used as the prime basis for assessing the significance of effects.
The assessment will include consideration of appropriate traffic scenarios derived from the Transport Assessment (TA); see Section 4.6, in relation to the scoping of the TA by David Tucker Associates.
4.9 Flood Risk and Water Resources
Given the area of the site and its location, a flood risk assessment (FRA) will be required by the Environment Agency, in accordance with PPS 25 Planning and Flood Risk. The site exceeds 1 ha in area and includes land in flood risk zones 2, 3a and 3b and hence the FRA will need to consider the requirements of PPS25 and also the EA’s Guidance Note 3 for "Developments in Flood Zones 3 and 2 (Excluding Minor Extensions)". The Flood Risk Assessment will be carried out by Canham Consultants. The FRA will form an appendix to the EIA, as suggested by the PPS25 Practice Guide published by DCLG in December 200930. The content of the FRA and approaches are being agreed with the Environment Agency
The water resources part of the EIA will address impacts to groundwater sources, surface waters and changes to water discharges likely to arise as a result of the proposed development. The focus of the assessment will be to ensure that impacts to the Rivers Bourne and Avon, which are parts of the SAC, are prevented during construction and operation. This aspect is being dealt with by EPAL in conjunction with Middlemarch Environmental and Canham Consultants.
26 The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (July 2007), 54pp 27 Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe 21st May 2008 OJ L152/1 11/6/2008. 28 TSO (2010) Environmental Protection The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2007 SI 2007 No.1001. 29 National Society for Clean Air (2006) Development Control: Planning for Air Quality – Updated Guidance from NSCA on dealing with air quality concerns within the development control process; NSCA November 2006. 30 Department of Communities and Local Government (2009) Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide. HMSO
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 31 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
Background
According to the records of the British Geological Survey (BGS) the site is located on Alluvium (clay, silt and sand, locally organic, with gravel), likely overlying 4th River Terrace Deposits (sand and gravel), which in turn overlie Upper Cretaceous Chalk.
Borehole records located on or in close proximity to the application site, obtained from the BGS, indicate that the geological sequence in this area consists of up to 1.7m of topsoil and alluvial deposits (silty clays and peat) overlying between 2.3m and 7.1m of gravel overlying Chalk. The gravel stratum appears to reduce in thickness over a short distance in a northerly direction away from the River Avon i.e. the southern boundary of the application site.
The groundwater vulnerability map of the area (1994)31 indicates that the site is underlain by a major aquifer which relates to the presence of the Chalk at depth beneath the site. The overlying soils are classified as having a high leaching potential. The near-surface site soils readily transmit liquid discharges because they are either shallow or susceptible to rapid by- pass flow directly to rock, gravel or groundwater. The Site is not located within a Source Protection Zone.
There is a total of eleven groundwater abstractions within 1km of the site. The nearest groundwater abstraction is 260m north of the site boundary and is used for general farming and domestic activities. The abstraction is registered to Mrs A E Clarke at Petersfinger Farm the permit is still authorised.
The nearest surface water bodies are the River Avon, which flows in a broadly south easterly direction along the southern boundary of the Site, and the River Bourne which flows south into the Avon at the south western corner of the Site. The chemical water quality of the River Avon was classified under the EA’s General Quality Assessment (GQA) scheme as River Quality Grade A (Very Good). The biological quality is similarly classified as A, although nitrate levels are high and phosphate levels moderate to high. In relation to the water Framework Directive the current chemical quality is good but the ecological potential poor, reflecting the heavily modified hydromorphology. The predicted chemical quality for 2015 is good and the predicted ecological potential is moderate.
Potential impacts of the proposals on surface and ground water may derive from discharges to the water bodies, surface water drainage, accidental spillages of oil or other polluting substances, and dust deposition. It is envisaged that the potential impact of the proposals on surface and ground water will be controlled by the adoption of stringent management
31 NRA (1994) Groundwater Vulnerability Map, North West Hampshire, Sheet 44, 1:100,000, National; Rivers Authority, prepared by Cranfield University, Bedford.
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 32 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
measures implemented under an overall Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The potential for piling to create vertical migration pathways for contamination to enter the Major aquifer will be considered, and appropriate mitigation proposed.
The principal water resources and surface water quality management issues relate to:
the prevention of pollution of surface and ground water and during construction;
prevention of contaminated run-off entering water bodies from the operation of the Development.
Methodology and Scope
The setting of the site in relation to surface water and groundwater resources has been identified through desk-based research and additional on-site water quality monitoring of the river. This has enabled a baseline scenario to be established in terms of ground and surface water sensitivity. Baseline data for the River Avon are being obtained from the Environment Agency and have been supplemented by additional survey data obtained in the period August –October 2011 for the Rivers Bourne and Avon adjacent to the Site.
The assessment of effects on surface and groundwater resources will be qualitative, supported as necessary by quantitative techniques to estimate run-off volumes and quality. The assessment will consider the construction and operational phases of the Development, and involved the following stages:
identification of the key environmental features that control surface water quality and quantity, and their sensitivity to change; this will be based on the baseline description and emphasise those environmental features (physical chemical or geological) that may be affected by the impacts of the Development;
identification of the features of the Development likely to give rise to significant environmental effects on water resources or surface water quality;
assessment of the likely effects, based on either qualitative assessment or, where appropriate, quantification of the likely effect based on key factors identified from the baseline assessment.
The management and control of run-off will form part of the considerations of FRA, inasmuch as the rate of run-off from the Site will need to be controlled to greenfield run-off rates. However, the methods to be adopted will also need to encompass the control of the quality of the run-off as much as the quantity of the run-off. The nature of attenuation ponds or other
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 33 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
features used to control run-off should consider means of managing the quality of water discharged. Multi-stage detention ponds are most likely to provide the best means for ensuring that run-off quality is of an appropriate standard. The current scheme envisages careful segregation of higher risk areas from lower risk areas to help prevent and manage pollution risk.
4.10 Soil Contamination and Ground Conditions
This assessment will address the geological and hydrogeological setting of the site, and the potential risks relating to the site for soil contamination associated with past uses. The potential risks arising as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed development will also be considered. A Phase 1 Desk Study Review and Contamination Risk Assessment has been carried out by Peter Brett Associates. This is being supplemented by additional field surveys co-ordinated by Canham Consultants.
Background
Current and Historical Site Use
The Site currently comprises green open space and historically has not been developed. During its recent history the Site has received imported soil from the nearby Bourne Way retail park development. The imported soil is approximately up to 0.5m thick and covers an area of approximately 2.0 ha. The Site is bordered to the north by the A36, to the east by a sewage works, to the south by the River Avon and to the west by a retail unit and associated car parking.
Environmental Setting
The Site is directly underlain by Alluvium (described as clay, silt and sand, locally organic, with gravel on the local geological map). It is likely that these deposits will overlie the 4th River Terrace Deposits which in turn are likely to overlie Upper Cretaceous Chalk. The Alluvium and River Terrace Deposits are classified as Minor Aquifers by the Environment Agency. The underlying Chalk is classified as a Major Aquifer. The Site soils are classified as having a high leaching potential, i.e. they would be expected to readily transmit liquid discharges.
Receptors
The receptors/resources considered in relation to land contamination are site workers, site occupiers and users, ground and surface waters, ecology and wildlife, and the built
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 34 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
environment. The River Avon, the gravel groundwater and the Chalk groundwater are considered as sensitive receptors.
Methodology and Scope
The baseline position of the current soil and groundwater environment will be set out. Against this, a risk assessment of the site will be carried out in line with the Part II A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which includes the definition of “contaminated land” and under what circumstances it is required to be remediated by local authorities. A source- pathway-receptor Risk Assessment has been undertaken in the context of the proposed redevelopment of the Site to develop a conceptual site model.
It is anticipated that, with respect to new potential sources of contamination associated with the proposed development, the main risks will be related to the construction stage. Care will have to be taken to avoid soil contamination especially during the construction works and the ES will contain details of the control measures, such as those detailed in a Construction Environmental Management Plan, proposed to avoid this.
4.11 Socio-Economic Impacts
Potential impacts associated with the proposed development relate largely to employment issues, and the displacement or disruption to businesses. The assessment will be undertaken by Martin Robeson Planning Practice (MRPP), who are also undertaking the Retail Impact Assessment, in conjunction with EPAL.
Background
The proposals will have employment implications both during construction and the operational phase. Temporary construction employment will be generated, which may have consequential changes to the construction employment market (e.g. labour availability). Additional long-term employment associated with the retail facilities will be estimated in the ES.
There will also be an indirect accommodation of jobs and consequential changes to the wider construction employment market, due to the purchase of materials and services, and the spending of incomes associated with the construction of the project. The Site is currently not in employment use, and therefore the development will not result in any significant direct loss or relocation of jobs due to demolition or displacement of business premises at the Site.
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 35 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
Methodology and Scope
The approach to indirect job creation will follow current guidance32. Baseline social and economic data will be abstracted from the census data published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS), employment data on the NOMIS database, Wiltshire Council and other appropriate sources.
The economic impact of the proposed development focuses upon the assessment of the total number of jobs that are likely to be associated with both the construction of the development and its subsequent occupation by tenants. There are two main categories of employment that are examined - direct employment and indirect employment.
Direct employment comprises:
temporary employment associated with the construction of the development; and
employment associated with the occupiers of the completed development.
Indirect employment comprises:
that arising off-site in response to the demand generated by the proposed development, in relation to construction materials and supplies;
jobs arising off-site through the increased demand for goods and services by the occupiers of the development; and
jobs resulting from employees’ expenditure (both contractors’ and occupants’) on local goods and services.
The assessment approach has followed the general process described below:
estimation of direct employment generated by construction or use of the development; and
estimation of indirect employment (see below) with suitable multipliers, which are selected to take account of leakage of part of the output from outside of the assessment area, such as beyond the council boundaries.
32 English Partnerships (2008), ‘Additionality Guide: A Standard Approach to Assessing the Additional Impact of Interventions’, 3rd edition, English Partnerships.
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 36 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
The estimates of gross direct construction employment would be made by dividing the projected capital cost of construction by the average gross output per construction industry employee33.
The estimation of gross direct employment, resulting from the occupation of the completed development, has been carried out by dividing the proposed floor areas of land uses (in m2 gross or number of hotel rooms) by conventionally applied employment densities34; these are expressed as numbers of employees per unit floor area for particular uses. The approach to indirect job creation will follow current English Partnerships guidance35.
4.12 Waste Management and Energy Issues
Background
This component of the ES will assess the sustainability of the development, including the waste management, materials and methods used in the construction of the Development, and the energy used in its operation.
Methodology and Scope
Waste management issues would arise from:
Spoil arisings from the redevelopment of the Site, which would be estimated (broadly) and implications assessed by reference to waste minimisation ad local facilities for re-use or recycling;
An assessment of the implications and appropriate handling of arisings in the context of the Hazardous Waste Regulations (HWR) 2005 and List of Wastes Regulations (LoWR) 2005, the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations36, ,the Packaging Waste Regulations37 and the Site Waste Management Plan Regulations 2008 (SWMP2008 Regulations)38.
33 Office for National Statistics (2009) Construction Statistics Annual 34 English Partnerships (2001) Employment Densities; a Simple Guide, Arup Economics and Planning, 18pp 35 English Partnerships (2008), ‘Additionality Guide: A Standard Approach to Assessing the Additional Impact of Interventions’, 3rd edition, English Partnerships. 36 HMSO (2006) Environmental Protection: The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations SI 2006/3289 37 The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/871, which implements EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste 94/62/EC 38 TSO (2008) Site Waste Management Plans Regulations (SI 2008/314)
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 37 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
In terms of the operational site, waste volumes would be estimated based on the land use schedules for the application, taking account of the potential for food, general and other wastes from retail-related activities. The suitable provision of sufficient waste storage on Site would be estimated and matched with the logistics strategy and location of main access and egress points determined by the David Tucker Transport Consultants.
A part of the EIA will set out the elements of waste and energy sustainability in relation to re- use of previously developed land, transport accessibility and design of the buildings, in the context of the Government’s Sustainability Strategy, PPS1 and PPS1 supplement on climate change. The assessment will make references sustainable buildings guidance and the energy strategy. The latter will address issues of embodied energy, façade design and specification, benchmarking of carbon emission per unit area against best practice. The waste strategy would also be set out in relation to key planning policy objectives.
The assessment would evaluate the potential effects by reference to:
key national, regional and local policies and objectives on waste and energy sustainability;
the development proposals (either in detail or as objectives) and in the context of the criteria set out in national strategies, planning policies and objectives.
4.13 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts refer to the effects of the development that may interact in an additive or subtractive manner with those of other developments that are not currently in existence, but may be in existence or implemented the time the development is commenced.
In the current case this will include the consideration of schemes (over 20,000 m2) in the vicinity of the site, which have received planning permission or are currently under construction. The range of cumulative impacts to be considered will include:
transport issues, including cumulative effects on road traffic, rail and pedestrian, and related secondary impacts such as noise and air quality;
townscape and visual effects, including cumulative effects on views; and
construction effects and related impacts such as noise, dust and construction traffic.
The zone of cumulative effects of the latter category will be limited to a radius of about 200m around the site boundary.
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 38 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
5.0 The Inventory of Effects
The previous section provided an overview of potential environmental issues associated with the proposal and outlined which impacts are likely to be significant, which are likely to be negligible and which require further research.
The outcomes of the scoping exercise are summarised in the following Table 4. It must be emphasised that the matrix summarises potential impacts without any account being taken of mitigation.
Table 4: Inventory of Potential Impacts Associated with the Development and their Severity during Construction and Operation Topic Area Potential Impact/Effect Phase Construction Operation Townscape, Setting of sensitive landscape areas and -- -- Heritage, features (temporary) (needs further Landscape and Effect on character/setting of listed and assessment) Visual locally listed buildings or character/setting of nearby conservation areas Effect on views and visual amenity - ++ (temporary) Ecology Impact on local ecosystems -- -/+ (temporary) Archaeological Effects on archaeological resources on -- - Impacts site Noise and Increase in ambient noise levels at -- -- Vibration sensitive receptors (temporary) (depending on traffic flows) Increase in vibration at sensitive / / receptors due to construction activities – Unlikely to be Not expected to distances are large between sources and significant be significant receptors Air Quality Emissions of pollutants to air - -- (depending on traffic flows) Dust deposition -- -/+ (temporary)
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 39 Salisbury Gateway LLP Salisbury Gateway Development
Table 4: Inventory of Potential Impacts Associated with the Development and their Severity during Construction and Operation Topic Area Potential Impact/Effect Phase Construction Operation Water Resources Effects on water quality in the nearest -- --/+ water-bodies to the site. Groundwater contamination -- -/+ Changes in water drainage on site - -- Soil Accidental spillage of polluting -- - Contamination substances Mobilisation of potential contaminants - -/+ Socio-economic Employment creation + ++ effects (temporary) Energy Increased consumption of natural - -- resources Waste Increased production of waste -- -- The preliminary evaluations reported in the table are to be considered potential, and refer to effects prior to the implementation of mitigation measures. They provide an indication of the weighting of importance to be given to issues, rather than an assessment of significance of the effects. The Table also indicates whether the effects would be mainly associated with the construction of the development or its operation. Permanent impacts caused by the construction or presence of new structures have been attributed to the construction phase only.
Key to potential effects prior to mitigation - minor adverse effect + minor beneficial effect -- moderate adverse affect ++ moderate beneficial effect --- major adverse effect +++ major beneficial effect / negligible impact can be scoped out
October 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment-Scoping Report 40 Salisbury Gateway Environmental Statement Volume 4: Appendices
Appendix 2.2: Scoping Opinion Letter and Statutory Wiltshire Council Consultee responses
Salisbury Gateway Environmental Statement Volume 4: Appendices
Appendix 4.1: Ecological Management Strategy Capita Salisbury Gateway - Commercial in Confidence Sainsburys Quality Management 04 March 2014
Quality Management
Job No CS/070894
Project Salisbury Gateway - Sainsburys
Location Salisbury, Wiltshire
Title Ecological Management Strategy
Document Ref CS/900101/EcoStrat/03 Issue / Revision 03
File reference K:\ZENV\CS_JOBS\Projects\CS070894 _Sainsburys Ecology Strategy\B.Work_Tasks\4. Strategy\Sainsburys Ecological Management Strategy 04 Mar 2014_Rev03.docx
Date 04 March 2014
Prepared by 1 Damien Nixon BSc (Hons) MSc Signature (for file) MCIEEM AMIFM.
Checked by Roger Cooper MA(Hons) MALD Signature (for file) CMLI CEnv MSEE
Authorised by Roger Cooper MA(Hons) MALD Signature (for file) CMLI CEnv MSEE
Revision Status / History
Rev Date Issue / Purpose/ Comment Prepared Checked Authorised
01 20/01/2014 Draft for comment DN RC RC
02 22/01/2014 Final DN RC RC
03 05/03/2014 Revised DN RC RC
Salisbury Gateway - Commercial in Confidence Sainsburys 1/ Summary 04 March 2014
Contents 1. Summary 2 2. Introduction 4 2.1 Need for Strategy 4 2.2 The site 5 2.3 Habitats and species currently found within the site footprint 6 3. Sainsbury’s Ecological Management Strategy 7 3.1 Strategic objectives 7 3.2 Strategy development 7 3.3 How will the strategy link with existing designations, local and national policy and current legislation? 8 4. Achieving the strategic objectives 10 4.1 Priority Actions 12 5. Conclusion 14 5.1 Safeguarding and Enhancing Biodiversity 14
Figures Figure 1-1: Proposed site layout for the Salisbury Gateway (to be read in conjunction with the Salisbury Gateway Landscape Proposals Design Report) 2 Figure 2-1: Location of the Salisbury Gateway site 5 Figure 3-1: Diagram illustrating the four core drivers for delivering the Salisbury Gateway Ecological Management Strategy 7 Figure 5-1: Ecosystem services associated with the Salisbury Gateway development proposal 14
Tables Table 4-1: Identification of strategic objectives, their delivery mechanisms and associated benefits 10 Table 4-2: Identified strategy objectives and associated actions 12
Appendices Appendix A – Salisbury Gateway Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme & Management Plan
1 Salisbury Gateway - Commercial in Confidence Sainsburys 1/ Summary 04 March 2014
1. Summary
The Salisbury Gateway Ecological Management Strategy is aimed at the individuals and organisations who will be actively involved in making decisions that affect the biodiversity of the Southampton Road Sainsbury’s site, with particular emphasis on the successful integration and management of created wetland and terrestrial ecosystems with the natural adjoining environments. Decision makers may include Sainsbury’s management, charitable groups (e.g. Local Wildlife/Rivers Trusts) and adjacent land managers, all of whom can use this document to facilitate further discussion and specific action towards more coordinated ecological management in the vicinity of the Salisbury Gateway Sainsbury’s site.
Figure 1-1: Proposed site layout for the Salisbury Gateway (to be read in conjunction with the Salisbury Gateway Landscape Proposals Design Report)
The main goal of this strategy is to create an adaptable framework that will provide biodiversity goals and robust guidance on the management processes for the site to protect the site’s existing biodiversity, and enhance and improve habitats that support protected species, species of principal importance, and LBAP species.
The proposed biodiversity enhancement, protection and management measures identified for the Southampton Road, Salisbury Gateway, for example the creation of water meadow habitat akin to the natural adjacent meadow habitats found along the banks of the River Avon, have undergone a robust planning process comprising a clear two stage process:
2 Salisbury Gateway - Commercial in Confidence Sainsburys 1/ Summary 04 March 2014
• Strategic - development of an ecological management strategy to guide the decision making process and set the biodiversity and socio-environmental objectives for the Salisbury Gateway development; and, • Planning and Implementation - development of the Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme & Management Plan (BESMP) that provides details of the selected habitats for creation and enhancement, with targeted management measures to ensure site establishment and achievement of the strategic objectives.
The main focus of the Ecological Management Strategy and the BESMP has been on the wetland and riparian habitats, and the prioritisation of activities through the ecological action plan. The action plan will set out the framework to support the identification of opportunities for ecological enhancements and interim/ ongoing management processes, enabling the site to successfully establish and integrate with surrounding environment. Through the careful design and informed management of the site, Sainsbury’s will provide an ecologically important socio- environmental resource for the area.
3 Salisbury Gateway - Commercial in Confidence Sainsburys 2/ Introduction 04 March 2014
2. Introduction
Vision
“To develop a living landscape that integrates habitats typically associated with Salisbury, with modern day landuse through the creation, management and enhancement of appropriate habitats to promote biodiversity, sustainability and living landscape concepts”
2.1 Need for Strategy
This strategy has primarily been developed in accordance with Sainsbury’s Environmental Policy and submitted to support the planning application for the development of the Southampton Road, Salisbury, Sainsbury’s site (Salisbury Gateway). The strategy is intended to signpost the way forward for management of the scheme’s soft estate and the ecological resource and landscape that it embodies, so that following construction and during ongoing operation, the quality and functionality of the sites assets and its interactions with its environments are protected and enhanced, and opportunities for community benefits are delivered.
An ecological management strategy is required to provide an adaptable framework for the integrated management of the site’s wetland and terrestrial habitats, to guide the actions and responsibilities for subsequent site habitat management plans that detail responsibilities, management interventions and programme, the first adaptation of which has already been developed in the form of the Salisbury Gateway Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme and Management Plan (BESMP). The strategy forms the foundation of the future ecological management process of the Salisbury Gateway, particularly in relation to the ecosystem function of the site’s wetland and terrestrial environments, whilst also lending support to the documentation/evidence base required to discharge any planning conditions and any legal obligations, particularly with regards protected species and designated habitats.
This strategy and the associated BESMP should be read in conjunction and be considered live documents, as the proposed prescriptions may need to be refined season by season. For example, ecosystems change with time and species disperse both into and out of sites. It is therefore important to consider the proposed management prescriptions from a broad ecological perspective at the appropriate season before it is authorised or carried out. Failure to do this can result in unforeseen ecological damage. Furthermore it may be necessary to “tweak” management prescriptions to ensure the strategic objectives are achieved, the requirement for any such modifications will be informed through expert input from the advisory panel once appointed. The proposed management prescriptions identified within the BESMP have been appended to this strategy to facilitate navigation between documents (Appendix A).
4 Salisbury Gateway - Commercial in Confidence Sainsburys 2/ Introduction 04 March 2014
Through the measures identified within this strategy and the implementation of the prescriptions identified within the BESMP, Sainsbury’s will seek to continually improve and enhance the site’s existing and proposed habitats, encouraging the colonisation of protected species, species of principal importance, and LBAP species, whilst offering an environment that will not only be aesthetically pleasing, but also act as a controlled educational resource for the local community and ultimately deliver the site strategic biodiversity and socio-environmental objectives.
Sainsbury’s recognise that to successfully manage, maintain and enhance the site’s wetland and terrestrial ecological value, it will be necessary to bring in specialist technical advisors and managers with expertise in the field of aquatic and terrestrial ecology, and habitat management. An advisory panel and ecological management team, with representatives from organisations such as the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, Natural England, Environment Agency, the Rivers Trust and other specialist consultants, will be established to provide required ongoing technical and management advice.
The development of this strategy and the BESMP, through the structured two stage planning process as identified in Section 1, illustrates Sainsbury’s environmental commitment to safeguarding and enhancing the protected species and habitats that occur at the site through effective habitat management and enhancement.
2.2 The site
The Sainsbury’s development site is located to the east of Salisbury positioned off Southampton Road (A36), adjacent to the Southampton Road Commercial Area which includes large retailers such as Halfords, B&Q, Tesco and Matalan.
The site is approximately 8.8 ha and is dominated by neutral grassland and tall ruderal vegetation, with swamp occurring in conjunction with wet ditches in the southwest and through the centre of the site. Scrub, hedgerows, scattered trees, amenity grassland and bare ground are also present through out the site.
Immediately to the south of the site is the River Avon, a European designated Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and nationally Figure 2-1: Location of the Salisbury Gateway site designated Site Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). At this location the river starts to become a braided system resulting from historic water meadow habitats and channels.
5 Salisbury Gateway - Commercial in Confidence Sainsburys 2/ Introduction 04 March 2014
2.3 Habitats and species currently found within the site footprint
To protect, enhance and manage the biodiversity of the site it is important to understand the species and habitats present within the site footprint. Through a recent Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) the overall ecological value of the existing site has been determined to be low to moderate, with potential to be increased to a high ecological value as a result of well planned development and subsequent management.
Habitats currently found on site comprise twelve main vegetation communities, which include mesotrophic wet and dry grasslands; open vegetation; woodland/scrub; hedgerow; and swamp/tall-herb fen, with a channel of the River Avon SAC acting as the most southern boundary. The greatest interest is along the southern edge, south-east corner and along the drainage ditches where vegetation communities have formed complex mosaics.
The identified habitats and associated vegetation communities currently support, or has potential to support, European protected species such as otter, bats, GCN, Atlantic salmon, and river lamprey. Other species observed on the site included breeding and overwintering birds, reptiles (low population of grass snake), water vole, water shrew and white clawed crayfish.
Full details of the ecological aspects and value of the site can be found in the Ecological Impact Assessment undertaken by Middlemarch Environmental Ltd (August 2013).
6 Salisbury Gateway - Commercial in Confidence Sainsburys 3/ Sainsbury’s Ecological 04 March 2014 Management Strategy
3. Sainsbury’s Ecological Management Strategy
3.1 Strategic objectives
Sainsbury’s have committed to three main ecological management objectives for the Salisbury Gateway site. These are:
1. To achieve a net biodiversity gain for the overall site, for example targeting an increase of at least six plant species compared to pre development levels (at least six plant species is a criterion of BREEAM Retail Landuse and Ecology Assessment to enhance the ecological value of the site as a result of development); 2. To create in excess of 1 ha of managed and maintained new wetland and terrestrial habitat that will provide valuable ecological habitat, and contribute to sustainable drainage and improved water quality; and, 3. To create a controlled access environmental/ecological education resource that can be utilised by schools and local groups to facilitate local ecological awareness and knowledge sharing.
3.2 Strategy development
Four main themes have been identified that form the core drivers in the development of this ecological management strategy, and which are key to the successfully delivery of the strategy goals:
Protect, enhance and Promote habitat manage connectivity
Ecological Management Strategy
Encourage and support Prioritise management sustainable habitat use actions
Figure 3-1: Diagram illustrating the four core drivers for delivering the Salisbury Gateway Ecological Management Strategy
By implementing the processes and actions identified within this strategy, Sainsbury’s will:
7 Salisbury Gateway - Commercial in Confidence Sainsburys 3/ Sainsbury’s Ecological 04 March 2014 Management Strategy
• Protect, enhance and manage the Salisbury Gateway site habitats (wetland and terrestrial) and associated ecology (protected species, species of principal importance, and LBAP species). • Promote habitat connectivity to support the spread of species between wetland habitats, terrestrial habitats or between both, for example wetlands naturally under go succession from one wetland habitat type to another due to vegetation growth and changes in water levels. • Encourage and support sustainable habitat use, recognising the need to balance adverse impacts with any derived benefits; and, • Prioritise management actions, including those actions set out within this document, which will be prioritised by stakeholders.
3.3 How will the strategy link with existing designations, local and national policy and current legislation?
UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework – the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework has now succeeded the UK BAP, however the UK BAP lists of priority species and habitats remain important and valuable reference sources. In autumn 2010, the 192 parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity renewed their commitment to take action to halt the alarming global declines of biodiversity and to ensure that by 2020 our natural environment is resilient and can continue to provide the ecosystem services that are essential for life.
The proposed development will contribute to the aims and targets of the UK Post 2010 Biodiversity Framework by creating an environment that contributes to delivering ‘regulation’, ‘cultural’ and ‘supporting’ ecosystem services, such as wildlife diversity, water quality, aesthetic, education and flood storage/regulation, rather than focussing on obtaining ‘provisioning’ ecosystem services such as crops or grazing that can be detrimental to other ecological components.
The River Avon Special Area of Conservation (SAC) - much of the River Avon, its tributaries and some areas of adjacent wetland are designated as a SAC due to the presence of internationally important habitats and species. SAC’s are site’s designated by the government under Article 3 of the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna (Habitats Directive) and considered to be of European importance for nature conservation, receiving the highest level of legal protection.
The River Avon SAC is primarily designated for the presence of the following Annex I habitats - water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation, and the presence of the following Annex II species Desmoulins' whorl snail, sea lamprey, brook lamprey, Atlantic salmon and bullhead.
Although Desmoulins’ whorl snail were absent from the site during the ecological surveys, the enhancement of the site will increase the value of the site for this species in the future. Likewise, by creating in line water retention ponds and ensuring the floodplain connectivity is maintained, the value for fish species will also be increased potentially providing valuable refuge and nursery areas. It is not anticipated that the Salisbury Gateway development will have any effect on the rivers Annex I habitat designation.
8 Salisbury Gateway - Commercial in Confidence Sainsburys 3/ Sainsbury’s Ecological 04 March 2014 Management Strategy
The River Avon Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) – SSSI’s are notified under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981, as amended where the site is significant for certain habitats and species covered by the Habitats Directive. The River Avon and its tributaries are of national and international importance for their wildlife communities with the Avon richer and more varied than in most chalk streams, with over 180 species of aquatic plant having been recorded, one of the most diverse fish faunas in Britain and a wide range of aquatic invertebrates.
The proposed planting of native (or of local provenance) species during the development of the site will be in consideration of the existing aquatic flora present at this location and in line with the SSSI designation. Additionally, the removal of non native species (Himalayan balsam and Japanese knotweed) will assist in maintaining the SSSI status (Grade 1*), and as indicated above, the proposed habitats and vegetation will increase the ecological value for protected species.
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires that all inland and coastal waters within defined river basin districts must reach at least good status by 2015 and defines how this should be achieved through the establishment of environmental objectives and ecological targets for surface waters. The establishment of a reedbed system within the created wetland areas will contribute to improving water quality in this stretch by providing additional filtering of surface water runoff and facilitating nutrient and water cycling, whilst the riparian enhancement will increase habitat for invertebrates and fish that will contribute to the River Avon maintaining its good ecological status through this stretch of river.
Local Planning Policy - The saved policies from the Local Plans produced by the former district councils in Wiltshire will remain in place until superseded by policies in the South Wiltshire Core Strategy, which was adopted 7 February 2012 and forms part of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (in preparation).
Of relevance to this Ecological Management Strategy are the saved Local Plan policies relating to the Natural Environment and Conservation, the forthcoming Wiltshire Green Infrastructure Strategy and the South Wiltshire Core Strategy. The South Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the Council's spatial vision, key objectives and overall principles for development in the area of the former Salisbury District Council.
The proposed development has been sympathetically designed to address the requirements of existing and forthcoming planning policy. For example, the proposal includes the creation of 1.45 ha of wetland habitat and enhancement of retained habitats that have been designed to work together to sustain ecological value and function, providing connectivity between the identified designated habitats and adjacent sites. By maintaining and enhancing the green/blue infrastructure, species are able to colonise and populate new areas, thus increasing their range, and also helping species adapt to climate change.
9 Salisbury Gateway - Commercial in Confidence Sainsburys 4/ Achieving the strategic objectives 04 March 2014
4. Achieving the strategic objectives
The strategic objectives for the Salisbury Gateway Ecological Management Strategy have been identified through an assessment of the current ecological value of the site and the design iterations for scheme proposals, seeking to capture available opportunities and address potential pressures on the site’s existing and future biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.
Following planning approval to the scheme, the strategy and its objectives and actions described in the following tables will be developed in consultation with the stakeholders to finalise responsibilities and mechanisms for delivery, including detailed targets, prescriptions and programme, together with the monitoring and review process.
Table 4-1: Identification of strategic objectives, their delivery mechanisms and associated benefits
Strategic Objective 1 - To achieve a net biodiversity gain for the overall site for example, targeting an increase of at least six plant species compared to pre development levels (a criterion of BREEAM Retail Landuse and Ecology Assessment to enhance the ecological value of the site as a result of development).
Delivery Benefits
Provide wildlife targeted landscaping to maintain Habitat heterogeneity will be increased and habitat connectivity and wildlife integrity, whilst connectivity maintained and focussed to encourage creating a transition from semi natural habitats to free passage and settlement of target species the urban fringe of Salisbury. (amphibians, invertebrates, small mammals, birds and reptiles). Maintain and enhance the above mentioned habitat typologies, and also create a sequence of linked By increasing plant species diversity and open water habitats incorporating reed beds, maintaining the enhanced and created habitats a swamp and wet grassland swards. mosaic of habitats will become available that will be valuable for target species as well as being Plant species diversity will be increased through aesthetically pleasing. strategic planting. Within the informal areas, such as the created wetland and landscaped areas, all planting will be native and of local provenance and will include native trees and shrubs, hedgerows, wildflower rich swards and wetland vegetation communities (reedbeds and wet grassland swards). Non native invasive species Himalayan balsam and Japanese knotweed are currently present on the site and will be removed to protect existing native species and encourage further establishment.
Strategic Objective 2 - To create in excess of 1 ha of managed and maintained new wetland and terrestrial habitat that will provide valuable ecological habitat, and contribute to sustainable drainage and improved water quality.
10 Salisbury Gateway - Commercial in Confidence Sainsburys 4/ Achieving the strategic objectives 04 March 2014
Delivery Benefits
1.45 ha of new wetland habitat will be created The created wetland habitats and associated within the Salisbury Gateway site that will be features will provide valuable habitat for designed with wildlife and water attenuation as a invertebrates, reptiles, and small mammals, whilst key consideration. offering a sustainable solution to the surface water drainage from the retail development area and The newly created wetland habitat will constitute contribute to the River Avon flood storage and approximately 16.5% of the overall site and will regulation. include areas of open water, swamp, reed beds and wet grassland swards. The proposed design of the wetland habitats will reflect the habitats of the adjacent areas and 0.38 ha of landscaped areas will be created nearby East Harnham Meadows. between the wetland and retail development areas. The wetland habitat creation will contribute to Throughout the formal areas of the retail statutory stakeholder habitat creation targets and development there will be pockets of landscaped the creation of habitats of principal importance for areas and planting of trees, shrubs and grassland. nature conservation. For example, the Environment A BESMP has been developed that prescribes Agency have set targets for habitat creation to specific management actions and timescales for help meet flood risk and Water Framework the identified habitat typologies. Directive obligations, one being the flood risk outcome measure 4a that relates to the number of Sainsbury’s will also develop a habitat hectares of water dependent habitat created or database/central information source and an improved to help meet the objectives of the Water adaptable framework to allow the database/ source Framework Directive. to be updated and be practically used to inform It is also envisaged that the creation of the linked future management actions. wetland ponds will establish into Habitats of Principal Importance, i.e. “Individual ponds or groups of ponds with a limited geographic distribution recognised as important because of their age, rarity of type or landscape context and which are defined as permanent and/or seasonal standing water bodies no larger than 2 ha in extent”
Strategic Objective 3 - To create a controlled access environmental education resource that can be utilised by local organisations, schools and groups.
Delivery Benefits
Engagement with local schools and community Management of potentially competing interests to groups to optimise activity and access within the achieve best available outcomes. context of the site’s ecological sensitivities and operation of the retail outlet It is envisaged that activities such as pond dipping, bird watching, and wildlife talks could be A secure access boardwalk that leads down to the undertaken from this area of the site to schools and river frontage through the natural wetland habitats other local community groups of interest. to a platform on the river bank will be constructed to accommodate small organised groups for Education boards will be installed at key points of education purposes. interest along the boardwalk to facilitate environmental knowledge transfer. The boardwalk will be constructed from
11 Salisbury Gateway - Commercial in Confidence Sainsburys 4/ Achieving the strategic objectives 04 March 2014
sustainable, locally sourced materials and To ensure user safety access to the boardwalk will designed to enable access for all. be restricted by a locked gateway to allow only organised and supervised groups.
4.1 Priority Actions
This strategy highlights some of the main identifiable issues associated with the site, suggesting routes for action. However, it is important to reiterate that priorities will change over time in response to changing circumstances and as such the strategy and the associated BESMP should be considered live documents that are reviewed and amended to accommodate changes in species composition, for example through wetland succession, with “priority” actions amended/added accordingly.
One of the key actions will be the compilation of a habitat database/central information source for the site and an adaptable framework to allow this to be updated and be practically used. Secondly, to maintain and enhance biodiversity, the stakeholders should be fully informed of the site’s objectives, be aware of the site’s sensitive environments and understand the proposed management processes/action.
Table 4-2: Identified strategy objectives and associated actions
Proposed Objective Action Owner timescales
To achieve a net 1. Identify enhancements to the ecological features Ecological Year 1 – biodiversity gain within the Salisbury Gateway site, and contractors ongoing for the overall site appropriate methodology for measuring supervised by achievement Ecological management team
2. Update the BESMP to incorporate enhancements, As above Year 1 – detailed targets and monitoring requirements ongoing
3 Prepare emergency response plan for flood and As above Year 1 – other events. ongoing
4 Manage and further enhance the ecological Ecological Year 1 – features within the Salisbury Gateway site in management team ongoing accordance with the BESMP with input from technical panel
5. Compilation of a habitat database/central Ecological Year 1 information source management team
6. Update of the habitat database/central information Ecological Annually source management team
7. Monitor ecological assets. As above Annually
12 Salisbury Gateway - Commercial in Confidence Sainsburys 4/ Achieving the strategic objectives 04 March 2014
Proposed Objective Action Owner timescales
8. Reporting on biodiversity status As above Annually
9. Undertake Strategy review As above Annually
To create in 1. Hold a stakeholder workshop to gain stakeholder Sainsbury’s, Q1 excess of 1 ha of input and buy in with regards strategic objectives, environmental managed and the proposed management of the site and consultants, and maintained new establishment of advisory panel and ecological design team management team wetland and terrestrial habitat
2. Appoint technical advisors and ecological Sainsbury’s Start-up management team
3. Prepare detailed monitoring programme and Environmental In incorporate into BESMP. consultants preparation
4. Prepare Construction Environmental Environmental In Management Plan consultants preparation
5. Appoint recognised experienced ecological Sainsbury’s Q1 contractors to undertake construction of the wetland and terrestrial habitats
To create a 1. Hold a stakeholder workshop to gain stakeholder Environmental Q1 controlled access input and buy in with regards educational consultants and environmental potential of the site. site management education team resource
2. Prepare education activity plan and environmental Ecological Q3 education boards management team
3. Run education workshops/days/classes post Sainsbury’s Ongoing construction
4. Obtain feedback and review education activity Ecological Annually plan management team
13 Salisbury Gateway - Commercial in Confidence Sainsburys 5/ Conclusion 04 March 2014
5. Conclusion
5.1 Safeguarding and Enhancing Biodiversity
Proposed design features such as the creation of reptile hibernacula, an otter holt, the installation of bat and bird boxes and the bespoke landscaping of the wetland and surrounding areas to create suitable water vole habitat, demonstrate Sainsbury’s commitment to protecting and enhancing the Salisbury Gateway biodiversity.
Biodiversity underpins ecosystems, and the benefits of ecosystem services all depend on biodiversity. The proposed Salisbury Gateway wetland areas, and other enhanced terrestrial and riparian habitats, will provide a number of ecosystem services that will be of benefit to both Sainsbury’s and the surrounding communities.
Ecosystem Services Realisable benefits for Salisbury Gateway
Provisioning Regulation Cultural • Livestock • Pollution • Aesthetic control/purrification • Fisheries • Educational • Flood regulation • Wild species diversity • Flow regulation
Supporting Services Soil formation, Nutrient cycling, Water cycling, Primary production
Figure 5-1: Ecosystem services associated with the Salisbury Gateway development proposal
Wetland and aquatic ecosystems have been radically changed by past anthropogenic activities to increase provisioning services such as agriculture and aquaculture, at the expense of other regulating, cultural and supporting ecosystem services. The Salisbury Gateway development provides an opportunity to buck the trend and provide an ecosystem that can contribute to the regulation, cultural and supporting services, for example:
• by ensuring the floodplain remains an active floodplain the proposed wetland area can play a key part in flood and flow regulation by supporting the natural variation of hydrological processes, allowing water to flow over the banks and inundate the wetland areas. Floodplain connectivity plays a key role in determining the level of biological productivity and diversity of rivers and their flood plains; and,
14 Salisbury Gateway - Commercial in Confidence Sainsburys 5/ Conclusion 04 March 2014
• by limiting access to the wetland areas to only controlled organised groups the site can safely establish into a wildlife sanctuary for protected species such as water vole, otter, grass snakes, great crested newts and birds.
As a by product rather than a targeted product, the wetland areas could also provide provisioning services such as wetland grazing for sheep/cattle, or as refuge/nursery areas for important fish species that will help protect and improve important game and coarse fish species.
By committing to the creation and enhancement of the identified wetland and terrestrial habitats, and managing and maintaining the site utilising an informed specialist advisory panel and management team, Sainsbury’s will provide an important environmental resource that will be beneficial to both biodiversity and the local community, whilst assisting in the delivery of local biodiversity targets.
15 Commercial in Confidence
Appendix A – Salisbury Gateway Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme and Management Plan A.1 Prescriptions
Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire. Nature Conservation Strategy Part 2: Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme & Management Plan RT-MME-113614-02RevB
11. PRESCRIPTIONS
Tables 11.1 to 11.5 present the management prescriptions for the Site at Southampton Road and proposed enhancement. The year column presents information on the suggested timescale of management activities where year 1 represents the first season after completion of the development. In year 11, the management should be reviewed and prescriptions determined for the following 10 years. This process should go on in perpetuity.
All of the above measures should be taken with management prescriptions for other species groups and the legal protection of protected animal and plant species, especially at critical periods such as the bird nesting season.
Ecological management should not become generic. In order to maintain the existing biodiversity resource of the site, it will be necessary to evaluate each proposed action by an ecological site visit. Ecosystems change with time and species disperse both into and out of sites. It is important therefore to consider the proposed management task from a broad ecological perspective at the appropriate season before it is authorised or carried out. Failure to do this can result in unforeseen ecological damage.
Baseline conditions should be re-assessed as necessary the year prior to development commencing.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd Page 62 Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire. Nature Conservation Strategy Part 2: Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme & Management Plan RT-MME-108361-02RevB
Prescription Project Year 1. Ecological Surveys and Monitoring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Breeding birds X Bats X Botanical survey X Aquatic fauna X 1.1 Baseline survey of ecological interests Reptiles X Snails X Amphibians X Invasive plants (Japanese knotweed & X Himalayan balsam) Identification of important features and 1.2 Detailed habitat mapping X X X X X characteristics. Nesting birds X X X X Bats X X Botanical survey X X X X Aquatic fauna X X X X 1.3 Monitoring of changes Reptiles X X X X Snails X X X X Amphibians X X X X Invasive plants (Japanese knotweed & X X X X X X X X X X Himalayan balsam) Bird boxes X X X X X X X X X X Bat boxes X X X X X X X X X X Botanical survey X X X X X X
Invasive plants (Japanese knotweed & X X X X X X Himalayan balsam) X X X X X X 1.3 Auditing Aquatic fauna Reptiles X X X X X X Snails X X X X X X Amphibians X X X X X X Invertebrates X X X X X X Created and enhanced habitats X X X X X X
Table 11.1 Management Prescriptions – Surveys and Monitoring
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd Page 63 Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire. Nature Conservation Strategy Part 2: Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme & Management Plan RT-MME-108361-02RevB
11.1 GRASSLAND HABITATS
Prescription Project Year
2. Short Turf Plots 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To pre treat with herbicide in Spring X
2.1 Short Turf Establishment To cultivate ground to provide a fine tilth, sow seeds and roll firm. X
Seeding in September/October X
Cut Grass (Min x12 pa). X X X X X X X X X X Sward height 50 mm. Remove arisings 2.2 Management of Short Turf Treat noxious and notifiable weed species with a glyphosate X X X X X X X X X X based herbicide 3. Wildflower Sward Plots
To pre treat with herbicide in Spring X
To cultivate ground to provide a fine tilth, sow seeds and roll firm. X
To cut sward when sward reaches 100 mm. Arisings to be 3.1 Wildflower Sward removed from plots. Cut in April and September during 1st and 2nd X X Establishment growing seasons. Treat noxious and notifiable weed species with a glyphosate X based herbicide
Seeding in September/October X
Cut annually no shorter than 75 mm in August/September X X X X X X X X X X
Remove grass cuttings from habitat areas. X X X X X X X X X X
3.2 Wildflower Sward Treat noxious and notifiable weed species with a glyphosate X X X X X X X X X X Management based herbicide Leave discrete piles of grass cuttings on edge of scrub. X X X X X X X X X X Ensure no fertiliser, herbicide or pesticide applications. Drainage, X X X X X X X X X X reseeding, and cultivation only as specified and agreed by ECW.
Table 11.2 Management Prescriptions – Short Turf and Wildflower Swards
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd Page 64 Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire. Nature Conservation Strategy Part 2: Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme & Management Plan RT-MME-108361-02RevB
Prescription Project Year
4. Wet grassland/water meadow
Details to confirmed depending on management option, e.g. cutting or grazing and in consultation
with land managers Table 11.3 Management Prescriptions – Wet grassland/water meadow
Prescription Project Year
5. Ruderal vegetation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To pre treat with herbicide in Spring X X X
To cultivate ground to provide a fine tilth, sow seeds and roll X X X 5.1 Ruderal Plot Establishment firm.
Treat noxious and notifiable weed species with a glyphosate X X X based herbicide To be cut every second year in rotation in Sept/Oct. Individual X X X X X X X X X X areas to be cut to be no more than 30 m Remove cuttings from habitat areas X X X X X X X X X X
5.2 Ruderal Plot Management Treat noxious and notifiable weed species with a glyphosate X X X X X X X X X X based herbicide
To rotovate and reseed in a 6 year rotation but to be started in X X X X X X X Year 4
Table 11.4 Management Prescriptions – Ruderal Vegetation
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd Page 65 Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire. Nature Conservation Strategy Part 2: Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme & Management Plan RT-MME-108361-02RevB
11.2 TREE AND SHRUB HABITATS
Prescription Project Year
6. Wildlife friendly Trees and Shrubs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Improve soil condition prior to and during planting with peat-free X compost and bone meal. Trees to be planted in groups of three to five, at 2 m spacing, 6.1 Planting X with the shrubs around the perimeter (also in groups). The trees and shrubs will be protected with tree guards/shelters X or rabbit fencing. Improve soil condition prior to and during planting with peat-free X compost and bone meal. Straighten leaning trees and shrubs. X X X X X
Keep shrub planting beds clear of weeds by maintaining full X X X X X thickness of mulch. Hand pull aggressive and noxious weeds.
Apply glyphosate herbicide if necessary. X X X X X X X X X X 6.2 Tree and Shrub bed Establishment Pest control: use a non-cumulative pesticide only where strictly X X X X X X X X X X necessary.
Where standard and multi-stem trees are planted into open areas, maintain a weed free circle with a minimum diameter of X X X X X 1m around each individual tree. Ensure that trees and shrubs are not damaged by use of X X X X X X X X X X mowers, nylon filament rotary cutters and similar power tools Minimal work to trees. Pruning to retain health, and shape as required but likely every second year following reaching X X X X maturity 6.3 Tree Management Long-term coppice, likely to commence after first 10 years Pollarding of existing pollards, i.e. willows. To be done on rotation so a range of growth occurs across the site. Assumes X X X trees not re-pollarded pre-development 6.4 Shrub Bed Management Shrub beds maintenance X X X X X X X X X X Trim as necessary so that there is no more than 10% scrub
6.5 Retained native scrub within grassland and swamp habitats (late winter) Coppice on 2 – 5 year rotation starting in year 5 (late winter) X X X X X X
6.6 Deadwood management Dead trees to be retained where possible. X X X X X X X X X X
Table 11.5 Management Prescriptions – Tree and Shrub
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd Page 66 Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire. Nature Conservation Strategy Part 2: Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme & Management Plan RT-MME-108361-02RevB
11.3 HEDGEROWS
Prescription Project Year
7. Hedgerows 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Hedgerows to be cut. Half of each side cut each year to 1.8 x x x x x x x x x x metres high (late winter).
Lay on a 15 year rotation. It is not anticipated that this will be 7.1 Hedgerow Management necessary in the first 10 years post development.
Hedgerow trees to be retained/managed for health and safety
only – see Table 11.5.
If hedgerow contains trees these should be retained and only x x x x x x x x x x managed for health and safety issues. 7.2 Hedge planting Maintain a buffer strip of 2 meters around hedgerows. x x x x x x x x x x To be planted with a range of species native to the area x x x x x x x x x x Table 11.6 Management Prescriptions - Hedgerow Creation and Management
11.4 AQUATIC HABITATS
Prescription Project Year 8. Lake and associated habitats 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Cutting every four years on 16 year rotation with ¼ of marginal 8.1 Reedbed/swamp vegetation removed every 4 years. Ditches to be managed in x x Management, including ditches 50 sections Removing silt on 25-40 year rotation, as required
Clearance of marginal and emergent vegetation on a rotational 8.2 Open water basis. Cutting every four years on 16 year rotation with ¼ of X x Management/water attenuation marginal vegetation removed every 4 years Removing silt on 25-40 year rotation, as required To be confirmed following detailed design specifications & 8.3 Ditch/water flow control grazing/cutting regimes Table 11.7 Management Prescriptions – Aquatic Habitats
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd Page 67 Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire. Nature Conservation Strategy Part 2: Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme & Management Plan RT-MME-108361-02RevB
11.5 SPECIES SPECIFIC Prescription Project Year
9. Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9.1 Bird boxes Inspection and, if necessary, maintenance (Nov-Feb) X X X X X X X X X X
9.2 Bat boxes/features Inspection and, if necessary, maintenance (Oct) X X X X X X X X X X
9.3 Otter holt Inspection and, if necessary, maintenance X X X X X X X X X X
Inspection and, if necessary, maintenance (replenishment 9.4 Herpetofauna features X X X X X X X X X X anticipated to be required every 5 years)
9.5 Insect boxes/dead wood Inspection and, if necessary, maintenance (replenishment of X X X X X X X X X X habitats deadwood piles anticipated to be required every 5 years)
Herbicide application X X X 9.6 Japanese knotweed Re-assessment to determine need for further herbicide X applications
Hand removal and herbicide application (spring before sets 9.7 Himalayan balsam X X X X X X X X X X seed)
Table 11.6 Management Prescriptions – Species specific
In relation to Japanese knotweed the following will also need to be undertaken in Year 0, i.e. prior to development: Mark extent of contaminated zone Herbicide application – July-1st frost Removal above ground and contaminated soil off site to appropriate licensed landfill.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd Page 68 Salisbury Gateway Environmental Statement Volume 4: Appendices
Appendix 7.1: Updated Phase 1 Survey Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
SALISBURY GATEWAY, WILTSHIRE
UPDATED EXTENDED PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY
CONTROLLED COPY
01 OF 02
01 PINSENT MASONS LLP 02 MIDDLEMARCH ENVIRONMENTAL LTD
This report was compiled by: Helen Miller MIEEM CEnv
The contents of this report are the responsibility of Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. It should be noted that, whilst every effort is made to meet the client’s brief, no site investigation can ensure complete assessment or prediction of the natural environment.
Contract Number C108361
October 2010
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 2 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2009 Middlemarch Environmental Ltd was commissioned by Gillespies to carry out an initial ecological appraisal at a site proposed for retail development off Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire. Subsequently a number of Phase 2 surveys were also undertaken between June and September 2009. As the project has progressed the need was identified to review and, where necessary update, these surveys. Subsequently in September 2010, Pinsent Masons LLP commissioned Middlemarch Environmental to update the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and assess any requirements for further phase 2 surveys. The current report provides an update of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Surveys conducted in June 2009 (report RT-MME- 105440).
The ecological desk study identified two statutory nature conservation sites within 1 km of the proposed development site; the River Avon SAC & SSSI (adjacent to the site) and East Harnham Meadows SSSI (200 m south-west). Without appropriate mitigation it is anticipated that the proposed development is likely to have a detrimental effect on the River Avon SAC/SSSI. Three local wildlife sites occur within 1 km, the nearest of which is 400 m east and as such it is not anticipated that the proposed development will have a direct impact. The desk study provided records for a range of protected and notable species within a 1 km radius of the site including kingfisher (500 m west), various bat species (50 m northeast), water vole (600 m northeast), otter (100 m south-east), white-clayed crayfish (710 m west), Desmoulin’s whorl snail (350 m southeast), reptiles (50 m northeast) and tubular dropwort (410 m southeast).
The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on 21st September 2010 by Helen Miller, Principal Technical Ecological Consultant. This survey identified the presence of the following habitats on site which are a notable consideration with regards to the proposed development: neutral grassland, swamp, tall ruderal vegetation, scattered trees, species-poor defunct hedgerows, wet ditches, a stream and areas of scrub. Several of these habitats are of high conservation value, suitable for a variety of protected/notable species and are listed within the UK BAP (2007), NERC Act (2006) and/or Wiltshire BAP (2008).
As there was no significant change in habitats since 2009, it is considered unlikely that the populations of species assessed during the Phase 2 surveys in 2009 would have significantly changed. However, it is anticipated that development of the site will commence over 2 years (i.e. later than 2011) after the original surveys in 2009 and as fauna populations, in particular, are subject to natural fluctuations and dispersal it is recommended that the situation be reviewed again in the appropriate fields seasons for the species in 2012.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 3 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 5 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ...... 5 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 5
2. METHODOLOGY ...... 7 2.1 DESK STUDY ...... 7 2.2 EXTENDED PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY ...... 7
3. DESK STUDY RESULTS ...... 8 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 8 3.2 NATURE CONSERVATION SITES ...... 8 3.3 PROTECTED SPECIES ...... 8
4. EXTENDED PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY ...... 11 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 11 4.2 SURVEY CONSTRAINTS ...... 11 4.3 HABITATS ...... 11 4.4 FAUNA ...... 15
5. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 16 5.1 NATURE CONSERVATION SITES ...... 16 5.2 HABITATS ...... 16 5.3 PROTECTED/NOTABLE SPECIES ...... 18
6. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 22 6.1 NATURE CONSERVATION SITES ...... 22 6.2 HABITATS ...... 22 6.3 PROTECTED/NOTABLE SPECIES ...... 22
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 23 APPENDICES ...... 24 APPENDIX 1 DESK STUDY DATA ...... 25 APPENDIX 2 EXTENDED PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY ...... 41 APPENDIX 3 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ...... 43 APPENDIX 4 OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT LEGISLATION ...... 44
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 4 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND In 2009 Middlemarch Environmental Ltd was commissioned by Gillespies to carry out an initial ecological appraisal at a site proposed for retail development off Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire. Subsequently a number of Phase 2 surveys were also undertaken between June and September 2009. As the project has progressed the need was identified to review and, where necessary update, these surveys. Subsequently in September 2010, Pinsent Masons LLP commissioned Middlemarch Environmental to update the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and assess any requirements for further phase 2 surveys. The current report provides an update (and supersedes) of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Surveys conducted in June 2009 (report RT-MME-105440).
To fulfil the above brief to assess the existing ecological interest of the site, a desk study was completed and st an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on 21 September 2010.
The following surveys have been completed
• Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (RTMME-105440) June 2009 • Botanical survey (RTMME-105589) August 2009 • Bat survey (RTMME-105590) August 2009 • Bird habitat survey (RTMME-105591) August 2009 • Snail survey (RTMME-105592) August 2009 • Aquatic fauna survey (RTMME-105593) August 2009 • Reptile survey (RTMME-105594) August – September 2009 • Winter bird survey (RTMME-106241-07) November – February 2009 • Breeding bird survey (RTMME-105591-01) March - July 2010 • Arboricultural survey (RT-MME-106126) September 2010.
Subsequent to these surveys a number of other ecological documents have been produced: • Ecological Impact Assessment (RT-MME-105588) October 2009 • Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme (RT-MME-108361-02) October 2010 • Construction Ecological Management Plan (RT-MME-108361-03) October 2010.
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION The survey area is approximately 8.5 ha in size and is located to the south of Southampton Road (A36), centred at National Grid Reference SU 156 290, on the southeast periphery of Salisbury. The site was dominated by a mosaic of different habitat types. Neutral grassland and tall ruderal vegetation dominated the majority of the survey area, with swamp occurring in conjunction with wet ditches in the southwest and through the centre. Scrub, hedgerows, scattered trees and bare ground also occurred within the survey area.
The northern half of the survey area compromised of open grassland with a declining elm Ulmus sp. hedge line. To the east of the survey area was an unmanaged hedge line containing a dominant mature English oak Quercus robur. Centrally to the site a large crack willow ‘lapsed pollard’ Salix fragilis was the focal point of the area. A scattering of mature and maturing crack willows were also located adjacent to this central tree; forming the spine of the survey area and also bordering the site to the south and west; adjacent to the boundary watercourses.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 5 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
The site is bounded in the west by the River Bourne, to the south by a tributary to the River Avon, to the east by an access track to the sewage treatment works and to the north the A36 Southampton Road. The immediate surrounding area to the north is occupied by an industrial park. A sewage treatment plant and agricultural is located adjacent to the site’s eastern boundary. Semi-natural habitats, including the River Avon and East Harnham Meadows (SSSI) are located to the south and east of the survey area.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 6 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 DESK STUDY A desk study was undertaken to determine the presence of any designated nature conservation sites and protected species that have been recorded within a 1 km radius of the site. This involved contacting appropriate statutory and non-statutory organisations which hold ecological data relating to the survey area. Middlemarch Environmental Ltd then assimilated and reviewed the desk study data provided by these organisations.
The consultees for the Desk Study were: • Natural England - MAGIC website for statutory conservation sites; • Wiltshire and Swindon Biological Records Centre; • NBN Gateway.
The data collected from these consultees is discussed in Section 3. Raw data are provided in Appendix 1.
Data were requested from Wiltshire and Swindon Biological Records Centre for the original Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey in June 2009. The same data are used in the current report as following an enquiry to the Centre (27/09/10), their last ‘new’ record was in 2007 and as such it was not deemed necessary to obtain a new data search.
2.2 EXTENDED PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was conducted following the methodology of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC, 1993) as modified by the Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA, 1995). Phase 1 Habitat Survey is a standard technique for classifying and mapping British habitats. The aim is to provide a record of habitats that are present on site. During the survey, the presence, or potential presence, of protected species was noted. Data recorded during the field survey are discussed in Section 4.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 7 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
3. DESK STUDY RESULTS
3.1 INTRODUCTION From the details provided by the consultees all relevant ecological data have been reviewed. The results from these investigations for the site are summarised below in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. Data are provided in Appendix 1.
3.2 NATURE CONSERVATION SITES Reference to the Multi Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website and the local biodiversity information indicate that there are two nature conservation sites with statutory protection within a 1 km radius of each of the sites. These sites are summarised in Table 3.1.
There are three non-statutory nature conservation sites within 1 km of the proposed development: 1. Petersfinger Farm Meadow - approximately 375 m east; 2. Clarenden Grange Meadows – approximately 680 m; and 3. River Avon South (6 parcels) - approximately 780 m south-east.
Much of the floodplain of the River Avon, including the site, is depicted as coastal and floodplain grazing marsh on MAGIC (see Appendix 1).
Proximity to Survey Site Name Designation Description Area
Statutory Sites The River Avon and its tributaries are of national and international importance for their wildlife communities. It is a Adjacent to the large lowland river including sections running through chalk River Avon SAC, SSSI southern boundary of and clay with transitions between the two. Stream water- the site crowfoot and river water-crowfoot are dominant. Also supports populations of Desmoulin’s whorl snail, sea lamprey, brook lamprey, Atlantic salmon and bullhead. An area of botanically rich, neutral grassland lying within the floodplain of the River Avon. A complex of small pastures criss-crossed with ditches formally under water meadow East Harnham 200 m south of the SSSI management. One of the few sites that has been managed Meadows site in a way that encourages wildlife and the herb-rich grassland is now rare in Wiltshire and Britain as a whole. Important site for insects and birds. Key SAC – Special Area of Conservation SSSI – Site of Special Scientific Interest
Table 3.1: Summary of Statutory Sites
3.3 PROTECTED SPECIES Table 3.2 provides a summary of protected species that have been recorded in the last 10 years within a 1 km radius of the study area. It should be noted that the absence of records should not be taken as confirmation that a species is absent from the search area. Records of species included on the UK and local Biodiversity Action Plans have also been included within this Table. In addition to these species the desk study provided a number of records dating between 1843 and 1998 for the following species (most recent date in parenthesis):
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 8 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
Amphibians Reptiles • Common toad (1979) • Grass snake (1984) • Great crested newt (1977) • Common lizard (1977)
Birds Plants • Kingfisher (1995) • Pheasant’s eye (1937) • Snipe (1995) • Good King Henry (1984) • Deptford pink (1873) Mammals • Dwarf spurge (2002) • Daubenton’s bat (1980) • Bogbean (1995) • Water vole (1987) • Tubular water dropwort (1994) • Brown hare (1984) • Narrow leaved-meadow grass (1998) • Harvest mouse (1982) • Small pondweed (1998) • Water shrew (1983) • Perfoliate pondweed (1994) • River water crowfoot (1985) Molluscs • Pink water speedwell (1998). • Desmoulin’s whorl snail (1996)
See Appendix 1 for the entire list of records contained within the desk study.
The NBN gateway search (01/10/10) identified the following records (within the last 10 years) of protected species within the 10 km grid square in which the site occurs: • Bats: • Brown long-eared bat x 8; nearest 1 km west • Common pipistrelle x 6; nearest <1 km north • Daubentons x 1; nearest 2 km west • Myotis spp x 1; nearest < 1 km north • Natterers x 1; nearest < 1 km north • Noctule x 3; nearest < 1 km north • Serotine x 6; < 1 km north • Soparano pipistrelle x 3; < 1 km north • Aquatic fauna: • White-clawed crayfish x 1; nearest 1 km west • Otter x 10; nearest on site • Water vole x 12; nearest on site • Badger x 8; nearest 1 km east • Dormouse x 2; nearest < 1 km east. • Reptiles: • Adder x 1; nearest > 5 km south • Common lizard; nearest > 5 km south-west • Grass snake; nearest > 5 km south-west • Slow-worm; nearest <1 km north.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 9 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
Most Proximity of NERC No. of UK Local Legislation / Species Recent Nearest Record to Section Records BAP? BAP? Conservation Status Record Study Area 41? Mammals - Bats EC Hab. Directive Bat – species unknown 4 2005 50 m south-west - 9 - WCA Sch.5 (killing & injuring) EC Hab. Directive Serotine bat 3 2005 50 m north east - 9 - WCA Sch.5 (killing & Eptesicus serotinus injuring) EC Hab. Directive Natterer’s bat 2 2005 50 m north east - 9 - WCA Sch.5 (killing & Myotis nattereri injuring) EC Hab. Directive Noctule bat 3 2005 50 m north east 9 9 9 WCA Sch.5 (killing & Nyctalus noctula injuring) EC Hab. Directive Common pipistrelle 3 2005 50 m north east - 9 - WCA Sch.5 (killing & Pipistrellus pipistrellus injuring) EC Hab. Directive Soprano pipistrelle 3 2005 50 m north east 9 9 9 WCA Sch.5 (killing & Pipistrellus pygmaeus injuring) Mammals - Other Hedgehog BC3, WCA Sch. 6 (killing 3 2004 600 m north east* 9 9 9 Erinaceus europaeus & taking) BC2, EC Hab. Directive, Otter 4 2005 100 m south east 9 9 9 CITES1, WCA Sch. 5 & Lutra lutra 6. Crustacean White clawed-crayfish WCA Sch 5 (killing & 1 2004 710 m west 9 9 9 Austropotamobius pallipes injuring) Birds WCA Sch1 (disturb, Barn owl 1 2004 820 m west - 9 9 killing & injuring) Tyto alba BoCC Amber list Cetti’s warbler WCA Sch1 (disturb, 1 2004 800 m west - - - Cettia cetti killing & injuring) Spotted flycatcher 1 2004 820 m north west 9 9 BoCC Red list Muscicapa striata 9 Reptiles BC3 Slow-worm 1 2006 50 m north east 9 9 WCA Sch.5 (killing & Anguis fragilis 9 injuring) Vascular plants Rough poppy 2 2002 * - - - County notable Papaver hybridum Key BC2: Appendix II of the Berne Convention BC3: Appendix III of the Berne Convention CITES1: Appendix I of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna EC Hab. Directive - EC Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) WCA Sch.5 – Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 5: Animals which are protected BoCC Birds of Conservation Concern (RSPB) * Four figure grid references only supplied and therefore exact location of records cannot be determined
Table 3.2: Summary of Protected/Notable Species Records within 1 km Radius of Study Site
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 10 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
4. EXTENDED PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY
4.1 INTRODUCTION The results of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey are presented in Section 4.2. An annotated Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Drawing (Middlemarch Environmental Ltd Drawing C108361-01) is attached in Appendix 2. This drawing illustrates the location and extent of all habitat types recorded on site. Target Notes 1-20 denote notable features or habitats too small to map on Middlemarch Environmental Ltd Drawing C108361-01.
The survey was carried out on 21st September 2010 by Helen Miller (Principal Technical Ecological Consultant). Table 4.1 details the weather conditions at the time of the survey.
Parameter Condition Temperature (ºC) 18 Cloud (%) 50% Wind F1 Precipitation None
Table 4.1: Weather Conditions during Survey Period
4.2 SURVEY CONSTRAINTS There were no survey constraints identified.
4.3 HABITATS The following habitat types were recorded on site during the field survey: • Bare ground; • Dense scrub; • Neutral grassland; • Running water; • Species poor defunct hedgerow; • Swamp; • Scattered scrub; • Scattered broadleaved trees; • Tall ruderal/neutral grassland; • Tall ruderal/swamp; and, • Wet ditches.
These habitats are described below. They are ordered alphabetically, not in order of ecological importance.
Bare ground An area of bare ground was located in the north of the survey area. This area consisted of degraded tarmac, with locally abundant creeping cinquefoil Potentilla reptans and scattered ephemeral occurring on the periphery (Target Note 20). Since the 2009 surveys, more ephemeral species have begun to establish in this habitat.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 11 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
Dense scrub An area of dense scrub consisting primarily of bramble Rubus fruticosus agg., with elder Sambucus nigra, grey willow Salix cinerea and goat willow Salix caprea, was located in the north of the site. The habitat type also contained several tall ruderal species on it’s periphery including nettle Urtica dioica, burdock Arctium sp., creeping thistle Cirsium arvense and hemlock Conium maculatum. Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica was also recorded (Target note 21).
Neutral grassland Neutral grassland dominated the east of the site. The northern part of this habitat is cut while the southern part is largely left unmanaged. However, there were indications (on-site water supply and feeding troughs) to suggest that it has been grazed in the past. This grassland consisted of a mosaic of different sward heights and characteristics, giving the habitat a diverse structure with multiple micro-climates. Target Notes, detailed below, describe the different habitat characteristics identified within this habitat type; a more detailed description of this variation is described in the Phase 2 botanical report (RT-MME-105589).
• Target Note 16: Short sward, dominated by creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera, in a slight depression. • Target Note 17: Tall, tussocky grassland dominated by tufted hair grass Deschampsia cespitosa and false-oat grass Arrhenatherum elatius and other coarse grasses. Herbaceous and swamp indicator species occur sporadically across this habitat type. Localised patches of creeping bent, Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus and silverweed Potentilla anserina were also noted. There were also localised areas of tall ruderal species (nettle, comfrey) and swamp species (sedges Carex spp. and reed sweet-grass Glyceria maxima). The localised variation of tall ruderal and swamp species were more prominent than in the 2009 survey. • Target Note 18: This area was dominated by false-oat grass and was generally species poor; though other grass types were noted occurring sporadically across this area also. Locally abundant hedge bedstraw Galium mollugo, silverweed and creeping cinquefoil were recorded. This area is at least periodically cut and baled. • Target Note 19: Area of grassland characterised by a short sward height and dominance of fine grasses including fescues Festuca sp., clover Trifolium sp. and creeping cinquefoil. False-oat grass still occurred within this area but at a low level of abundance. This area is at least periodically cut and baled.
Since 2009, this grassland habitat has slightly contracted as a result of the spread of nettle (see Tall ruderal vegetation).
Running water A tributary to the River Avon was located on the sites western boundary (Target Note 2). The stream’s banks varied in height and slope. The water depth was estimated to be greater than 0.5 m and water quality was considered to be good. The substrate comprised a gravel-sand bed. The banks were characterised by locally abundant marginal vegetation consisting of reed canary-grass Phalaris arundinacea, common reed Phragmites australis, bur-reed Sparganium sp. and purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 12 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
Species poor defunct hedgerow Three hedgerows were identified in the north and eastern boundary of the site during the field survey.
Located on the eastern boundary of the site this hedgerow (H1) was unmanaged and had degraded into a linear line of scrub, approximately 4 m high and 1-1.5 m wide. This hedgerow consisted of hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, dog rose Rosa canina, bramble, hazel Corylus avellana and elder Sambucus nigra. A veteran oak pollard Quercus robur (Target Note 1) was located within this hedgerow and measured approximately 1.45 m diameter at breast height (DBH) and contained several features (broken limbs and peeling bark) that have potential to be of value to local wildlife. The ground flora was characterised by a mixture of tall ruderal and swamp indicator species (corresponding with adjacent habitats) with frequent nettle.
The second hedgerow (H2) was located towards the centre of the site, orientated approximately on a north- south axis (depicted as Target Note 8). This hedgerow consisted of hawthorn, blackthorn Prunus spinosa, grey willow, goat willow and several mature specimens of crack willow Salix fragilis. A wet ditch was associated with this hedgerow and contained a variety of plants characteristic of wet soil conditions, including gypsywort Lycopus europaeus, hemlock water dropwort Oenanthe crocata, forget-me-not Myosotis sp., reed sweet-grass Glyceria maxima and reed canary-grass. As with the hedgerow along the eastern boundary, this hedgerow had degraded into a linear area of scrub with mature trees.
The third hedgerow (H3) was located in the north of the survey area, situated on the southern side of Southampton Road. This hedgerow was approximately 2-4 m in height and 1 m wide, and contained multiple gaps. Hawthorn, elder and elm Ulmus sp. made up the majority of the hedgerow, with several scattered trees of sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus and elm also recorded. The ground flora was primarily tall ruderal vegetation dominated by nettle and creeping thistle.
Since the 2009 survey, more of the elm had died off, making the hedgerows appear more gappy and degraded.
Swamp Areas of swamp habitat were located in the west, southeast and centre of the site. This habitat type was dominated by reed canary-grass with locally abundant sweet reed grass and sedge. The habitat type occurred in five distinct variations, detailed below by Target Notes 3-7; a more detailed description of this variation is described in the Phase 2 botanical report (RT-MME-105589).
• Target Note 3: Generally species poor area and structurally uniform compared to other areas. Reed sweet grasses, sedge and canary-reed grass were locally dominant. • Target Note 4: Diverse structure and species rich area, containing water mint Mentha aquatica, silverweed, forget-me-not, locally dominant lesser pond-sedge Carex acutiformis, spike rush Eleocharis sp., floating sweet-grass Glyceria fluitans, wild angelica Angelica sylvestris, meadow sweet Fillipendula ulmaria and yellow flag Iris pseudacorus.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 13 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
• Target Note 5: Transitional ecocline between swamp and grassland habitats, forming a mosaic of indicator species for both habitat types becoming locally abundant. However, grassland was the more prominent character. • Target Note 6: Linear stretch of swamp habitat in association with a wet ditch, located in the southeast of the site. Floating reed grass was a prominent species in this area. • Target Note 7: Localised area dominated by lesser pond sedge.
Scattered scrub Scattered grey willow and goat willow were recorded across the site.
Scattered broadleaved trees Crack willow and white willow Salix alba occurred sporadically over the site. A mature willow, approximately 1.6 m DBH was recorded near the centre of the site (Target Note 10). Several cracks and crevices were identified within the tree trunk and crown, which had potential for use by local wildlife.
Tall ruderal habitats Tall ruderal vegetation occurred in combination with neutral grassland and swamp vegetation which dominated a significant proportion of the survey area. This habitat type was dominated by nettle, cleavers Galium aparine and grasses throughout, with localised variations in characteristics as detailed below by Target Notes 11-15 and 21.
• Target Note 11: Area dominated by nettle with frequent comfrey Symphytum officinale and locally abundant hemlock water dropwort, creeping thistle Cirsium arvense and pond sedge. Hemlock water dropwort and reed canary-grass were particularly abundant on the periphery of this area in the south. • Target Note 12: Area characterised by nettle and abundant reed canary-grass, with cleavers and creeping thistle also present. • Target Note 13: Locally abundant nettle and creeping thistle within grassland habitat. • Target Note 14: Diverse tall ruderal habitat characterised by nettle, reed canary-grass, meadowsweet, with occasional species typical of swamp habitat. Hemlock water dropwort was less frequent and replaced by an abundance of hogweed Heracleum sphondylium. Great willowherb Epilobium hirsutum, comfrey and butterbur Petasites hybridus also occurred in abundance. • Target Note 15: Area dominated by nettle, creeping thistle and cleavers with scattered grassland species.
Since the 2009 survey, nettle and creeping thistle have expanded from the area depicted by Target note 13. Nettle also appeared more abundant along the River (Target note 12) compared to 2009. Also in this area scattered specimens of Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera were noted (Target note 22).
Wet ditches Several wet ditches were located in the centre and east of the site. These ditches contained a varying amount of water and were colonised by swamp vegetation including common reed and reed canary-grass.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 14 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
4.4 FAUNA During the field survey field signs of fauna were noted and mapped (where appropriate). The time of year at which the survey is undertaken will affect species or field signs directly recorded during the survey. Evidence of the following fauna was observed on site.
Invertebrates A variety of invertebrates were noted on site during the field survey, including: • Lepidoptera (red admiral, comma, cabbage white), • Odonata (ruddy darter).
Herptiles • Adult grass snake • Common frog • Common toad
Birds Several varieties of birds were noted during the field survey. Table 4.2 lists the species of birds identified during the field survey and their conservation status according to the RSPB (2009) Birds of Conservation Concern.
RSPB BoCC Scientific Name Common Name Status Aegithalos caudatus Long-tailed tit - Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Amber Columba palumbus Wood pigeon - Corvus corone Carrion crow - Cyanistes caeruleus Blue tit - Erithacus rubecula Robin - Motacilla alba Pied wagtail - Fulica atra Coot - Parus major Great tit - Ardea cinerea Grey heron - Alcedo atthis Kingfisher - Gallinula chloropus Moorhen - Cygnus olor Mute swan - Notes Amber- birds of moderate conservation concern
Table 4.2: Bird Species Identified on Site
Mammals An adult and young roe deer and rabbits were noted during the survey. There was also evidence of moles (mole hills) on site.
Fish Carp and perch were noted in the River Avon.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 15 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
5. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 NATURE CONSERVATION SITES Statutory Sites Two statutory protected nature conservation sites were recorded within a 1 km radius of the proposed development site. The river located adjacent to the southern boundary of the proposed development site is part of the River Avon SAC and SSSI. Due to the close proximity of this nature conservation site the proposed development has the potential to have a detrimental impact on its conservation status if appropriate mitigation/precautions are not implemented.
The statutory protected conservation site known as East Harnham Meadows SSSI is located approximately 200 m to the south of the proposed development. Due to this conservation sites composition (grazing marsh) and close association with the River Avon, if the proposed development impacts the river then this is also likely to affect East Harnham Meadows. If the hydrological characteristics of the River Avon are impacted, then East Harnham SSSI is also likely to suffer long-term indirect impacts given the sites location down stream and association with the river.
The Magic (2010) search identified the survey area and surrounding habitats to be part of a corridor of coastal and floodplain grazing marsh habitat that occurs on the sides of the River Avon (see Appendix 1). Given the rarity of this habitat nationwide and the variety of associated botanical and fauna, the proposed development may have consequences beyond the boundary of the site and impact the long-term conservation status of the surrounding grazing marsh habitat unless appropriate mitigation/precautions are implemented.
5.2 HABITATS At the time of writing the northern section of the site is proposed to be developed with the southern part being retained and enhanced as a nature reserve (see Appendix 3). Therefore the following discussions are based on these plans.
The ecological importance of the habitats present on site is assessed against their presence on the UK and Local BAPs and on Section 41 of the NERC Act and their ability to support protected or notable species. Those habitats which meet any of these criteria and are considered likely to be impacted by the proposals are highlighted as notable considerations. This is summarised in Table 5.1 and further discussed in the text below.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 16 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
UK BAP Priority NERC Act Section Is Habitat a Notable Habitat Type Local BAP? Habitat? 41? Consideration? Bare ground 8 8 8 No Dense scrub 8 8 8 Yes Neutral grassland 9 9 9 Yes Running water 9 9 9 Yes Species poor defunct 9 8 9 Yes hedgerow Swamp 9 9 9 Yes Scattered scrub 8 8 8 Yes Scattered broadleaved trees 8 9 8 Yes Tall ruderal/neutral 9 9 9 Yes grassland Tall ruderal/swamp 9 9 9 Yes Wet Ditches 8 8 8 Yes
Table 5.1: Summary of Ecological Importance of Habitats on Site
Areas of swamp, neutral grassland and tall ruderal vegetation with swamp or neutral grassland were identified by MAGIC as coastal and floodplain grazing marsh habitat. This habitat type is locally and nationally important and has been listed under the local Wiltshire BAP (2008) for ‘Rivers, Streams and Associated Habitats’ and the UK BAP (2007) for ‘Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh.’
The diverse mosaic of habitat types is of high ecological value for a wide variety of associated species. Given the close proximity of the River Avon SSSI & SAC and the East Harnham Meadows SSSI conservation sites and species detailed within the desk study data, this mosaic of habitats within the survey area is likely to be of importance for biodiversity conservation and UK BAP (2007) and NERC Section 41.
The stream (entitled running water) located on the western boundary of the site has potential to be included under the Wiltshire BAP (2008) for ‘Rivers, Streams and Associated Habitats’ and UK BAP (2007) for ‘Rivers and Streams.’ Given the streams good connectivity to the River Avon and the potential to support a variety of protected/notable species (including water vole, otter and Eurasian water shrew) this habitat type is a notable consideration for the proposed development.
The wet ditches on site have the potential to support populations of a range of fauna including mammals, invertebrates, amphibians and reptiles. Given the range of protected/notable species this habitat has the potential to support, the wet ditches on site are a notable consideration with regards to the proposed development. To date grass snake, common frog and common toad and terrestrial voles have been found associated with these habitats.
The veteran oak tree recorded within the hedgerow (Target Note 1) has potential to be classified under the Wiltshire BAP (2008) for ‘Wood-pasture, Parkland and Ancient Trees in Wiltshire’ due to the tree’s approximate age, size and features suitable for use by local wildlife (i.e. roosting bats, birds, saproxylic invertebrates and epiphytic flora). The Wiltshire BAP (2008) defines veteran trees as ‘trees that are of interest biologically, culturally or aesthetically because of their age, size or condition.’ This veteran tree is a notable consideration given its rarity and the resources it provides to local wildlife. In addition the remaining scattered
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 17 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey trees recorded on site are also a notable consideration given the resources they provide to nesting birds and roosting bats. However, no bat roosts were confirmed during the bat surveys in 2009.
Hedgerows located within and on the boundary of the survey area are of high conservation value due to this habitats inclusion within the UK BAP (2007) under ‘Hedgerows.’ Though the majority of hedgerows are in poor condition, they still provide resources for a wide variety of protected/notable species of bird, invertebrate and mammal. Consequently, hedgerows recorded on site are a notable consideration for the proposed development of the site. However, it is noted that the northern hedgerow (notably the east of Bourne Way Round-about) is declining in its value as a hedgerow as a result of the elm dying off.
Areas of dense or scattered scrub provide breeding and foraging opportunities for birds and a wide variety of other fauna. Consequently these habitats are a notable consideration with respect to the proposed development of the site. The breeding bird survey confirmed the presence of about three territories of Cetti’s warbler (WCA, Schedule 1 species) using the site.
5.3 PROTECTED/NOTABLE SPECIES Table 5.2 summarises which species are notable considerations for any development and enhancement of the survey area following a review of the desk study and field survey. It also states whether these species are targeted by UK or local Biodiversity Action Plans or afforded some protection under the NERC Act 2006. Notable considerations include both positive, e.g. site enhancement and negative, e.g. habitat loss.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 18 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
UK BAP Priority NERC Act Section Is Species a Notable Species Local BAP? Species? 41? Consideration? Birds Barn owl 8 9 8 Yes Kingfisher 8 9 8 Yes Spotted flycatcher 9 9 9 Yes Mammals Bats (various) 9 9 9 Yes Eurasian water shrew 8 9 8 Yes Hedgehog 9 9 9 Yes Otter 9 9 9 Yes Water vole 9 9 9 Yes Crustacean White clawed-crayfish 9 9 9 Yes Mollusc Desmoulin’s whorl snail 9 9 9 Yes Reptiles Slow worm 9 9 9 Yes Grass snake 9 9 9 Yes Vascular plant Tubular water-dropwort 9 9 9 Yes Himalayan balsam 8 8 8 Yes Japanese knotweed 8 8 8 Yes
Table 5.2: Summary of Ecological Importance of Species on Site
Birds The desk study data contained records of two statutory protected species of bird within 1 km of the survey area; barn owl (820 m) and kingfisher (500 m). The survey area consists of suitable forging habitat for barn owl in the form of neutral grassland and tall ruderal vegetation. Suitable foraging habitat for kingfisher exists along the stream and River Avon. Both these species were noted using the site during the bird surveys conducted in 2009 and 2010.
The mature trees provide opportunity for roosting barn owls while the grassland may be used for foraging and as such this species maybe affected by the proposed development. The proposed development will not directly affect the river and enhancement of the southern part of the site as a nature reserve aims to maintain secluded areas with no public access along the river banks. Therefore it is not anticipated that this species will be negatively affected. However, the species is still a notable consideration as it’s presence needs to be taken into consideration during the enhancement of the nature reserve.
In addition, the desk study and field survey identified the occurrence of several bird species of conservation concern (Section 3.3 and Table 4.2) and the surrounding area; of particular importance is the occurrence of song thrush, cuckoo and spotted flycatcher. Potential breeding habitat for these and other bird species exists on site in the form of scattered trees, species poor hedgerows, scattered scrub, dense scrub and tall
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 19 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey emergent vegetation within swamp habitats. These habitats must therefore be taken into consideration during any work (development or habitat enhancement) during the breeding bird season.
Crustacean The desk study contained records of white clawed-crayfish occurring approximately 710 m west of the site. Potential habitat for this species was recorded on site in the form of the stream and River Avon. Although, these habitats are considered suitable for white-clawed crayfish as a result of the good, clear water quality and gravel substrate, the species was not confirmed to be on site during the surveys conducted in 2009. However, as a result of potential habitat and the species known to occur in the local area, it is a notable consideration during both development and habitat enhancement works.
Mammals Multiple records of at least five species of bat were provided within the desk study data. All semi-natural habitats recorded on site provide suitable foraging habitat for these species, whilst linear features such as the hedgerows and the adjacent river provide potential commuter routes; this was confirmed during the bat surveys in 2009. The scattered trees recorded on site, particularly the veteran oak and mature willows, provide potential roosting locations for bats, however, no roosts were confirmed. Therefore bats, as a group, are a notable consideration for the proposed development and enhancement of the site.
The desk study cited records of otter approximately 100 m from the site. During the survey potential habitat for otter was recorded on site in the form of swamp, swamp with tall ruderal vegetation, stream and wet ditches. The River Avon also provides suitable habitat for otters and the species was confirmed to be utilising the river and the site during surveys in 2009 and 2010. Given the level of statutory protection offered to otter, this species is a notable consideration for the proposed development and enhancement.
Records of statutory protected water vole were contained within the desk study data, approximately 500 m north of the survey area. Potential breeding and foraging habitat exists on site for water vole in the form of wet ditches, running water, swamp and tall ruderal vegetation. The northern bank of the river located on the southern boundary also provides potential habitat for this species. Water vole were confirmed to be utilising the banks of the River Avon on site, therefore water voles are a notable consideration for the proposed development and enhancement.
The desk study also cited records of hedgehog, brown hare and Eurasian water shrew within 1 km of the survey area. The latter was confirmed to be using the western part of the site during surveys conducted in 2009. Suitable habitat exists on site for hedgehog in the form of neutral grassland, species-poor defunct hedgerows, scattered scrub, dense scrub and tall ruderal vegetation. Potential habitat for Eurasian water shrew also exists on site in the form of running water, ditches, swamp, tall ruderal vegetation, neutral grassland, scrub and hedgerows. The site is considered to be sub-optimal for brown hare, though areas of neutral grassland in the east of the site may provide suitable habitat for brown hare. Both hedgehog and Eurasian water shrew are anticipated to be impacted by the proposed development and are both notable
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 20 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey considerations. Brown hare would also be a notable consideration if areas of neutral grassland are deemed suitable for the species.
Mollusc The desk study data contained records of Desmoulin’s whorl snail approximately 350 m from the survey area. The Desmoulin’s whorl snail lives in permanently wet swamps, fens and marshes, bordering rivers, lakes and ponds, or in river floodplains and has been recorded on sweet-grasses Glyceria sp., sedges Carex sp., reeds Phragamites australis, reedmace Typha atifolia, branched bur-reed and yellow flag. Although, areas of swamp and swamp with tall ruderal vegetation adjacent to the stream, River Avon and wet ditches have potential to support this species of mollusc due to the presence of suitable habitat and food plants, the species was not found on site during surveys in 2009. However, as there is suitable habitat and the species is known to occur in the local area there is potential to enhance the nature reserve area to accommodate the species should it disperse into the area in the future; it is therefore a notable consideration.
Reptiles The desk study contained records of slow worm and grass snake within a 1 km radius of the survey area. All semi-natural habitats on site provide suitable foraging, basking and breeding habitat for both species. During surveys in 2009 and 2010, grass snake was confirmed to be utilising the western end of the site. There is also scope to enhance the site to support slow-worm and as such both species are notable considerations for the proposed development and enhancement of the site.
Vascular Plants The desk study contained records of the UK BAP species tubular water-dropwort approximately 410 m to the southeast of the survey area. Although suitable habitat exists on site in the form of wet ditches, swamp and the stream for tubular water-dropwort to occur within the survey area, this species was not confirmed to be present following detailed botanical surveys in August 2009.
The survey identified the presence of two notable non-native, invasive alien species: 1. Japanese knotweed 2. Himalayan balsam.
Himalayan balsam appears to have begun to established along the river bank since the 2009 surveys. In spring 2009, this species was added to Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) which prohibits the establishment of, or otherwise causing to grow, non- native plant species.
Both these species are therefore notable considerations for the proposed development and enhancement of the site.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 21 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
This section provides an over-view of generic recommendations as more detailed recommendations have been made in the Phase 2 surveys, Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme and Construction Ecological Management Plan.
6.1 NATURE CONSERVATION SITES Due to the close proximately of two statutory protected nature conservation sites (the River Avon SSSI & SAC and East Harnham Meadows SSSI) to the proposed development and the potential impacts these conservation sites may experience, consultation with Natural England will be required.
6.2 HABITATS The following recommendations are made regarding the habitats present on site:
• Habitat Loss: In accordance with the provision of Planning Policy Statement 9 (Biodiversity & Geological Conservation) and Local Planning Policy, a habitat/species enhancement scheme should be incorporated into the landscaping scheme of any proposed works to maximise the ecological value of the site. Where possible habitats listed within the UK BAP (2007), NERC (2006) and/or the Wiltshire BAP (2008) should be retained and protected from any negative impacts that may arise from the proposed development. To compensate for any unavoidable loss or damage to notable BAP habitats, the affected habitat should be recreated elsewhere.
• Trees: Any trees and/or hedgerows on site, or overhanging the site, which are not to be removed as a part of any proposed works should be protected in accordance with British Standard "Trees in relation to construction - Recommendations" BS5837:2005. Protection should be installed on site prior to the commencement of any works on site.
6.3 PROTECTED/NOTABLE SPECIES The current survey has confirmed that there has been no significant change in habitats that may result in the decline or increase in protected species associated with the site. However, opportunity should be taken during the development and enhancement of the nature reserve to protect and increase the populations of species known to occur on site.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 22 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
IEA (1995) ‘Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment, Institute of Environmental Assessment.’ E&FN Spon, An Imprint of Chapman and Hall. London.
JNCC (1993) ‘Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A technique for environmental audit (reprint).’ Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
HMSO (2005) ‘Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity & Geological Conservation’. Available: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningpolicystatement12
RSPB (2009) ‘Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; Birds of Conservation Concern’. Available http://www.rspb.org.uk/
Wiltshire BAP (2008) ‘Wiltshire Biodiversity Action Plan 2008’. Available: http://www.biodiversitywiltshire.org.uk/WiltshireBAP/Default.aspx
UK Biodiversity Partnership (2007) ‘UK Biodiversity Action Plan’. Available: http://www.ukbap.org.uk
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 23 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: Desk Study Data
APPENDIX 2: Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Drawing C108361-01
APPENDIX 3: Development proposals (Lyons, Sleeman and Hoare Architects Drawing 10001 SK-13)
APPENDIX 4: Overview of Relevant Legislation
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 24 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
APPENDIX 1
DESK STUDY DATA
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 25 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire – Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey RT-MME-108361-01
Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 26 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
Site Check Report Report generated on October 1 2010.
You clicked on the point: Grid Ref: SU156290 Full Grid Ref: 415600 , 129000
The following features have been found within 1,000 metres of your search point:
Counties, Metropolitan Districts and Unitary Authorities (GB) Geographic Level Name COUNTY WILTSHIRE
NUTS1 - Government Office Regions (GB) Hotlink Name Reference
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/nuts_sw.asp SOUTH WEST UKK
Ancient Woodland (England) There are no features within your search area.
Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh (England) Habitat Reliability of Feature definition Polygon id Priority qualifier Determination comment Priority habitat interpretation note version RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'GOOD' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0093:0012458 GOOD SHOWS A COINCIDENCE OF FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND AND GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION 'WET AREA'. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'GOOD' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0093:0016777 GOOD SHOWS A COINCIDENCE OF FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND AND GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION 'WET AREA'. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'GOOD' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0093:0016713 GOOD SHOWS A COINCIDENCE OF FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND AND GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION 'WET AREA'. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'GOOD' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0093:0018333 GOOD SHOWS A COINCIDENCE OF FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND AND GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION 'WET AREA'. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'GOOD' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0093:0022182 GOOD SHOWS A COINCIDENCE OF FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND AND GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION 'WET AREA'. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'GOOD' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0093:0022375 GOOD SHOWS A COINCIDENCE OF FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND AND GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION 'WET AREA'. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'GOOD' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0093:0022159 GOOD SHOWS A COINCIDENCE OF FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND AND GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION 'WET AREA'. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'GOOD' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0093:0025248 GOOD SHOWS A COINCIDENCE OF FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND AND GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION 'WET AREA'. PROBABLY THE PRIORITY RELIABILITY OF COASTAL AND 1.3 0093:0025769 GOOD HABITAT BUT SOME INTERPRETATION IS 'GOOD' - FLOODPLAIN
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 27 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
UNCERTAINTY OF SHOWS A COINCIDENCE OF GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND AND 'WET AREA'. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'AVERAGE' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0093:0027883 AVERAGE SHOWS AN ABSENCE OF 'WET FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF AREA' WITHIN AN AREA OF GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'AVERAGE' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0093:0028586 AVERAGE SHOWS AN ABSENCE OF 'WET FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF AREA' WITHIN AN AREA OF GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'AVERAGE' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0093:0030767 AVERAGE SHOWS AN ABSENCE OF 'WET FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF AREA' WITHIN AN AREA OF GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'AVERAGE' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0093:0030768 AVERAGE SHOWS AN ABSENCE OF 'WET FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF AREA' WITHIN AN AREA OF GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'AVERAGE' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0093:0030769 AVERAGE SHOWS AN ABSENCE OF 'WET FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF AREA' WITHIN AN AREA OF GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'AVERAGE' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0093:0032386 AVERAGE SHOWS AN ABSENCE OF 'WET FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF AREA' WITHIN AN AREA OF GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'AVERAGE' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0093:0032388 AVERAGE SHOWS AN ABSENCE OF 'WET FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF AREA' WITHIN AN AREA OF GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'AVERAGE' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0099:0034216 AVERAGE SHOWS AN ABSENCE OF 'WET FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF AREA' WITHIN AN AREA OF GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'AVERAGE' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0099:0035059 AVERAGE SHOWS AN ABSENCE OF 'WET FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF AREA' WITHIN AN AREA OF GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'AVERAGE' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0099:0036122 AVERAGE SHOWS AN ABSENCE OF 'WET FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF AREA' WITHIN AN AREA OF GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'AVERAGE' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0099:0036123 AVERAGE SHOWS AN ABSENCE OF 'WET FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF AREA' WITHIN AN AREA OF GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND. RELIABILITY OF PROBABLY THE PRIORITY INTERPRETATION IS 'AVERAGE' - COASTAL AND HABITAT BUT SOME 1.3 0099:0036891 AVERAGE SHOWS AN ABSENCE OF 'WET FLOODPLAIN UNCERTAINTY OF AREA' WITHIN AN AREA OF GRAZING MARSH INTERPRETATION LOWLAND WET GRASSLAND.
Important Bird Areas (England) There are no features within your search area.
Local Nature Reserves (England) There are no features within your search area.
National Inventory of Woodland and Trees (England) There are no features within your search area.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 28 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
National Nature Reserves (England) There are no features within your search area.
Ramsar Sites (England) There are no features within your search area.
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (England) Citation Name Reference
2000175 EAST HARNHAM MEADOWS 1006203
2000183 RIVER AVON SYSTEM 1006597
Special Areas of Conservation (England) Name Reference
RIVER AVON UK0013016
Special Protection Areas (England) There are no features within your search area.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 29 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire- Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey RT-MME-108361-01
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 30
WILTSHIRE & SWINDON BIOLOGICAL RECORDS CENTRE
Data Search for 1 km area around Southampton Road, Salisbury (SU157289)
Protected & Notable Species
Group Scientific name Common name Status Date Grid Ref. Location Recorder Notes amphibian Bufo bufo Common Toad UK BAP 03/06/1960 SU1629 Petersfinger SDFC, KP Tadpoles amphibian Bufo bufo Common Toad UK BAP 24/04/1965 SU1629 Petersfinger SDFC Tadpoles and small toads amphibian Bufo bufo Common Toad UK BAP 28/08/1965 SU1629 Petersfinger SDFC Many small amphibian Bufo bufo Common Toad UK BAP 01/01/1970 SU1628 Britford WANHS amphibian Bufo bufo Common Toad UK BAP 01/01/1975 SU1628 Britford MP amphibian Bufo bufo Common Toad UK BAP 01/01/1977 SU161283 Britford HS Live amphibian Bufo bufo Common Toad UK BAP 17/03/1978 SU1629 Petersfinger SDNHS Spawn Pits amphibian Bufo bufo Common Toad UK BAP 01/02/1979 SU1629 Petersfinger SDNHS Dead on road amphibian Triturus Great W&CA; 01/01/1976 SU1628 Britford, moat SDNHS, MSS Seen during cristatus Crested Newt UK BAP drought amphibian Triturus Great W&CA; 01/10/1976 SU1628 Britford SDNHS cristatus Crested Newt UK BAP amphibian Triturus Great W&CA; 01/06/1977 SU161283 Britford HS Live cristatus Crested Newt UK BAP bird Alcedo atthis Common W&CA; 01/01/1995 SU151289 East Harnham Unknown Kingfisher Amber Meadows SSSI List bird Alcedo atthis Kingfisher W&CA; 1995 SU151289 East Harnham Amber Meadows SSSI List bird Cettia cetti Cetti's W&CA 29/05/2004 SU148293 Churchill John Present Warbler Gardens, Pitman Salisbury bird Gallinago Snipe Amber 01/01/1995 SU151289 East Harnham Unknown gallinago List Meadows SSSI bird Gallinago Snipe Amber 1995 SU151289 East Harnham gallinago List Meadows SSSI bird Muscicapa Spotted UK BAP; 29/05/2004 SU148293 Churchill John Present striata Flycatcher Red Gardens, Pitman
Wiltshire & Swindon Biological Records Centre N:\W&SBRC\Data searches\HD\MiddlemarchSalisbury.doc 25/06/2009 Page 1
List Salisbury bird Tyto alba Barn Owl W&CA; 29/05/2004 SU148293 Churchill John Hunting in area Amber Gardens, Pitman List Salisbury crustacean Austropotamobius White-Clawed W&CA; 07/11/2004 SU14912912 Harnum, Willing & Holyoak. 2 pallipes Crayfish UK BAP; Salisbury found in VU sediment. mammal - W&CA 28/05/1992 SU150285 Downton Road, Unknown bat Salisbury,Wilts. mammal - W&CA 30/04/2001 SU151284 Milton Road, Unknown bat Salisbury mammal - Eptesicus Serotine W&CA 31/05/2005 SU161292 Salisbury, MMW & SP Bat survey by bat serotinus Petersfield Nicholas Pearson (proposed park & Associates. ride site) mammal - Eptesicus Serotine W&CA 16/06/2005 SU161292 Salisbury, MMW & SP Bat survey by bat serotinus Petersfield Nicholas Pearson (proposed park & Associates. ride site) mammal - Eptesicus Serotine W&CA 06/07/2005 SU161292 Salisbury, MMW & JO Bat survey by bat serotinus Petersfield Nicholas Pearson (proposed park & Associates. ride site) mammal - Myotis Daubenton's W&CA 01/01/1960 SU1629 Petersfinger Unknown bat daubentonii Bat Pits mammal - Myotis Daubenton's W&CA 23/08/1980 SU1529 Salisbury CMRP 1 dead in canal bat daubentonii Bat mammal - Myotis Daubenton's W&CA 01/01/1961 SU1629 Petersfinger Pit Unknown bat daubentonii Bat mammal - Myotis Daubenton's W&CA 01/01/1966 SU1629 Petersfinger Unknown Skimming over bat daubentonii Bat (Pits) water. mammal - Myotis nattereri Natterer's W&CA 30/11/1965 SU1629 Petersfinger CMRP bat Bat mammal - Myotis nattereri Natterer's W&CA 16/06/2005 SU161292 Salisbury, MMW & SP Bat survey by bat Bat Petersfield Nicholas Pearson (proposed park & Associates. ride site) mammal - Myotis nattereri Natterer's W&CA 06/07/2005 SU161292 Salisbury, MMW & JO Bat survey by bat Bat Petersfield Nicholas Pearson (proposed park & Associates. ride site)
Wiltshire & Swindon Biological Records Centre N:\W&SBRC\Data searches\HD\MiddlemarchSalisbury.doc 25/06/2009 Page 2
mammal - Myotis Unidentified W&CA 06/07/2005 SU161292 Salisbury, MMW & JO Bat survey by bat Bat Petersfield Nicholas Pearson (proposed park & Associates. ride site) mammal - Nyctalus noctula Noctule W&CA 21/12/1956 SU1628 Britford EB bat mammal - Nyctalus noctula Noctule W&CA 30/11/1963 SU1629 Petersfinger CMRP Common bat mammal - Nyctalus noctula Noctule W&CA 31/05/2005 SU161292 Salisbury, MMW & SP Bat survey by bat Petersfield Nicholas Pearson (proposed park & Associates. ride site) mammal - Nyctalus noctula Noctule W&CA 16/06/2005 SU161292 Salisbury, MMW & SP Bat survey by bat Petersfield Nicholas Pearson (proposed park & Associates. ride site) mammal - Nyctalus noctula Noctule W&CA 06/07/2005 SU161292 Salisbury, MMW & JO Bat survey by bat Petersfield Nicholas Pearson (proposed park & Associates. ride site) mammal - Pipistrellus Pipistrellus W&CA 30/11/1976 SU161283 Britford HS Breeding female bat pipistrellus pipistrellus live (usually c80) mammal - Pipistrellus Pipistrellus W&CA 31/07/1977 SU1628 Britford, nr M c.80 in house bat pipistrellus pipistrellus Moat mammal - Pipistrellus Pipistrellus W&CA 31/05/2005 SU161292 Salisbury, MMW & SP Bat survey by bat pipistrellus pipistrellus Petersfield Nicholas Pearson (proposed park & Associates. ride site) mammal - Pipistrellus Pipistrellus W&CA 16/06/2005 SU161292 Salisbury, MMW & SP Bat survey by bat pipistrellus pipistrellus Petersfield Nicholas Pearson (proposed park & Associates. ride site) mammal - Pipistrellus Pipistrellus W&CA 06/07/2005 SU161292 Salisbury, MMW & JO Bat survey by bat pipistrellus pipistrellus Petersfield Nicholas Pearson (proposed park & Associates. ride site) mammal - Pipistrellus Soprano W&CA; 31/05/2005 SU161292 Salisbury, MMW & SP Bat survey by bat pygmaeus Pipistrelle UK BAP Petersfield Nicholas Pearson (proposed park & Associates. ride site) mammal - Pipistrellus Soprano W&CA; 16/06/2005 SU161292 Salisbury, MMW & SP Bat survey by
Wiltshire & Swindon Biological Records Centre N:\W&SBRC\Data searches\HD\MiddlemarchSalisbury.doc 25/06/2009 Page 3
bat pygmaeus Pipistrelle UK BAP Petersfield Nicholas Pearson (proposed park & Associates. ride site) mammal - Pipistrellus Soprano W&CA; 06/07/2005 SU161292 Salisbury, MMW & JO Bat survey by bat pygmaeus Pipistrelle UK BAP Petersfield Nicholas Pearson (proposed park & Associates. ride site) mammal - Pipistrellus Pipistrellus W&CA 02/08/2001 SU151283 Downton Road, Unknown bat Salisbury mammal - Pipistrellus Pipistrellus W&CA 09/08/2001 SU164293 The Cottages, Unknown bat Petersfinger Road,Salisbury mammal Arvicola European W&CA; 08/06/1985 SU1629 Petersfinger SDNHS 5 Infants see terrestris Water Vole UK BAP Pits memo mammal Arvicola European W&CA; 01/01/1987 SU155297 Milford R.Bourne DG 1 live in garden terrestris Water Vole UK BAP nr river mammal Arvicola European W&CA; 08/06/1985 SU1629 Petersfinger SDNHS 5 Infants see terrestris Water Vole UK BAP Pits memo mammal Arvicola European W&CA; 01/01/1987 SU155297 Milford R.Bourne DG 1 live in garden terrestris Water Vole UK BAP nr river mammal Erinaceus Hedgehog UK BAP 01/01/1843 SU1629 Milford lane Maton P70 see memo europaeus mammal Erinaceus Hedgehog UK BAP 01/04/1977 SU161283 Britford HS live in nest europaeus mammal Erinaceus Hedgehog UK BAP 03/06/2001 SU153295 Tollgate Road, P Theobald Road casualty europaeus Salisbury mammal Erinaceus Hedgehog UK BAP 13/06/2003 SU149293 Salisbury Park Penny 1 out in daylight europaeus Theobold mammal Erinaceus Hedgehog UK BAP 01/01/2004 SU1629 Petersfinger, Piers Road casualty europaeus Salisbury Mobsby mammal Lepus europaeus Brown Hare UK BAP 01/02/1977 SU161283 Britford HS live mammal Lepus europaeus Brown Hare UK BAP 01/08/1984 SU1529 Salisbury SDNHS 1 in water meadows nr, city mammal Lepus europaeus Brown Hare UK BAP 12/12/1984 SU1629 Petersfinger SDNHS dead on road mammal Lutra lutra Otter W&CA; 25/09/1997 SU156292 River Bourne I. Donald 3 old spraints UK BAP mammal Lutra lutra Otter W&CA; 25/09/1997 SU156291 River Bourne I. Donald Tracks at Milford UK BAP Bridge mammal Lutra lutra Otter W&CA; 10/05/2003 SU162293 Salisbury A36 Penny Dead, road kill UK BAP Theobold mammal Lutra lutra Otter W&CA; 17/11/2003 SU15802860 Salisbury Avon, Lin Davies Spraint
Wiltshire & Swindon Biological Records Centre N:\W&SBRC\Data searches\HD\MiddlemarchSalisbury.doc 25/06/2009 Page 4
UK BAP Britford mammal Lutra lutra Otter W&CA; 27/05/2005 SU150292 Bugmore Hatches Claire Spraint UK BAP Hamilton mammal Lutra lutra Otter W&CA; 28/11/2005 SU16482873 Petersfinger Allan Taking carp UK BAP Lakes Frake regularly mammal Micromys minutus Harvest UK BAP 02/02/1982 SU1628 Britford HS Killed by cat Mouse mammal Neomys fodiens Eurasian County 16/04/1982 SU1628 Britford HS Found Dead Water Shrew Notable mammal Neomys fodiens Eurasian County 01/01/1983 SU1628 Britford PS Present Water Shrew Notable mammal Neomys fodiens Eurasian County 01/01/1957 SU1629 Petersfinger SDFC Live Water Shrew Notable mammal Neomys fodiens Eurasian County 01/03/1960 SU1629 Petersfinger SDFC Many seen Water Shrew Notable mammal Neomys fodiens Eurasian County 01/04/1960 SU1629 Petersfinger SDFC Many seen Water Shrew Notable mammal Neomys fodiens Eurasian County 01/05/1960 SU1629 Petersfinger SDFC Many seen Water Shrew Notable mammal Neomys fodiens Eurasian County 01/01/1964 SU1629 Petersfinger SDNHS 1 Live see memo Water Shrew Notable mollusc Vertigo Vertigo UK BAP; 01/01/1996 SU153287 R. Avon, East I.K. (Vertigo) (Vertigo) NR Harnham Meadows moulinsiana moulinsiana SSSI mollusc Vertigo Vertigo UK BAP; 01/01/1996 SU154286 Britford to I.K. SU154286/163290 (Vertigo) (Vertigo) NR Petersfinger along route of moulinsiana moulinsiana Salisbury Bypass reptile Anguis fragilis Slow-worm W&CA; 08/09/1961 SU1629 Petersfinger, SDFC 2 basking UK BAP roadside reptile Anguis fragilis Slow-worm W&CA; 30/05/1968 SU1629 Milford, garden SDNHS UK BAP reptile Anguis fragilis Slow-worm W&CA; 28/04/1968 SU1629 Milford SDNHS Blue spotted and UK BAP 2 melanistic males reptile Anguis fragilis Slow-worm W&CA; 30/05/2006 SU161292 Unknown Lee mantle Found under UK BAP (Nicholas refuge during Pearson survey. Same Ass.) Slow-worm seen again on 7/7/06. reptile Natrix natrix Grass Snake W&CA; 08/06/1958 SU1629 Petersfinger SDFC, BP In water UK BAP
Wiltshire & Swindon Biological Records Centre N:\W&SBRC\Data searches\HD\MiddlemarchSalisbury.doc 25/06/2009 Page 5
reptile Natrix natrix Grass Snake W&CA; 08/09/1961 SU1629 Petersfinger, SDNHS 3 basking UK BAP road reptile Natrix natrix Grass Snake W&CA; 10/08/1963 SU1629 Petersfinger CMRP Took maggots from UK BAP angler's bait tin reptile Natrix natrix Grass Snake W&CA; 01/08/1966 SU1629 Petersfinger SDNHS Swimming UK BAP reptile Natrix natrix Grass Snake W&CA; 04/03/1967 SU1629 Petersfinger SDNHS UK BAP reptile Natrix natrix Grass Snake W&CA; 01/01/1968 SU1628 Britford SDNHS UK BAP reptile Natrix natrix Grass Snake W&CA; 01/06/1977 SU161283 Britford HS Live UK BAP reptile Natrix natrix Grass Snake W&CA; 30/05/1984 SU1629 Petersfinger SDNHS 2 swimming across UK BAP pond reptile Zootoca vivipara Common W&CA 28/04/1968 SU1629 Milford SDNHS Lizard reptile Zootoca vivipara Common W&CA 01/06/1977 SU161283 Britford HS Live Lizard vascular Adonis annua Pheasant's- UK BAP; 04/08/1937 SU1629 Salisbury Burges, Dr plant eye NS; EN R.C.L. vascular Chenopodium Good-King- VU 01/01/1984 SU1529 Unknown Noel & plant bonus-henricus Henry Brenda Chadwick vascular Dianthus armeria Deptford W&CA; 31/12/1873 SU1529 Milford, Hussey, Mr plant Pink UK BAP; Salisbury J. NS vascular Euphorbia exigua Dwarf Spurge NT 03/08/2002 SU1629 Rangers Lodge Barbara Unsprayed field plant Last edge, probably under Countryside Stewardship vascular Euphorbia exigua Dwarf Spurge NT 02/08/2002 SU1629 Rangers Lodge Barbara plant Last vascular Menyanthes Bogbean County 24/06/1994 SU153288 East Harnham Wilson, plant trifoliata Notable Meadows SSSI P.J. vascular Menyanthes Bogbean County 01/01/1995 SU151289 East Harnham Unknown plant trifoliata Notable Meadows SSSI vascular Menyanthes Bogbean County 01/01/1994 SU153286 Harnham, East Phil East Harnham plant trifoliata Notable Wilson, Meadows. Large Marion patch in one Read water meadow ditch only
Wiltshire & Swindon Biological Records Centre N:\W&SBRC\Data searches\HD\MiddlemarchSalisbury.doc 25/06/2009 Page 6
vascular Menyanthes Bogbean County 31/12/1993 SU153286 Harnham, East Phil plant trifoliata Notable Wilson, Marion Read vascular Menyanthes County 24 JUN SU153288 Middle Field - Wilson, plant trifoliata Notable 1994 East Harnham P.J.ýReed, Meadows SSSI M.E. vascular Menyanthes County 1995 SU151289 East Harnham plant trifoliata Notable Meadows SSSI vascular Oenanthe Tubular UK BAP; 18/07/1994 SU149290 East Harnham Wilson, plant fistulosa Water- VU Meadows SSSI P.J. Dropwort vascular Oenanthe Tubular UK BAP; 01/01/1994 SU148290 Salisbury Phil East Harnham plant fistulosa Water- VU Wilson, meadows, a few Dropwort Marion plants in former Read water meadow vascular Oenanthe Tubular UK BAP; 04/08/1994 SU1597728740 Wessex Water S.C. plant fistulosa Water- VU Landholding (Wessex Dropwort Water Employee) vascular Oenanthe Tubular UK BAP; 31/12/1993 SU148290 Salisbury Phil plant fistulosa Water- VU Wilson, Dropwort Marion Read vascular Oenanthe UK BAP; 18 JUL SU149290 West Field - Wilson, New UK BAP plant fistulosa VU 1994 East Harnham P.J.ýReed, Meadows SSSI M.E. vascular Papaver hybridum Rough Poppy County 03/08/2002 SU1629 Rangers Lodge Barbara Unsprayed field plant Notable Last edge, probably under Countryside Stewardship vascular Papaver hybridum Rough Poppy County 02/08/2002 SU1629 Rangers Lodge Barbara plant Notable Last vascular Poa angustifolia Narrow- County 09/05/1995 SU156279 Britford Roger - plant Leaved Notable Veall Meadow-Grass vascular Poa angustifolia Narrow- County 08/05/1995 SU156279 Britford Roger plant Leaved Notable Veall Meadow-Grass vascular Potamogeton Small County 21/06/1998 SU152286 East Harnham Wiltshire Water meadows plant berchtoldii Pondweed Notable Bot Soc
Wiltshire & Swindon Biological Records Centre N:\W&SBRC\Data searches\HD\MiddlemarchSalisbury.doc 25/06/2009 Page 7
vascular Potamogeton Small County 20/06/1998 SU152286 East Harnham Wiltshire plant berchtoldii Pondweed Notable Bot Soc vascular Potamogeton Perfoliate County 01/01/1994 SU152287 East Harnham Phil In Avon plant perfoliatus Pondweed Notable Wilson, navigation near Marion bridge Read vascular Potamogeton Perfoliate County 31/12/1993 SU152287 East Harnham Phil plant perfoliatus Pondweed Notable Wilson, Marion Read vascular Ranunculus River Water- County 24/04/1985 SU155295 Milford-R Bourne B&N Shallow river. plant fluitans Crowfoot Notable Chadwick vascular Ranunculus River Water- County 17/08/1986 SU152289 East Harnham N L Carrier. plant fluitans Crowfoot Notable farm Chadwick vascular Veronica Pink Water- County 21/06/1998 SU152286 East Harnham Wiltshire Water meadows plant catenata Speedwell Notable Bot Soc vascular Veronica Pink Water- County 20/06/1998 SU152286 East Harnham Wiltshire plant catenata Speedwell Notable Bot Soc
Statutory & Non-Statutory Wildlife Sites
File code Grid Ref. Site name Area (Ha) Conservation status Selection criteria Source Habitat SU12.06 SU164288 Petersfinger 5.58781 CWS 3 WTNC 1984-85 Neutral Farm Meadows (G);WSP AD grassland; SU12.49 SU151289 East Harnham 17.50 SSSI EN SSSI;WTNC Meadows SSSI 1984-85 (G);EN 1994 (G) SU12.50 SU169285 Clarendon 12.908 CWS 3 EN 1994 (G); Grange Meadows WSP 2002; WSP 2008 SU12.51 SU173264 The River Avon 297.18 SSSI;part SAC EN SSSI;EN System SSSI (10km);NCC SRCS SU12.54 SU173256 River Avon 5.85667 CWS 6 EN (10km); NCC South (6 SRCS parcels)
Wiltshire & Swindon Biological Records Centre N:\W&SBRC\Data searches\HD\MiddlemarchSalisbury.doc 25/06/2009 Page 8
UK SAC data form
NATURA 2000 STANDARD DATA FORM FOR SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS (SPA) FOR SITES ELIGIBLE FOR IDENTIFICATION AS SITES OF COMMUNITY IMPORTANCE (SCI) AND FOR SPECIAL AREAS OF CONSERVATION (SAC)
1. Site identification:
1.1 Type K 1.2 Site code UK0013016
1.3 Compilation date 199803 1.4 Update 200105
1.5 Relationship with other Natura 2000 sites U K 9 0 1 1 0 9 1
1.6 Respondent(s) International Designations, JNCC, Peterborough
1.7 Site name River Avon
1.8 Site indication and designation classification dates date site proposed as eligible as SCI 199803 date confirmed as SCI 200412 date site classified as SPA date site designated as SAC 200504
2. Site location: 2.1 Site centre location longitude latitude 01 49 24 W 51 06 14 N
2.2 Site area (ha) 498.24 2.3 Site length (km)
2.5 Administrative region NUTS code Region name % cover
UK631 Dorset 11.38% UK561 Hampshire 26.13% UK613 Wiltshire 62.31%
2.6 Biogeographic region X Alpine Atlantic Boreal Continental Macaronesia Mediterranean
River Avon Natura 2000 Data Form Page 1 Produced by JNCC. Version 2.1, 17/05/06 UK SAC data form 3. Ecological information:
3.1 Annex I habitats Habitat types present on the site and the site assessment for them:
Annex I habitat % cover Representati Relative Conservation Global vity surface status assessment
Water courses of plain to montane levels with the 95 A B B A Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation Alkaline fens 2 D Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus 1 D excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)
3.2 Annex II species Population Site assessment Resident Migratory Species name Breed Winter Stage Population Conservation Isolation Global Vertigo moulinsiana >10,000 - - - B B C A Austropotamobius Very - - - D pallipes rare Petromyzon marinus Present - - - C B C B Commo Lampetra planeri - - - C B C B n 501- Salmo salar - - - C C C B 1000 Commo Cottus gobio - - - C A C B n Lutra lutra Rare - - - D
4. Site description
4.1 General site character Habitat classes % cover Marine areas. Sea inlets Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mud flats. Sand flats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins) Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes Coastal sand dunes. Sand beaches. Machair Shingle. Sea cliffs. Islets Inland water bodies (standing water, running water) 95.0 Bogs. Marshes. Water fringed vegetation. Fens 2.0 Heath. Scrub. Maquis and garrigue. Phygrana 2.0 Dry grassland. Steppes Humid grassland. Mesophile grassland Alpine and sub-alpine grassland Improved grassland Other arable land Broad-leaved deciduous woodland 1.0 Coniferous woodland Evergreen woodland Mixed woodland Non-forest areas cultivated with woody plants (including orchards, groves, vineyards, dehesas) Inland rocks. Screes. Sands. Permanent snow and ice Other land (including towns, villages, roads, waste places, mines, industrial sites) Total habitat cover 100%
River Avon Natura 2000 Data Form Page 2 Produced by JNCC. Version 2.1, 17/05/06 UK SAC data form
4.1 Other site characteristics
Soil & geology: Alluvium, Basic, Clay, Limestone, Neutral, Nutrient-rich Geomorphology & landscape: Floodplain, Island, Lowland, Valley 4.2 Quality and importance Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation • for which this is considered to be one of the best areas in the United Kingdom.
Vertigo moulinsiana • for which this is considered to be one of the best areas in the United Kingdom.
Petromyzon marinus • for which this is considered to be one of the best areas in the United Kingdom.
Lampetra planeri • for which this is considered to be one of the best areas in the United Kingdom.
Salmo salar • for which this is considered to be one of the best areas in the United Kingdom.
Cottus gobio • for which this is considered to be one of the best areas in the United Kingdom.
4.3 Vulnerability The main factors influencing the river system are: historical modifications for mills, water meadows and more recently land drainage; land use in the catchment, abstraction of water for public supply and agricultural uses, disposal of sewage effluents and management of the water courses for fishery, agricultural and other uses. Currently much of the system is considered to be at risk from reduced flows, elevated nutrient levels and changes to sediment processes resulting from previous channel modifications.
Full restoration of the conservation status of the qualifying features will be a long-term process addressing major land use activities on a catchment scale through Local Environment Action Plans, Catchment Abstraction Plans and Water Level Management Plans as well as through management agreements with landowners/occupiers. Research is required to develop a fuller understanding of the relationships between the influential factors and the qualifying features in order to effectively address the key issues. A LIFE UK Rivers project has been started (1999) to enhance understanding and trial remedial treatments.
Reviews of abstraction licences and discharge consents under the Habitats Regulations will help to address some of the water quality and quantity issues. Several projects are being undertaken to address these issues, including modification of abstraction and discharges through the 1999 UK Water Company Price Review, and a Landcare Project to address diffuse pollution issues.
5. Site protection status and relation with CORINE biotopes:
5.1 Designation types at national and regional level Code % cover UK00 (N/A) 0.2 UK04 (SSSI/ASSI) 99.8
River Avon Natura 2000 Data Form Page 3 Produced by JNCC. Version 2.1, 17/05/06 COUNTY: HAMPSHIRE/DORSET/WILTSHIRE SITE NAME: RIVER AVON SYSTEM Status: Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) notified under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981, as amended. Environment Agency Region: South Wessex Water Company: Wessex Water PLC, Bournemouth and West Hampshire Water Company Local Planning Authorities: Hampshire County Council, Dorset County Council, Wiltshire County Council, East Dorset District Council, New Forest District Council, Christchurch Borough Council, Salisbury District Council, Kennet District Council, West Wilts District Council National Grid Reference: SZ 163923 (Christchurch Harbour) to: SU 073583 (Avon) ST 867413 (Wylye) ST 963297 (Nadder), SU 170344 (Bourne) SZ 241147 (Dockens Water) Extent of River SSSI: Approx 205.11 km, 507.79 (ha.) Ordnance Survey Sheet: (1:50 000) 173 183 184 195 Date notified (under 1981 Act): 16 December 1996 Other Information: A new river SSSI. This site is listed as Grade 1* quality in ‘A Nature Conservation Review’ edited by D A Ratcliffe, C.U.P., 1977. Parts of the site are separately notified as: Lower Woodford Water Meadows SSSI (1987); East Harnham Meadows (1995); Britford Water Meadows (1987); Avon Valley (Bickton- Christchurch) SSSI (1993). The site is significant for the following habitat and species covered by Council Directive 92/43/EEC on The Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna: Habitat Floating vegetation of Ranunculus of plain and submountainous rivers Species Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus Annex IIa Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri Annex IIa Atlantic salmon Salmo salar Annex IIa, Va Bullhead Cotto gobius Annex IIa Desmoulin’s Whorl Snail Vertigo moulinsiana Annex IIa Parts of the site lie in the Avon Valley Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) and/or the West Wiltshire Downs and Cranborne Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). It also passes through the New Forest. Description and Reasons for Notification: Key Features The River Avon and its tributaries are of national and international importance for their wildlife communities. The Avon is richer and more varied than in most chalk streams with over 180 species of aquatic plant having been recorded, one of the most diverse fish faunas in Britain and a wide range of aquatic invertebrates. It rises in the Pewsey Vale as a network of clay streams fed by chalk springs. These converge to a chalk river running through Salisbury Plain. At Salisbury this is joined by the main Wiltshire tributaries and develops into a large calcareous river flowing over more acid sands and clay as it passes the New Forest and the Dorset Heaths. The site includes the Dockens Water, a largely unmodified acid stream draining New Forest heathlands. The Wiltshire tributaries, of interest in their own right and with contrasting geologies, are included primarily on account of their importance, with the Avon itself, for internationally rare or threatened species (Ranunculus vegetation, sea lamprey, brook lamprey, bullhead, Atlantic salmon and Desmoulin’s whorl snail). The Bourne section is a pure chalk stream, the Wylye rises in clay and develops into a chalk stream and the Nadder is influenced by greensand but again primarily calcareous in character. In the upper reaches of the system the rivers support outstanding chalk stream fisheries. The surrounding land is mainly grazed or arable. From Salisbury to Ringwood the floodplain is much broader and the river becomes braided where old water meadow channels exist. The floodplain is largely given over to grazing. The upper reaches of the rivers are largely fed from chalk springs and in the Avon itself flows are relatively constant. The water quality of the Avon and northern tributaries are affected by high levels of phosphates and nitrates. These appear to adversely affect the flora, especially downstream of sewage discharges. Flora The plant communities in the Avon and the three northern tributaries are characteristic of a calcareous river with a clay influence. The water crowfoot Ranunculus penicillatus var. pseudofluitans is dominant through most of the river. Other water crowfoot species are present, reflecting different conditions. In the upper reaches R. peltatus occurs, in the middle reaches R. fluitans and in the lower, more sluggish, river R. circinatus. The Dockens Water supports R. flammula and R. omiophyllus which are characteristic more of bogs than rivers. Two other groups of aquatic plants are characteristic of the different geological influences. The starworts Calitriche obtusangula and C. platycarpa grow with water crowfoot in clumps on the river beds. C. stagnalis is more frequent in the chalk tributaries and C. hamulata in the Dockens Water. Pondweeds reflect the more enriched nature of the Avon itself with Potomageton pectinatus and P. perfoliatus in the upper reaches, and P. lucens, P. silicifolius (a hybrid between the last two species) and P. berchtoldii in the lower section. In the more acid Dockens Water bog pondweed P. polygonifolius and broad- leaved pondweed P. natans are found. The influence of the more acid sands is also illustrated by the occurrence of common spike-rush Eleocharis palustris and hemlock water- dropwort Oenanthe crocata. Other species of the channel flora in the Avon include spiked water-milfoil Myriophyllum spicatum, arrowhead Sagittaria sagittifolius, lesser water-parsnip Berula erecta and fool’s watercress Apium nodiflorum. Flowering rush Butomus umbellatus occurs in both its submergent and emergent forms, perhaps its fullest expression in a British river. The nationally scarce river water dropwort Oenanthe fluviatilis is found in the Avon and the Wylye, and the locally important hemlock water dropwort Oenanthe crocata also occurs in the system, although more characteristically at the river edge. Adjacent and associated habitats comprise swamp, wet woodland and flood pasture habitats that are now rare both locally and nationally, although they would once have dominated the floodplains of the upper Avon. The swamp communities are dominated by sweet grass Glyceria maxima, common reed Phragmites australis or lesser pond sedge Carex acutiformis. These are especially important habitats for invertebrates and birds. The wet woodlands are dominated by alder Alnus glutinosa. Their ground flora is governed by the water levels, with nettles Urtica dioca on dryer ground and greater tussock sedge Carex paniculata in wetter areas. There are small stands of mixed alder-ash Fraxinus excelsior woodland, whose ground flora is characterised by creeping jenny Lysimachia nemorum. The site includes small fragments of agriculturally unimproved flood pasture. These are dominated by three rare grassland types: meadow foxtail-great burnet Alopecurus pratensis- Sanguisorba officianalis, crested dog’s tail-black knapweed Cynosurus cristatus-Centaurea nigra and crested dog’s tail-marsh marigold C. cristatus-Caltha palustris. These flower rich grasslands are relics of traditional grazing systems once common throughout Wiltshire’s river valleys. Their swards are more productive without fertilisers than many other grassland types, however they are inferior by modern agricultural standards and most have been lost to drainage and fertilisation. Invertebrates The invertebrate fauna of the Avon is extremely rich and contains most of the species associated with a large river running through calcareous areas. In the upper stretches, over clay, there is a reasonable range of mayfly species and a variety of gastropods. The middle reaches have the most diverse fauna, again especially mayflies and mollusca, including the very localised Baetis atrebatinus. Tall fen habitats are notable for the presence of the internationally important Desmoulin’s Whorl Snail. From the lower river two species of aquatic mollusc have been recorded: Valvata macrostoma (vulnerable status) and the pea mussel Pisidium tenuilineatum (rare status), both inhabitants of slow flowing waters Birds The river system and its adjacent vegetation provide a variety of habitats for breeding, wintering and migrating birds. The lower Avon supports a good breeding populations of kingfisher Alcedo atthis, reed warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus and sedge warbler Acrocephalus schoenobaenus. It is also important as a feeding site for passage birds, in particular common sandpiper Tringa hypoleucos, green sandpiper Tringa ochropus and garganey Anas querquedula. Several pairs of the rare Cettis warbler Cettia cetti are associated with the riverine habitats. Around Salisbury and in the upper reaches of the system birds breeding on the river include little grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis, kingfisher and mute swan. Fringing vegetation is used by reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus, yellow wagtail Motacilla flava, sedge and reed warblers.
Fish The system has an extremely diverse fish fauna with more species recorded in the Avon than in any other British river. The renowned salmonid fisheries, with wild populations of migratory sea trout Salmo trutta, brown trout and Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. A wide range of coarse fish are present, including bullhead Cottus gobio, minnow Phoxinus phoxinus, 3-spined stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus, dace Leuciscus leuciscus, stone loach Noemacheilus barbatulus, pike Esox lucius, grayling Thymallus thymallus, eel Anguilla anguilla, perch Perca fluviatilis, roach Rutilus rutilus, gudgeon Gobio gobio, bleak Alburnus alburnus. The system is notable for sea Petromyzon marinus and brook lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis, the latter having particularly important spawning areas in the upper reaches. Mammals The system as a whole is well used by water voles Arvicola terrestris and water shrews Neomys fodiens, with occasional recent evidence of otter Lutra lutra. COUNTY: WILTSHIRE SITE NAME: EAST HARNHAM MEADOWS
Status: Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) notified under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
Local Planning Authorities: SALISBURY DISTRICT COUNCIL, Wiltshire County Council
National Grid Reference: SU 151289 Area: 17.29 (ha.)
Ordnance Survey Sheet 1:50,000: 184 1:10,000: SU 12 NE SU 12 NW
Date Notified (Under 1981 Act): 11 September 1995 Date of Last Revision: Ð
Description and Reasons for Notification: East Harnham Meadows is an area of botanically rich, neutral grassland lying within the floodplain of the River Avon near the centre of Salisbury. The complex of small pastures, criss-crossed with ditches and bordered by the River Avon and its channels, was formerly under water meadow management. This type of management, where controlled flooding was used to increase the early growth of plants for grazing, was once widespread along the River Avon. With the decline of water meadow management most meadows in the area have become intensively farmed, and through the use of fertilisers and reseeding have lost their wildlife interest. East Harnham Meadows is one of the few sites which has been managed in a way which encourages wildlife, and the herb-rich grassland which it supports is now rare both in Wiltshire and in Britain as a whole.
The grazed wet meadows support short grassland which is especially rich in plant species. Grasses and sedges such as crested dogÕs-tail Cynosurus Cristatus, red fescue Festuca rubra and carnation sedge Carex panicea, and herbs such as marsh marigold Caltha palustris, water avens Geum rivale and ragged Robin Lychnis flos- cuculi occur throughout the grassland. Marsh arrowgrass Triglochin palustris is usually restricted to small marshy areas in meadows, but surprisingly it is found throughout the grassland here. The uncommon southern marsh orchid Dactylorhiza praetermissa and early marsh orchid Dactylorhiza incarnata are widespread. Wetter areas within the meadows support tall vegetation with yellow iris Iris pseudacorus, lesser pond sedge Carex acutiformis and meadowsweet Filipendula ulmaria, and the uncommon bogbean Menyanthes trifoliata and marsh valerian Valeriana dioica occur in the ditches. The herb-rich grassland extends across twelve small meadows, an unusually large area to have avoided agricultural improvement.
To the north west the ground becomes dryer and a different grassland type is present. Plants such as quaking grass Briza media, black knapweed Centaurea nigra and pepper-saxifrage Silaum silaus can be found here. Conversely, towards the north east, the ground becomes wetter and the grassland grades into fen and swamp vegetation dominated by reed canary-grass Phalaris arundinacea and reed sweet-grass Glyceria maxima. It is now unusual to find large areas of herb-rich grassland associated with fen vegetation, since agriculturally improved grassland often occurs within metres of the fen.
Altogether a variety of different habitats are present, all of which are very sensitive to the water table and hence the water level in the River Avon and its channels. Such a variety of habitats are important for insects and other animals. Six species of grasshopper have been found including the uncommon slender ground-hopper Tetrix subulata and long-winged cone-head Conocephalus discolor. The meadows are also valuable for birds. Snipe, uncommon lowland breeding birds, frequent the grazed meadows and are thought to breed here. Reed and sedge warblers breed in the taller fen vegetation while kingfishers frequent the river channels. Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
APPENDIX 2 Middlemarch Environmental Ltd Drawings C108361-01
EXTENDED PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 41 >
&§ 15 2 &§ H! &§ H! 11
> &§ H! 20 H! 1 19 &§H! &§ H! 18 &§ H! &§ 4 13 &§ 12 E H! H! H! &§ 3 &§ &§ 10 H! 7 5 H!&§ H! 16 14 H! R H! H! &§ iv &§ e &§ r 8 A v o &§ H! n &§ 13 &§ H! 6 ! 9 17 H H! H! &§ E E E
Client Project Pinsent Masons LLP Southampton Road, Salisbury Legend Drawing Drawing Number Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey C108361-01
Revision Date Site boundary Amenity grassland C A 00 September 2010 Scale at A4 Drawn By ! ! ! 1 Target note Bare ground H! ! 1:3,000 SKS 0 ! ! Approved B y Notes Dense scrub 8 HSM - Scattered scrub 3 E Hardstanding 6
&§ Scattered trees Neutral grassland 1 -
Ditch/depression Swamp 0 1 Tall ruderal > Running water Tall ruderal/neutral grassland Triumph House, Birmingham Road, Allesley, Coventry CV5 9AZ Species-poor defunct hedgerow T:01676 525880 F:01676 521400 Tall ruderal/swamp E:[email protected]
This map is reproduced from the Ordance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office. (c) Crown copyright. PFA Consulting drawing C423_07.dwg $ Licence No: AL100000054 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
APPENDIX 3
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS (Lyons, Sleeman and Hoare Architects Drawing 10001 SK-13)
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 43 Ecological Area (4.5ha, 11.0 Acres approx) Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
APPENDIX 4
OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 44 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
GENERAL LEGISLATION AND POLICY OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the framework of legislation and policy which underpins nature conservation and is a material consideration in the planning process in England.
CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010 (HABITATS REGULATIONS 2010) The Habitats Regulations 2010 consolidate and update the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 and all its various amendments. The Habitats Regulations 2010 are the principal means by which the EEC Council Directive 92/43 (The Habitats Directive) as amended is transposed into English and Welsh law.
The Habitats Regulations 2010 place duty upon the relevant authority of government to identify sites which are of importance to the habitats and species listed in Annexes I and II of the Habitats Directive. Those sites which meet the criteria are, in conjunction with the European Commission, designated as Sites of Community Importance, which are subsequently identified as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) by the European Union member states. The regulations also place a duty upon the government to maintain a register of European protected sites designated as a result of EC Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (The Birds Directive). These sites are termed Special Protection Areas (SPA) and, in conjunction with SACs, form a network of sites known as Natura 2000. The Habitats Directive introduces for the first time for protected areas, the precautionary principle; that is that projects can only be permitted having ascertained no adverse effect on the integrity of the site. Projects may still be permitted if there are no alternatives, and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest.
The Habitats Regulations 2010 also provide for the protection of individual species of fauna and flora of European conservation concern listed in Schedules 2 and 5 respectively. Schedule 2 includes species such as otter and great crested newt for which the UK population represents a significant proportion of the total European population. It is an offence to deliberately kill, injure, disturb or trade these species. Schedule 5 plant species are protected from unlawful destruction, uprooting or trade under the regulations.
THE WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT (WCA) 1981 (AS AMENDED) The WCA, as amended, consolidates and amends pre-existing national wildlife legislation in order to implement the Bern Convention and the Birds Directive. It complements the Conservation (Natural Habitats. &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended), offering protection to a wider range of species. The Act also provides for the designation and protection of national conservation sites of value for their floral, faunal or geological features, termed Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).
Schedules of the act provide lists of protected species, both flora and fauna, and detail the possible offences that apply to these species. All relevant species specific legislation is detailed later in this Appendix.
THE COUNTRYSIDE AND RIGHTS OF WAY (CROW) ACT 2000 The CROW Act, introduced in England and Wales in 2000, amends and strengthens existing wildlife legislation detailed in the WCA. It places a duty on government departments and the National Assembly for Wales to have regard for biodiversity, and provides increased powers for the protection and maintenance of SSSIs.
The Act also contains lists of habitats and species (Section 74) for which conservation measures should be promoted, in accordance with the recommendations of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio Earth Summit) 1992.
THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL COMMUNITIES (NERC) ACT 2006 Section 40 of the NERC Act places a duty upon all local authorities and public bodies in England and Wales to promote and enhance biodiversity in all of their functions. Sections 41 (England) and 42 (Wales) list habitats and species of principal importance to the conservation of biodiversity. These lists supersede Section 74 of the CRoW Act 2000. These species and habitats are a material consideration in the planning process.
THE HEDGEROW REGULATIONS 1997 The Hedgerow Regulations make provision for the identification of important hedgerows which may not be removed without permission from the Local Planning Authority.
UK BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN The United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP), first published in 1994 and updated in 2007, is a government initiative designed to implement the requirements of the Convention of Biological Diversity to
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 45 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey conserve and enhance species and habitats. The UKBAP contains a list of priority habitats and species of conservation concern in the UK, and outlines biodiversity initiatives designed to enhance their conservation status. Lists and Broad and Local habitats are also included. The priority habitats and species correlate with those listed on Section 41 and 42 of the NERC Act.
The UKBAP requires that conservation of biodiversity is addressed at a County level through the production of Local BAPs. These are complementary to the UKBAP, however are targeted towards species of conservation concern characteristic of each area. In addition, a number of local authorities and large organisations have produced their own BAPs.
UKBAP and Local BAP targets with regard to species and habitats are a material consideration in the planning process.
PLANNING POLICY Planning Policy Statement 9 Planning Policy Statement 9 provides guidance to local authorities regarding the protection of biodiversity and geology through the planning system in England. Key principles relating to biodiversity include:
• Development plan policies and planning decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the environmental characteristics of their areas. These characteristics should include the relevant biodiversity and geological resources of the area. In reviewing environmental characteristics local authorities should assess the potential to sustain and enhance those resources.
• Plan policies and planning decisions should aim to maintain, and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. In taking decisions, local planning authorities should ensure that appropriate weight is attached to designated sites of international, national and local importance; protected species; and to biodiversity and geological interests within the wider environment.
• Plan policies should promote opportunities for the incorporation of beneficial biodiversity and geological features within the design of development.
National planning policy is implemented through local and regional planning policies.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 46 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
SPECIES SPECIFIC LEGISLATION
REPTILES All of the UK’s native reptiles are protected by law. The two rarest species – sand lizard (Lacerta agilis) and smooth snake (Coronella austriaca) benefit from the greatest protection.
Common lizard (Lacerta vivipara), slow-worm (Anguis fragilis), adder (Vipera berus) and grass snake (Natrix natrix) are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended from intentional killing or injuring.
Sand lizard and smooth snake are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 which together make it illegal to kill, injure, capture, handle or disturb these animals. Places they use for breeding, resting, shelter and protection are protected from being damaged or destroyed. It is also illegal to obstruct these animals from using such areas.
In England and Wales, this Act has been amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW), which adds an extra offence, makes species offences arrestable, increases the time limits for some prosecutions and increases penalties. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 places a duty on Government Departments to have regard for the conservation of biodiversity and maintains lists of species and habitats which are of principal importance for the purposes of conserving biodiversity in England and Wales. All native reptile species are included on these lists.
The reader is referred to the original legislation for the definitive interpretation.
This is a simplified description of the legislation. In particular, the offences mentioned here may be absolute, intentional, deliberate or reckless. Note that where it is predictable that reptiles are likely to be killed or injured by activities such as site clearance, this could legally constitute intentional killing or injuring.
English Nature (2004) has stated that:
Reptiles are likely to be threatened, and the law potentially breached, by activities such as the following:
• Archaeological and geotechnical investigations • Clearing land, installing site offices or digging foundations • Cutting vegetation to a low height • Laying pipelines or installing other services • Driving machinery over sensitive areas • Storing construction materials in sensitive areas • Removing rubble, wood piles and other debris.
In general English Nature would expect reasonable avoidance to include measures such as altering development layouts to avoid key areas, as well as capture and exclusion of reptiles.
For sand lizards and smooth snakes, licences may be issued for some activities (such as disturbance and capture) that would otherwise be prohibited.
Source: English Nature (2004) Reptiles: guidelines for developers. But updated in 2009 following the removal of a section of the old legislation about “necessary work”.
ST BATS: LEGISLATION (AS OF APRIL 1 2010) Bats and the places they use for shelter or protection (i.e. roosts) receive European protection under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations 2010). They receive further legal protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981, as amended. This protection means that bats, and the places they use for shelter or protection, are capable of being a material consideration in the planning process.
Regulation 41 of the Habitats Regulations 2010, states that a person commits an offence if they:
• deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat; • deliberately disturb bats; or • damage or destroy a bat roost (breeding site or resting place).
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 47 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
Disturbance of animals includes in particular any disturbance which is likely to impair their ability to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young, or in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong. It is an offence under the Habitats Regulations 2010 for any person to have in his possession or control, to transport, to sell or exchange or to offer for sale, any live or dead bats, part of a bat or anything derived from bats, which has been unlawfully taken from the wild.
Whilst broadly similar to the above legislation, the WCA 1981 (as amended) differs in the following ways:
• Section 9(1) of the WCA makes it an offence to intentionally (rather than deliberately) kill, injure or take any protected species. • Section 9(4)(a) of the WCA makes it an offence to intentionally or recklessly* damage or destroy, or obstruct access to, any structure or place which a protected species uses for shelter or protection. • Section 9(4)(b) of the WCA makes it an offence to intentionally or recklessly* disturb any protected species while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection.
*Reckless offences were added by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000.
As bats re-use the same roosts (breeding site or resting place) after periods of vacancy, legal opinion is that roosts are protected whether or not bats are present.
The following bat species are listed on the UK BAP and Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006: Barbastelle Bat Barbastella barbastellus, Bechstein’s Bat Myotis bechsteini, Noctule Bat Nyctalus noctula, Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, Brown Long-eared Bat Plecotus auritus, Greater Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, Lesser Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus hipposideros.
The reader should refer to the original legislation for the definitive interpretation.
NESTING AND NEST BUILDING BIRDS Nesting and nest building birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act WCA 1981 (as amended). Some species (listed in Schedule 1 of the WCA) are protected by special penalties.
Subject to the provisions of the act, if any person intentionally:
• kills, injures or takes any wild bird; • takes, damages or destroys the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built; or • takes or destroys an egg of any wild bird, he shall be guilty of an offence.
‘Reckless’ offences with regard to the disturbance of nesting wild birds included in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act were added by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 places a duty on Government Departments to have regard for the conservation of biodiversity and maintains lists of species and habitats which are of principal importance for the purposes of conserving biodiversity in England and Wales. These lists include a number of bird species.
LEGAL PROTECTION FOR PLANTS Plants occupy a rather different position from animals with regard to the law. A growing plant is regarded as the legal property of someone so that property laws cover plants as well as particular laws.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Sections 13, 16-24 and Schedule 8) and later amendments provides legal protection and enforcement within Great Britain for plants. In England and Wales, enforcement provisions were extended by Section 81 and Schedule 12 of the Countryside Rights of Way Act, 2000. In addition the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 places a duty on Government Departments to have regard for the conservation of biodiversity and maintains lists of species and habitats which are of principal importance for the purposes of conserving biodiversity. These lists include several plant species which can be found on: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 48 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
‘United Kingdom legislation for plant protection extends to land, including land covered by water, and territorial waters. The legislation prohibits any person from intentionally (in Scotland, also recklessly) picking, uprooting or destroying wild plants which are listed on the appropriate Schedule, and it is an offence to sell such wild plants. The legislation also prohibits the uprooting of wild plants not listed on the Schedule, unless the uprooting is carried out by the owner or occupier of the land on which the plant is growing, or by someone having their permission to do so, or unless the action is authorised in writing by the appropriate local authority, although such authorisation does not confer a right of entry to the land.’ (JNCC 2008)
‘It is a defense if the damage done to a protected plant listed on the Schedule is the result of an otherwise lawful action and could not reasonably have been avoided. The uprooting, picking or damaging of protected plants may be permitted under licence for purposes of science, education, conservation and photography, or to preserve public health or safety, or to prevent the spread of disease, or for the purpose of preventing serious damage to livestock, crops, growing timber or other form of property, or fisheries. The sale of such plants may also be permitted under licence, which must be obtained by the appropriate authority.’ (JNCC 2008)
‘In Great Britain, wildlife inspectors have the authority to enter and inspect a premise to investigate if the selling or intended sale of plants has been committed on the premise, and they have the power to take samples where they deem it necessary.’ (JNCC 2008)
In the United Kingdom, wild plants are also protected by European legislation (The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, Part II, Regulations 42-46 & Schedule 4) however there are no additional species which are protected; the appropriate Schedule lists the same species which are protected under UK legislation. The European protection, however, prohibits the collecting or cutting of certain wild plants, in addition to the picking, uprooting, destroying, selling or transporting of such wild plants.
LEGISLATION RELATING TO INVASIVE PLANTS The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides the primary controls on the release of non-native species into the wild in Great Britain. It is an offence under section 14(2) of the Act to ‘plant or otherwise cause to grow in the wild’ any plant listed in Schedule 9, Part II.
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 states that a person shall not:
• deposit controlled waste, or knowingly cause or knowingly permit controlled waste to be deposited in or on any land unless a waste management licence authorising the deposit is in force and the deposit is in accordance with the licence; • treat, keep or dispose of controlled waste, or knowingly cause or knowingly permit controlled waste to be treated, kept or disposed of: o in or on any land, or o by means of any mobile plant, except under and in accordance with a waste management licence; • treat, keep or dispose of controlled waste in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health.
Section 34 (3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and in Northern Ireland Section 5 (3) of the Waste and Contaminated Land (NI) Order 1997 describe the types of persons authorised to carry or dispose of waste. The client must ensure that anyone removing wastes from a business’s premises is one of the following:
• An authority which is a waste collection authority. • A person who has a waste management licence. • A person who is registered as a carrier of controlled waste. • A person exempt from registration as a carrier of controlled waste. • In Scotland, a waste disposal authority acting in accordance with a resolution made under section 54 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. • Any district council in Northern Ireland.
As each company is responsible for its own waste, it is important that a client should ask for proof that an individual/business is authorised to handle or transport it.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 49 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
The responsibility for the waste does not stop when the Waste Carrier removes it from the site; it extends until the waste has either been finally and properly disposed of or fully recovered. It is important to must ensure that the waste is disposed of at a suitably licensed or exempt facility.
Further details available on the Environment Agency website www.environment-agency.gov.uk.
DESMOULIN’S WHORL SNAIL Although not strictly protected the Desmoulin’s whorl snail is classified as Rare (GB Red list) and listed under Annex II of the European Habitats and Species Directive. It is also included as Priority UK BAP species and Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006.
WHITE-CLAWED CRAYFISH White-clawed crayfish are listed in Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), making it an offence to take them from the wild or sell them. They are also protected internationally under Annexes II and V of the EC Habitats Directive and listed in Appendix III of the Bern Convention. It is classed as Globally Threatened by IUCN/WCMC.
In England and Wales, this Act has been amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CroW), which adds an extra offence, makes species offences arrestable, increases the time limits for some prosecutions and increases penalties. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 places a duty on Government Departments to have regard for the conservation of biodiversity and maintains lists of species and habitats which are of principal importance for the purposes of conserving biodiversity in England and Wales. White-clawed crayfish are included on these lists.
In the UK the white-clawed crayfish is a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority species, both nationally and locally.
Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) makes it an offence to release or allow to escape into the wild all three non-native species of crayfish in the UK. The use of native crayfish as bait is illegal under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). This practice could be further prevented by being made an offence under the fishery bylaws. The reader is referred to the original legislation for the definitive interpretation. Source: http://www.wildlifetrust.org.uk/herts/news%20and%20projects/species%20project/crayfish.htm
OTTERS The otter benefits from world-wide protection under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna. It also receives European protection under Appendix II of the Bern Convention and Annexes II and IV of the EU Habitats Directive 94/43/EEC, which is transposed into UK Law by means of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations 2010).
Regulation 41 of the Habitats Regulations 2010, states that a person commits an offence if they:
• deliberately capture, injure or kill an otter; • deliberately disturb otters; or • damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place.
Disturbance of animals includes in particular any disturbance which is likely to impair their ability to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young, or in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong. It is an offence under the Habitats Regulations 2010 for any person to have in his possession or control, to transport, to sell or exchange or to offer for sale, any live or dead otter, part of an otter or anything derived from an otter which has been unlawfully taken from the wild.
Whilst broadly similar to the above legislation, the WCA 1981 (as amended) differs in the following ways:
• Section 9(1) of the WCA makes it an offence to intentionally (rather than deliberately) kill, injure or take any protected species. • Section 9(4)(a) of the WCA makes it an offence to intentionally or recklessly* damage or destroy, or obstruct access to, any structure or place which a protected species uses for shelter or protection.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 50 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
• Section 9(4)(b) of the WCA makes it an offence to intentionally or recklessly* disturb any protected species while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection.
*Reckless offences were added by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000.
Otters are listed on the UK BAP and Section 41 (England) and Section 42 (Wales) of the NERC Act 2006.
The reader should refer to the original legislation for the definitive interpretation.
WATER VOLE The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) was updated on April 6th 2008 and the protection which water voles receive was increased to make it an offence to:
• Intentionally kill, injure or take water vole from the wild; • Possess or control live or dead water voles or derivatives; • Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place which water voles use for shelter or protection; • Intentionally or recklessly disturb water voles whilst occupying a structure or place used for that purpose; or • Sell water voles or offer or offer or expose for sale or transport for sale.
In England and Wales, this Act has been amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CroW), which adds an extra offence, makes species offences arrestable, increases the time limits for some prosecutions and increases penalties. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 places a duty on Government Departments to have regard for the conservation of biodiversity and maintains lists of species and habitats which are of principal importance for the purposes of conserving biodiversity in England and Wales. These lists include water vole.
If applicable The Act provides a defence against the above where the action is the incidental results of an otherwise lawful operation and could not have been avoided (s.10(3)9c)).
Licences are required to be applied for should the following activities which would otherwise be an offence, this includes:
• For scientific or educational purposes; • For the purposes of ringing or marking; • For conserving wild animals or introducing them into particular areas; • Preserving public health or public safety; • Preventing the spread of disease; and • Preventing serious damage to any form of property or to fisheries.
The reader is referred to the original legislation for definitive interpretation.
Source: Natural England, Water voles and development: licensing policy (2008).
WATER SHREW The Eurasian water shrew Neomys fodiens is listed under Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and under Schedule III of the Berne Convention. This legislation provides the following protection:
• against certain methods of taking and killing (traps, nets, poisons, automatic weapons, electrical devices, smokes/gases and various others), • from exploitation (indiscriminate mass killing, trading and any means capable of causing local disapperance or serious disturbance).
The water shrew is classified as a Species of Conservation Concern.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 51 Salisbury Gateway, Wiltshire RT-MME-108361-01 - Updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
MIDDLEMARCH ENVIRONMENTAL LTD
QUALITY ASSURANCE
TITLE: SALISBURY GATEWAY, WILTSHIRE
UPDATED EXTENDED PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY
A Report to Pinsent Masons LLP
Contract Number: C108361
Report Number: RT-MME-108361-01
Revision Number: 01
Description: Final
Date: October 2010
Checked by:
Tim Hextell Principal Technical Ecological Consultant
Approved by:
Dr Philip Fermor Managing Director
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 52 Salisbury Gateway Environmental Statement Volume 4: Appendices
Appendix 7.2: Phase 2 Botanical Survey Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
SOUTHAMPTON ROAD, SALISBURY, WILTSHIRE
PHASE 2 BOTANICAL SURVEY
CONTROLLED COPY
01 OF 02
01 GILLESPIES
02 MIDDLEMARCH ENVIRONMENTAL LTD
This report was conducted and compiled by Helen S Miller CEnv MIEEM
The contents of this report are the responsibility of Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. It should be noted, that whilst every effort is made to meet the client’s brief, no site investigation can ensure complete assessment or prediction of the natural environment
Contract Number C105589
August 2009, Revised October 2010
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 2 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd (MEL) was commissioned by Gillespies to undertake a suite of ecological surveys of an area of land off Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire. It is understood the land will be developed for a retail development with ecological and landscape aspects forming a significant component.
The following surveys have been completed for the site:
• Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (RTMME-105440) June 2009, Updated & superseded September 2010 by RT-MME- 108361-01 • Botanical survey (RTMME-105589) August 2009 • Bat survey (RTMME-105590) August 2009 • Bird habitat survey (RTMME-105591) August 2009 • Snail survey (RTMME-105592) August 2009 • Aquatic fauna survey (RTMME-105593) August 2009 • Reptile survey (RTMME-105594) August – September 2009 • Winter bird survey (RTMME-106241-07) November 2009 – February 2010 • Breeding bird survey (RTMME-105591-01) March - July 2010 • Arboricultural survey (RT-MME-106126) September 2010.
Subsequent to these surveys a number of other ecological documents have been produced: • Ecological Impact Assessment (RT-MME-105588) October 2009 • Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme (RT-MME-108361-02) October 2010 • Construction Ecological Management Plan (RT-MME-108361-03) October 2010.
This current report pertains to the Phase 2 Botanical Survey undertaken on the 10-12th and 23-24th August 2009. A review of the site in September 2010 did not suggest that the site had significantly changed since these surveys.
Twelve communities were identified on site, including mesotrophic wet and dry grasslands; open vegetation; woodland/scrub; and swamp/tall-herb fen. In addition a stand of Fallopia japonica Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera and several mature/veteran trees were found on site. These features are significant on account of the former two being invasive and non-native status with subsequent legal implications; the latter have high ecological value. A locally important species, Oenanthe crocata was recorded on site.
Several of the swamp/tall-herb fen communities had notable anomalies compared to the community detailed by Rodwell (1995). However, the apparent lack of correspondence to the described community does not detract from the botanical interest in relation to the areas immediate surrounding habitats. The greatest interest is along the southern edge, south-east corner and along the old drainage ditches of the site where the vegetation communities formed highly complex mosaics.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 3 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 5
1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 5
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 6
2. METHODOLOGY ...... 7
3. RESULTS ...... 10
3.1 SURVEY CONDITIONS ...... 10
3.2 NVC COMMUNITIES IDENTIFIED AND THEIR TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS ...... 10 3.2.1 Grasslands ...... 11 3.2.2 Open vegetation...... 12 3.2.3 Woodland and scrub ...... 12 3.2.4 Swamp vegetation ...... 13 3.2.5 Other vegetation ...... 14
3.3 DISCUSSION ...... 14 3.3.1 Overview of the site ...... 14 3.3.2 Grassland communities ...... 17 3.3.3 Open vegetation communities ...... 19 3.3.4 Woodland and scrub communities...... 19 3.3.5 Swamp communities ...... 20 3.3.6 Other communities ...... 21
4. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 22
4.1 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ...... 22
4.2 CONCLUSIONS ...... 23
REFERENCES ...... 24
APPENDICES ...... 25
APPENDIX 1: PREVIOUS PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEYS ...... 26
APPENDIX 2: BOTANICAL SURVEY ...... 27
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 4 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND In August 2009 Gillespies commissioned Middlemarch Environmental Ltd (MEL) to undertake a suite of ecological surveys of an area of land off Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire. It is understood the land will be developed for a retail development with ecological and landscape aspects forming a significant component.
In June 2009 MEL undertook an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (MEL Report Number RT-MME-105440). From the results of this survey the following ecological studies have subsequently been completed:
• Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (RTMME-105440) June 2009, Updated & superseded September 2010 by RT-MME- 108361-01 • Botanical survey (RTMME-105589) August 2009 • Bat survey (RTMME-105590) August 2009 • Bird habitat survey (RTMME-105591) August 2009 • Snail survey (RTMME-105592) August 2009 • Aquatic fauna survey (RTMME-105593) August 2009 • Reptile survey (RTMME-105594) August – September 2009 • Winter bird survey (RTMME-106241-07) November 2009 – February 2010 • Breeding bird survey (RTMME-105591-01) March - July 2010 • Arboricultural survey (RT-MME-106126) September 2010.
Subsequent to these surveys a number of other ecological documents have been produced: • Ecological Impact Assessment (RT-MME-105588) October 2009 • Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme (RT-MME-108361-02) October 2010 • Construction Ecological Management Plan (RT-MME-108361-03) October 2010.
Following changes (reduction) in the proposed development boundary in September 2010, the original Phase 2 survey reports have been revised to account for this change. In addition, following discussions with the local planning authority ecologist (L. Kilaggen, September 2010) it is understood that Phase 2 ecological surveys need not be repeated in detail within two years of the original surveys if it can be shown (e.g. through an updated Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Desk Study) that there has not been a significant change of habitat resources in the area affected by the proposals. After two years it is recommended that such surveys are repeated in the appropriate seasons given the mobile and dynamic nature of species and ecosystems.
With the exception of the wintering and breeding bird data (completed between November 2009 and July 2010), all data were collected in the appropriate 2009 survey seasons. The situation on site for each species/group was reviewed following the completion of the updated Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and associated Desk Study in September 2010. This review has been taken into consideration during the revision of each report and, where appropriate, changes have been identified, however, overall the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey did not suggest any significant changes in ecological resources.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 5 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
This current report pertains to the Phase 2 Botanical Survey undertaken on the 10-12th and 23-24th August 2009. A review of the site in September 2010 did not suggest that the site has significantly changed since these surveys.
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION The survey area is approximately 8.5 ha in size and is located to the south of Southampton Road (A36), centred at National Grid Reference SU 156 290, on the southeast periphery of Salisbury. The site was dominated by a mosaic of different habitat types. Neutral grassland and tall ruderal vegetation dominated the majority of the survey area, with swamp occurring in conjunction with wet ditches in the southwest and through the centre. Scrub, hedgerows, scattered trees and bare ground also occurred within the survey area.
The northern half of the survey area compromised of open grassland with a declining elm Ulmus sp. hedge line. To the east of the survey area was an unmanaged hedge line containing a dominant mature English oak Quercus robur. Centrally to the site a large crack willow ‘lapsed pollard’ Salix fragilis was the focal point of the area. A scattering of mature and maturing crack willows were also located adjacent to this central tree; forming the spine of the survey area and also bordering the site to the south and west; adjacent to the boundary watercourses.
The site is bounded in the west by the River Bourne, to the south by a tributary to the River Avon, to the east by an access track to the sewage treatment works and to the north the A36 Southampton Road. The immediate surrounding area to the north is occupied by an industrial park. A sewage treatment plant and agricultural is located adjacent to the site’s eastern boundary. Semi-natural habitats, including the River Avon and East Harnham Meadows (SSSI) are located to the south and east of the survey area.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 6 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
2. METHODOLOGY
To fulfil the brief it was necessary to undertake the development of a National Vegetation Classification (NVC - Rodwell, 1991 et seq.) for the habitats located on the site to determine the existing botanical interest.
The NVC survey is a standard technique for a more detailed classification of British habitats into floristic communities. A detailed walk-over survey of the entire site was conducted and areas of homogeneous vegetation, both in terms of structure and species, mapped prior to the stands being subjected to detailed assessment. Where available the use of aerial photographs, e.g. Google Earth were also used to aid in the delimitation of vegetation. The current assessment focuses on the grassland communities as these had been identified as of potential botanical interest.
The floristic composition (abundance and frequency) of the areas of homogeneous stands was then recorded and, where appropriate, representatively sampled using quadrats. The size of the quadrats was appropriate to the habitats being sampled and as such may not necessarily be square e.g. o 2 x 2 m for short, herbaceous vegetation o 4 x 4 m for woodland ground flora and tall herbaceous vegetation e.g. heaths, tall ruderal o 10 x 10 m for dense scrub, woodland field layer and species poor herbaceous vegetation o 50 x 50 m for woodland canopy and sparse shrub/scrub layers.
Hedgerows, while treated as linear woodlands, were normally sampled in 30 m sections for woody species and 10 m sections for the ground flora; the width was either 1 m or the width as appropriate to the situation. Where appropriate the different layers of the vegetation were recorded separately. Generally at least five quadrats were sampled for each community unless it was too small for quadrat replication; five is considered adequate to identify a community although further replication may be necessary if fine detailed mapping is required.
The DOMIN (percentage) and/or DAFOR scales were used to provide an indication of abundance and frequency of species recorded in each sample. DOMIN provides a quantitative measure, based on percentage cover, of abundance while DAFOR is a relative measure incorporating abundance and frequency. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 provide a brief explanation of these terms.
DOMIN value Explanation: % cover 10 91-100 9 76-90 8 51-75 7 34-50 6 26-33 5 11-25 4 4-10 3 < 4 with many individuals 2 < 4 with several individuals 1 < 4 with few individuals Table 2.1 DOMIN values
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 7 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
DAFOR value Explanation D Dominant A Abundant F Frequent O Occasional R Rare L Local Table 2.2 DAFOR values
The development of floristic tables can aid in the determination and interpretation of NVC communities. Floristic tables show the frequency and abundance of species in samples (e.g. quadrats) where the following definitions (as used by Rodwell, 1991 et seq) are used: • ‘frequency’ is “how often a plant is found on moving from one sample of vegetation to the next, irrespective of how much of that species is present in each sample” • ‘abundance’ is “how much of a plant is present in the sample, irrespective of how frequent or rare it is among the samples”.
Frequency is typically depicted as roman numerals as detailed in Table 2.3.
Value Explanation I Species occurs in 0-20% of quadrats sampled, i.e. up to 1 sample in 5. Scarce II Species occurs in 21-40% of quadrats sampled. Occasional III Species occurs in 41-60% of quadrats sampled. Common/frequent IV Species occurs in 61-80% of quadrats sampled. Constant V Species occurs in 81-100% of quadrats sampled. Constant. Table 2.3 Frequency of species in a community
Ecological interpretation of the collected data enabled an NVC community to be determined. The data were also analysed using an analytical computer programme, MAVIS (CEH, 2000), to aid NVC community determination. However, in reality, unless extensive data is collected the results of computer analysis can be misleading and inconclusive and as such may not be deemed appropriate; Rodwell (2006) notes that “it is quite unacceptable simply to identify vegetation types with lists of highest correlation coefficients derived from statistic tests”.
In certain situations, for example where habitats were of small spatial extent, the standard methodology was adapted. In such situations replication of quadrat data was not feasible and therefore the use of quadrats not deemed appropriate; in such cases the habitat was considered as a single quadrat and therefore it was inappropriate to use analytical computer programmes to determine the NVC community. The NVC communities were determined in a single visit using a walk-over assessment with the key vegetation components being identified. The data were interpreted using experience of the NVC
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 8 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01 communities with reference to NVC books (Rodwell 1991 et seq.) and the results of data analysis using MAVIS (CEH). As a result of the nature of the habitats DOMIN values were not always deemed necessary and therefore only DAFOR values may be recorded. Where possible the sub-community was determined.
Rodwell (2006) notes that, with experience it is possible to make comparisons between the communities described by the NVC and communities seen in the field without the need to record data. Rodwell (2006) also notes that “where data is being collected only for the purpose of identification, it is also possible to make some economies in recording”, e.g. sampling may not be necessary with experienced surveyors, the use of presence/absence data rather than DOMIN when sampling stands (“it is better in many cases to record several qualitative samples than one quantitative sample”), not recording lower plants.
It should also be noted that as a result of the natural variation of vegetation and the vagaries of the sampling upon which the original NVC is based, plant communities rarely exactly match those provided in the NVC. Rodwell (2006) acknowledges that not all vegetation sampled will provide a ‘good-fit’ to those described by the NVC and that ‘poor-fit’ communities may be equally valuable or of botanical interest to the area in which they occur.
Notable species were also recorded where appropriate. Species included those listed on the national or local BAP, or identified as being of local interest within local BAP habitats.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 9 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
3. RESULTS
3.1 SURVEY CONDITIONS The surveys were conducted on 10th – 12th and 23rd – 24th August 2009 by Helen Miller (Principal Technical Ecological Consultant) and Andrea Powell (Ecological Consultant). Weather conditions during the time of the surveys were recorded and are presented in Table 3.1.
Date Temperature Cloud Cover Precipitation Wind Speed (°C) (%) (Beaufort) 10/08/09 16-20 100 (bright) None/very light 1 11/08/09 17-23 50 (sunny) None 1 12/08/09 16 95 (sunny) None 0-1 23/08/09 20 40 (sunny) None 1-2 24/08/09 16 100 (overcast) None 1
Table 3.1 Weather conditions during the botanical survey
At the time of survey the northern part of the eastern field had been cut and baled and as such it was not feasible to fully assess the contribution of the different grass species in the sward at the current level of survey detail. However, sufficient data could be gathered and used in conjunction with data obtained during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Appendix 1) in June 2009 to assess the relative value of the field in terms of its botanical interest.
The remainder of the site was subjected to an NVC assessment and sample quadrats were taken for each area of vegetation suggesting to be a different community following a walk-over assessment; these data are provided in Appendix 2. These communities are illustrated on Middlemarch Environmental drawing C105589-01, in Appendix 2.
Section 3.2 provides a brief summary, summarised from Rodwell (1991 et seq) of the typical characteristics of each NVC community recorded on site. Section 3.3 describes the site in terms of NVC communities, and how they reflect or otherwise the typical characteritcis of each NVC community.
The site included several areas comprising a complex and intricate mosaic of plant communities; sample quadrats were used along with descriptions and DAFOR values to determine discrete plant communities.
3.2 NVC COMMUNITIES IDENTIFIED AND THEIR TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS The following NVC communities were identified on site: • Grasslands o MG1b Arrhenatherum elatius grassland o MG9b Holcus lanatus-Deschampsia cespitosa grassland o MG11a Festuca rubra-Agrostis stolonifera-Potentilla anserine grassland • Open vegetation o OV24a Urtica dioica-Galium aparine community • Woodland and scrub o W21a Crataegus monogyna-Hedera helix scrub o W22c Prunus spinosa-Rubus fruticosus scrub
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 10 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
o W24a Rubus fruticosus-Holcus lanatus underscrub • Swamp vegetation o S5 Glyceria maxima swamp o S7 Carex acutiformis swamp o S26 Phragmites australis –Urtica dioica tall-herb fen o S28 Phalaris arundinacea tall-herb fen • Other vegetation (not described by Rodwell, 1991 et seq.) o Fallopia japonica scrub o Mature/veteran trees
The following provides a summary of the above communities as described by Rodwell (1991 et. seq).
3.2.1 Grasslands MG1 Arrhenatherum elatius grassland Arrhentherum elatius, often with Dactylis glomerata and Holcus lanatus, dominates this community of coarse tussock grasses. Anthriscus sylvestris, Heraculeum sphondylium and Chaerophyllum temulentum are frequent and often abundant. Other tall herbs are generally few, with the exception of Urtica dioica, Cirsium arvense and Centaurea nigra. Smaller herbs and grasses form a secondary layer, notably Festuca rubra, Poa pratensis, P. trivialis, Lolium perenne, Elymus repens, Trifolium pratensis, Achillea millefolium, Taraxacum officinale, Plantago lanceolata, Lotus corniculatus and Rumex acetosa. MG1 swards are also characterised by trailing species, such as Lathyrus pratensis, Vicia sativa, V. cracca, V. sepium, Galium aparine and Rubus fruticosus.
MG1 is typically an ungrazed grassland of circumneutral soils, often well-structured and free-draining. Acidity, nutrient level and drainage are the key elements dictating the characteristics of this community. It is a highly variable community dependant upon it historic management or otherwise with older more established examples generally having greater species diversity. This community may be invaded by scrub species.
MG9 Holcus lanatus-Deschampsia cespitosa grassland This community, occurring on permanently moist circumneutral soils, is dominated by Deschampsia cespitosa with Holcus lanatus, Dactylis glomerata and Arrhenatherum elatius. The community is variable depending of the degree of tussocking of the Deschampsia cespitosa. Grazing can accentuate the competitive advantage of this species.
MG11 Festuca rubra-Agrostis stolonifera-Potentilla anserina grassland MG11 occurs on a variety of soil moist, free-draining circumneutral types which may be frequently inundated by fresh or brackish waters. The community occurs in grazed pasture in both coastal environments e.g. saltmarsh and freshwater floodplains. It also occurs along road verges, drainage ditches and damp woodland rides. Where the community occurs on wetter soils it shows a more luxuriant growth.
MG11 is generally, although variable, species-poor grassland with Agrostis stolonifera, Festuca rubra and/or Potentilla anserina being the most abundant species. Other species are generally poorly represented,
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 11 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01 although among the grasses Holcus lanatus and Elymus repens may be locally abundant and while other dicotyledons may be sparse, Trifolium repens can occur frequently.
3.2.2 Open vegetation OV24 Urtica dioica-Galium aparine community This community occurs on nutrient-rich, moist, well-aerated soils typically where there is disturbance and nutrient enrichment e.g. tracks, organic debris, derelict buildings and wasteland.
This community is dominated by Urtica dioica with Galium aparine as the only other constant. It is a species poor community with few species occurring more than occasionally.
3.2.3 Woodland and scrub W21 Crataegus monogyna Hedera helix scrub W21 is a scrub community ‘dominated by various mixtures of smaller trees and shrubs, undershrubs and woody climbers and sprawlers but physiognomically it is quite diverse and sometimes difficult to separate from more open herbaceous vegetation with scattered woody plants on the one hand and woodland on the other’ (Rodwell 1991). Saplings of tree species can be common and occasionally reach maturity, breaking through the shrub canopy. This community is floristically diverse, although dominated by spinose species such as Crataegus monogyna, Prunus spinosa and Rubus fruticosus. Sambucus nigra is also typically frequent, as are Fraxinus excelsior saplings. The ground layer is typically species-poor, often being dominated by ivy, although where the canopy is more open Urtica dioica can dominate.
This community is typical of unstable situations and therefore readily re-colonises and often found invading bare ground and occurring on neglected ground.
Rodwell (1991) identifies the most important factor determining the development of W21 is the, either natural or man-made, disruption of the stability of the existing ground cover.
Sambucus nigra is a typical component of W21 where there is some soil enrichment and/or where there has been ground disturbance. Fraxinus excelsior and Acer pseudoplatanus are also well adapted to mobile substrates (Rodwell, 1991).
Rodwell (1991) indicates that W21 occurs across a range of soil situations, from natural soils to man- made/rock waste soils; high to low nutrient status and base-poor to base rich, although all generally free- draining. The Hedera helix-Urtica dioica sub-community typically occurs on low-base status, ‘fragmentary soils over non-calcareous waste or made soils’ (Rodwell 1991). However the community tends not to occur on notably acidic or waterlogged soils. Rodwell (1991) suggests that in the latter case woodlands dominated by willows Salix spp., birch Betula spp. and alder Alnus glutinosa replace this community.
Arrhenatherum elatius is a common precursor of invading W21 scrub.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 12 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
W22 Prunus spinosa-Rubus fruticosus Scrub Prunus spinosa is noticeably dominant in this community with other woody species occurring only rarely. The understorey is equally species poor with Rubus fruticosus being the most common component although Rosa spp. and Lonicera periclymenum may also occur. The ground flora is also species-poor and sparse, particularly in denser stands, with Pteridium aquilinum, Urtica dioica, Galium aparine and Hedera helix being the commonest occurring among the dicotyledons and Poa trivialis, Holcus spp. and Agrostis capillaris among the grasses although Brachypodium sylvaticum, Festuca rubra and Dactylis glomerata occurring occasionally.
W22 is typically found in lowland grassland on moderate base-status, mesotrophic mull soils where grazing pressures have reduced as well as along woodland edges. The soils tend to be fairly nutrient rich and moist.
This community frequently occurs as mosaics within grassland, underscrub and woodland mosaics, notably MG1 and damp MG9 and MG10 grasslands and W10 and W8 woodlands but also W14 and W7. It is also a significant vegetation community of sea cliffs.
W24 Rubus fruticosus – Holcus lanatus underscrub W24 ‘is typically dominated by mixtures of bramble, rank grasses and tall dicotyledons, forming untidy cover of variable height’ (Rodwell 1991). Although generally the key component, the cover of Rubus fruticosus in this community is variable and other shrub species can sometimes be present. ‘A rank growth of grasses is usually a prominent feature of this community’ (Rodwell 1991). This community often occurs on abandoned ground on a range of soil types.
3.2.4 Swamp vegetation S5 Glyceria maxima swamp S5 occurs on nutrient-rich, circum-neutral to basic mineral substrates, typically at the margins of eutrophic waters. However, it also occurs in oligotrophic conditions where there is continually mineral enrichment. It is typically located along the slow-moving watercourses, dykes and canals as well as forming part of a hydrosere from open water and on regularly inundated floodplains. The water table is typically high and the community can occur in standing water.
S5 is a species-poor community with Glyceria maxima often forming near monocultural stands.
S7 Carex acutiformis swamp S7 occurs on “moderately eutrophic, circumneutral substrates on the margins of slow-moving or standing lowland waters in open-water transitions, in wet hollows within flood-meadows, in ditches and alongside sluggish streams and rivers.” (Rodwell 1995) Carex acutiformis is the dominant component with other species occurring as scattered individuals, although other swamp species such as Typha latifolia and Carex paniculata may attain local prominence.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 13 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
S26 Phragmites australis-Urtica dioica tall-herb fen This community, occurring on eutrophic, circumneutral to basic water margins which are moist throughout the year, is usually dominated by reed Phragmites australis and nettle Urtica dioica. The community is usually species poor and variable.
S28 Phalaris arundinacea Tall-herb fen Phalaris arundinacea dominates this generally species-poor community; no other species occurs at any frequency. It is a community typical of the margins of fluctuating (standing and running), circumneutral and mesotrophic-euthrophic waters. It is usually associated with mineral substrates ranging from fine clays to coarse gravels and often on alluvial deposits. Although this community can be associated with high nutrient levels Phalaris arundinacea does not require high nutrients. “… in more eutrophic situations its [P. arundinacea] dominance may be challenged by more nutrient demanding tall herbs, as in the Epilobium- Urtica sub-community [S28b] which is the most frequent form of vegetation around pools and along streams enriched by agricultural, industrial or domestic effluents.” (Rodwell, 1995).
3.2.5 Other vegetation Fallopia japonica scrub Fallopia japonica is a non-native invasive species which forms dense, usually monocultural stands. It occurs in a variety of habitats, although often in disturbed, urban areas e.g. waste places, road/rail sides. It can also occur in more semi-natural habitats, e.g. river banks, woodland where it may have been planted as game cover or for ornamental purposes.
Mature/veteran trees The site included several very mature and veteran trees, most notably Salix spp. but also Quercus robur. Such trees typically indicate historic field boundaries or occur along main rivers. Salix spp. are frequently pollarded.
3.3 DISCUSSION This section discusses the relative botanical interest of the site and the different communities in relation to those described by the NVC (Rodwell, 1991 et seq.)
3.3.1 Overview of the site The site is essentially a site of two halves with a transitional zone in the centre: swamp/tall-herb fen communities in the west and a complex mosaic of grassland communities in the east. The east side of the site is bounded and dissected by scrub communities and swamp communities demarcating lower ground levels and ditches. The diversity of plant communities reflects varying soil conditions and micro-topography of the site as well as past and current management.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 14 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
Eastern side The eastern part of the site is bounded to the north and east by species poor hedgerows with trees. The former hedgerow attained a height up to approximately 4 m and width of 1 m and had a tall ruderal, Urtica dioica and Cirsium arvense, dominated ground flora which extended out into the field. Ulmus glabra, Sambucus nigra and Rubus fruticosus were the most prominent woody component, although there were significant amounts of standing dead Ulmus glabra. The eastern hedgerow was more varied with no single or group of woody species attaining overall dominance; the ground flora was equally variable comprising localised areas of swamp/tall-herb fen and tall ruderal species. The northern end of this hedgerow had frequent shrub species such as Crataegus monogyna, Sambucus nigra and Rubus fruticosus and attained a height of about 4 m and width of 1-1.5 m. A mature Quercus robur with an approximate diameter at breast height of c. 1.5 m is located towards the northern end. A third hedgerow feature with mature trees formed the division between the eastern and central areas of the site. This hedgerow was also variable with no real dominant woody component and was developing into linear scrub and had similar characteristics to the eastern hedgerow; again the ground flora was reminiscent of the adjacent habitats, i.e. grassland and swamp/tall-herb fen. Prunus spinosa was locally abundant at the southern end and an at least partially damp ditch ran through the centre of the habitat. The hedgerow attained heights of over 5 m and widths of over 3 m. A mature Salix fragilis attaining a diameter of about 2 m at breast height marked the northern end of this hedgerow. It had a main bole with eight-nine main stems, suggesting it has previously been pollarded and included Rosa sp. and Prunus spinosa growing within the bole. All three hedgerows were unmanaged and developing a scrub character.
The northern part of the eastern side of the site comprised species-poor grassland which at the time of survey had been cut and baled, although the previous Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Middlemarch Environmental Report RTMME-105540) indicated that this area is dominated by Arrhenatherum elatius with dicotyledons being sparse and scattered in abundance and distribution.
The southern part of the eastern area comprised an intricate mosaic of dry and damp coarse grasslands interspersed with swamp/tall-herb fen communities; the latter demarcating current and former ditches. The areas of damp grassland were dominated by Deschampsia caespitosa tussocks with Festuca rubra occurring in-between along with areas of abundant/dominant Agrostis stolonifera, Potentilla anserina and Elytrigia repens. Elytrigia repens was significantly more frequent towards the east. The damp grassland swards ranged between 0.2 and 0.7 m in height (excluding flowering stems of Deschampsia caespitosa) and were dominated by monocotyledons. The drier grassland, generally located towards the river was dominated by large, tussock grasses such as Dactylis glomerata, Arrhenatherum elatius and tall ruderal species, e.g. Cirsium arvense and Urtica dioica. Again within this grassland area were localized areas of abundant/dominant Agrostis stolonifera, Potentilla anserina with a slightly more diverse dicotyledonous component. A north-south ditch formed the eastern boundary of the southern part of this area and comprised a mosaic of several swamp communities of locally dominant Glyceria maxima, Carex acutiformis and Phalaris arundinacea. The southern end of this ditch was dominated by scrub, Prunus spinosa.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 15 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
Central area The central area comprised similar habitats to those found in the east and west but were generally less distinct and contained components of each community indicating a broad transitional zone. However, the central area was significantly wetter and comprised a mosaic of several swamp communities of locally dominant Glyceria maxima, Carex acutiformis and Phalaris arundinacea. These communities were bounded to the north and south, where there was a slight rise in topography, by tall ruderal communities dominated by Urtica dioica. Where there were slight depressions in the ground, the vegetation comprised damp grassland dominated by Agrostis stolonifera and Potentilla anserina. The vegetation of the southern part of this area reflected the slight rise in topography and consisted of a drier grassland community of locally dominant Arrhenatherum elatius, Urtica dioica and Cirsium arvense forming an intricate mosaic with other species generally scattered and of low abundance. Other species, e.g. Agrostis stolonifera, Festuca rubra and Trifolium spp., Achillea millefolium indicative of cultivated grassland and the invasion of tall ruderal species suggest the area was formally cut/grazed and has subsequently been abandoned.
The northern end of the central section comprised a mosaic of Rubus fruticosus scrub and tall ruderal vegetation, notably Urtica dioica and Cirsium arvense. Among this habitat was a localised area of Fallopia japonica.
Western side The western part of the site is bounded in the west by a tributary to the River Avon which forms the southern boundary; both watercourses were sporadically lined by mature Salix spp. The western tributary (River Bourne) is approximately 4 m wide and up to about 0.5 m depth. This watercourse has sporadic marginal and emergent vegetation including locally dominant Phalaris arundinacea, Phragmites communis, Sparganium erecta and Lythrum salicaria. Stands of Phragmites communis were particularly abundant at the confluence with the River Avon. The River Avon is a larger watercourse, c. 10 m wide and over 0.5 m depth, although generally had less marginal and emergent vegetation. Ranunculus fluitans is locally abundant within the river channel. Although not assessed in detail, the southern bank of the River Avon had a more diverse flora than the northern bank (site under assessment) with the latter being dominated by Urtica dioica and the adjacent swamp/tall-fen communities extending to the waters edge.
Urtica dioica was the dominant component of the western part of the site, attaining a height of over 2 m. Although generally species-poor a number of species occurred sporadically amongst the Urtica dioica with Heracleum sphondylium and Oenanthe crocata being particularly frequent in occurrence. Towards the south of the area mixed and pure stands of Glyceria maxima, Phalaris arundinacea, Phragmites communis and Carex acutiformis occurred as discrete localised pockets amongst the Urtica dioica, however even here, Urtica dioica remained a prominent feature of the flora.
The abundance of Urtica dioica indicates high soil fertility and lack of regular management while the presence of swamp species suggests at least a locally, periodically high water table and/or flood events.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 16 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
Since the 2009 survey, Urticia dioica appeared more abundant along the River Avon compared to 2009. Also in this area scattered specimens of Impatiens glandulifera were noted.
3.3.2 Grassland communities The grassland communities formed a significant component of the vegetation within the site with concentrations in the east. Three communities, two wet/damp grassland and one dry grassland type, were recorded on site: o MG1 Arrhenatherum elatius grassland o MG9 Holcus lanatus-Deschampsia cespitosa grassland o MG11 Festuca rubra-Agrostis stolonifera-Potentilla anserine grassland.
MG1b Arrhenatherum elatius grassland MG1 grassland dominants much of the grassland communities within the site and is indicated by the overall dominance of Arrhenatherum elatius. Based on data gathered during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Middlemarch Environmental report RTMME-105540) this community has also been assigned to the area that was cut and baled at the time of the detailed botanical survey. The areas mapped as this community following the detailed botanical survey are very variable, a character in itself reflective of MG1. In several of the areas on site, Dactylis glomerata a constant species of MG1 was less abundant than that described in the NVC floristic tables. This species was more prominent and formed a more significant part of the floristic composition in the areas in the east and south of the site; in the latter almost to the exclusion of Arrhenatherum elatius. Heracleum sphondylium and Filipendula ulmaria were noticeable components of the area of MG1 grassland in the central south of the site and this, as well as the abundance of Urtica dioica, suggests that this area at least is sub-community b Urtica dioica (Filipendula ulmaria variant). Epilobium hirsutum was also particularly noticeable in these grassland areas at the time of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Middlemarch Environmental report RTMME-105540) indicating that there may be localised areas of Epilobium hirsutum variant of the same sub-community.
As a result of the overall variation of the grassland areas dominated by Arrhenatherum elatius, sub- communities have not been individual mapped. Except for Urtica dioica, Cirsium arvense and to a lesser extent Festuca rubra several of the characteristic species of the sub-communities are noticeable by their absent; these three species and the localised presence of Filipendula ulmaria suggest a mosaic of sub- communities a to c, i.e. Festuca rubra, Urtica dioica and Filipendula ulmaria.
There were also areas where Cirsium arvense and Urtica dioica were more abundant than expected for MG1, e.g. central and southern parts of the eastern section of the site suggesting that the community maybe in transition towards an open vegetation community, e.g. OV25 Urtica dioica – Cirsium arvense; these two communities can be found in zonation with one another.
MG9 Holcus lanatus-Deschampsia cespitosa grassland – b Arrhenatherum elatius sub-community The area mapped as MG9 had a high occurrence and abundance of Deschampsia cespitosa and Arrhenatherum elatius with Festuca rubra being locally abundant between the tussocks of the former
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 17 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01 grasses suggests sub-community b Arrhenatherum elatius. The localised distribution of Agrostis stolonifera is also reflective of MG9 communities. However it is noted that Holcus lanatus and Dactylis glomerata were less abundant than that described by the NVC while Potentilla anserine is more abundant. Rodwell (1992) notes that the latter species may have a scattered distribution if the community is inundated by flood waters which result in areas of more exposed ground; this may be the case at the Salisbury site since this species was generally noted on the slightly lower ground and in closer proximity to wetter vegetation communities.
The locality of this community within the site and its association with swamp/tall-herb fen communities is typical of MG9 grasslands which can occur in zonation with fen meadows and swamp/tall-herb fen communities (Rodwell, 19992).
MG11 Festuca rubra-Agrostis stolonifera-Potentilla anserine grassland – a Lolium perenne sub-community This community occurs as localised areas within other grassland and swamp communities. The abundance and frequency of Agrostis stolonifera and Potentilla anserine are typical of MG11 although the communities on site generally lack Festuca rubra, a constant of MG11. However this species is more abundant in the examples of the community in the east of the site. In addition Holcus lanatus is of rarer occurrence than expected. The species composition is best reflective of sub-community a- Lolium perenne although the characteristics species, Lolium perenne and other grasses except Phleum pratense are noticeable by its absence. Elytrigia repens is also more abundant than expected for this sub-community where this community occurs in the east of the site.
Within the site this community is very variable, with some areas such as that in the south being very species-poor while others, e.g. in the centre and east more floristically diverse. Species are also present that are not included within the NVC floristic tables, e.g. Mentha aquatica, Glyceria fluitans and Deschampsia caespitosa. This species occurs in other wet grassland NVC communities, notably MG13 which may suggest localised areas of a different community to MG11. However, the lack of Alopecurus geniculatus, a constant of MG13 is absent and the abundance and frequent occurrence of Potentilla anserine on the site are atypical of MG13. MG11a and MG13 can occur as zonations with the latter generally occurring on wetter soils and the latter can also be found in association with stands of Glyceria fluitans, Glyceria maxima and Phalaris arundinacea. With the exception of stands of abundant Glyceria fluitans, such stands occur in close proximity to the areas mapped as MG11.
The community on site occurs in locations typical of MG11, i.e. floodplain and in association with ditches on soils that are moist yet free-draining.
These characteristics of the communities described by the NVC and those on site suggest that within the site at Salisbury there may be transitions of the two communities and be reflective of diminishing wetness of the ditches and depressions, the former of which are clearly indicated on old maps of the site but are less distinctive and have a degraded appearance on the ground.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 18 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
3.3.3 Open vegetation communities Only one open vegetation was recorded on site: o OV24a Urtica dioica-Galium aparine community.
OV24 Urtica dioica-Galium aparine community – a Typical sub-community This community generally occurred at the periphery of the scrub (hedgerow) communities in the north, east and central areas of the site. The dominance of Urtica dioica and Galium aparine and frequency of Cirsium arvense is reflective of the typical sub-community of OV24. The situation and associated adjacent communities, e.g. MG1, scrub and swamp/tall-herb fen such as S26 and S5 is also typical of the OV24 community described by the NVC. This community appears to invading the grassland communities in the south-east and along the southern edge of the area which had been cut/baled at the time of survey. Since 2009, this community appears to have expanded into the grassland communities.
3.3.4 Woodland and scrub communities One woodland and three scrub communities were recorded on site: • W21a Crataegus monogyna-Hedera helix scrub • W22c Prunus spinosa-Rubus fruticosus scrub • W24a Rubus fruticosus-Holcus lanatus underscrub.
W21 Crataegus monogyna-Hedera helix scrub – a Hedera helix-Urtica dioica sub-community This community occurs as a north-south linear feature in the centre of the site. The combined abundance of Crataegus monogyna, Prunus spinosa, Rubus fruticosus and Urtica dioica are reflective of sub-community a Hedera helix-Urtica dioica. Although it is acknowledged that Hedera helix and Mercurialis perennis, both significant components of the sub-community, are noticeable by their absence. This sub-community also includes species associated with Arrhenatherum elatius grassland which occurs adjacent to this scrub community on the Salisbury site. The increase in Salix spp. towards the northern end where the ground becomes wetter suggests a transition, as suggested by Rodwell (1991) towards a wet woodland, e.g. W6b community. The community on site occurs in a wetter location than may be expected, although the ditch through the centre of the habitat may help maintain the soils either side drier and therefore more amenable to this scrub community.
The northern end of the eastern hedgerow is also best described by this community as a result of the variety of woody species, with none being overwhelmingly dominant and variation in the ground flora.
W22 Prunus spinosa-Rubus fruticosus scrub – c Dactylis glomerata sub-community This community occurs as small area in the south-east of the site at the southern end of the north-south ditch. The dominance of Prunus spinosa, presence of Dactylis glomerata at the periphery and general species paucity is reflective of sub-community c Dactylis glomerata. However, it is acknowledged that Pteridium aquilinum, a characteristic of this sub-community is absent in the stand on site. As with the other scrub communities occurring on site, W22 is also associated with MG1 grassland but also with MG9, both of which occur in close proximity to the scrub on site.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 19 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
W24 Rubus fruticosus-Holcus lanatus underscrub – a Cirsium arvensis-Cirsium vulgare sub-community This underscrub community occurs in the north of the site and while dominated by Rubus fruticosus other woody species are sparse. The dominance of Rubus fruticosus, abundant Urtica dioica and frequent Cirsium arvense are reflective of W24 sub-community a, although it is acknowledged that Holcus lanatus is notably absent. Glechoma hederacea is also preferential to sub-community a. Although Urtica dioica is of greater abundance in sub-community b, more akin to that found on site, other species typical of sub- community b are of lower abundance than expected/absent from this sub-community, e.g. Dactylis glomerata, Arrhenatherum elatius and Heracleum sphondylium. The transition to wetter habitats in the south is also more characteristic of W24a sub-community than W24b. This underscrub community is also associated with MG1, also found in close proximity on the Salisbury site.
3.3.5 Swamp communities The swamp communities within the site occur as complex mosaics of communities dominated by a single species: • S5 Glyceria maxima swamp • S7 Carex acutiformis swamp • S26 Phragmites australis – Urtica dioica tall-herb fen • S28 Phalaris arundinacea tall-herb fen.
Generally each community is characterised by its dominant species with other species occurring as scattered individuals. Within the site at Salisbury the four communities listed above showed broad transitions and generally did not have good matches with the floristic tables within the NVC, with species typical of each community occurring with other dominant species. In several cases Urtica dioica, most notably in the west of the site and along the River Avon, had a much greater abundance and dominance within the stands than expected suggesting that the site has higher soil fertility and lower water table than typically associated with these communities. The localised areas of abundant Heracleum sphondylium also suggest drier conditions.
One significant anomaly of the communities mapped is the large area depicted as S26 variant in the west of the site. The species composition generally reflected S26 although, expect in localised areas in the south, completely lacked the constant and dominant species detailed in the NVC floristic tables and description, Phragmites australis. Eupatorium cannabinum was also locally frequent in the south-east. Oenanthe crocata only attains the levels of abundance and frequency as that found at the site in Salisbury in S26 communities, notably sub-community c Oenanthe crocata providing support of this community occurring in the west of the site, despite the lack of Phragmites australis. The increased localised abundance and frequency of Heracleum sphondylium, Cirsium arvense and Arrhenatherum elatius in the centre of this area, occurring on slightly raised ground, is indicative of sub-community b Arrhenatherum elatius. Also within the central area is a local abundance of Epilobium hirsutum which suggest sub-community d Epilobium hirsum. Both these sub-communities reflect slightly drier conditions.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 20 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
Although mapped as separate communities where a single species attained overall dominance, in reality these areas should be considered as a complex and intricate mosaic of swamp/tall-herb fen communities. All these communities, as described by Rodwell (1995), do occur in zonation and transition, so the complexity of the site at Salisbury is not so unexpected.
3.3.6 Other communities Fallopia japonica scrub This community occurred towards the centre of the site within the area of W24a underscrub and OV24a open vegetation. The stand is approximately 5 m by 4 m.
Mature trees There are several mature trees with significant girths scattered across the site. The most notable ones were: • Quercus robur, c. 1.5 m diameter at breast height, on the eastern boundary. • Two Salix fragilis, c. 1.5 – 2 m diameter at breast height, in the centre of the site. • Salix fragilis, c. 2 m diameter at breast height, at the northern end of the central north-south linear W21a scrub.
In addition there were a number of Salix fragilis and S. alba. along the southern and western boundaries bordering the watercourses. These trees are accompanied by Crateagus monogyna, Sambucus nigra, Salix caprea and S. cinerea along the western edge bordering the River Bourne.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 21 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
4. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
4.1 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Twelve NVC communities were identified on site, including: • 1 mesotrophic dry grassland; • 2 mesotrophic wet grasslands; • 1 open vegetation community; • 3 woodland/scrub communities; • 4 swamp/tall-herb fen communities.
In addition a stand of Fallopia japonica (Japanese knotweed) and several mature/veteran trees were found on site.
Several of the swamp/tall-herb fen communities had notable anomalies compared to the communities detailed by Rodwell (1995). However, the apparent lack of correspondence to the described community does not detract from the botanical interest in relation to the areas’ immediate surrounding habitats. The eastern part of site was showing signs of agricultural abandonment through the apparent invasion of species such Urtica dioica and Cirsium arevense into the grassland (MG1 and MG9) communities. The communities in this area were indistinct (both in terms of their species composition and spatial distribution) with no clear boundaries and each merging into the others, including the swamp habitats.
The greatest interest is along the southern edge, the remnant drainage ditches and the south-east corner of the site where the vegetation communities formed highly complex mosaics. The mature/veteran trees are also of notable botanical interest. In addition, the swamp communities, e.g. S5 Glyceria maxima, S7 Carex acutiformis and S26 Phragmites australis - Urtica dioica are important habitats, both nationally and locally and included on the local and national BAPs as well as being listed on Section 74 of the NERC Act 2006. Such habitats are also of particular value to invertebrates and birds as indicated on the SSSI citation for the River Avon.
It is noted that Ranunculus fluitans occurred within the River Avon forming the southern boundary of the site; the SSSI citation for the River Avon System lists several of these species as being significant and characteristic of such lowland river systems. The same citation also specifies Oenanthe fluviatilis (Nationally scarce) and Oenanthe crocata (locally important) as being characteristic of the river edge within the Avon system. The former is more associated with the river channel and is a submergant species and was not noted on site while the latter is more terrestrial and was found across the site, particularly in the west.
The SSSI, East Harnham Meadows occurs approximately 200 m south-west of the site; the citation for this SSSI describes it as “area of botanically rich, neutral grassland lying within the floodplain of the River Avon near the centre of Salisbury.” The close proximity and similar habitats of these meadows to the site under assessment suggest that some species may also occur within the site. Of particular note are the uncommon Dactylorhiza praetermissa and Dactylorhiza incarnate, both of which are widespread within the SSSI. These
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 22 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01 species were not noted on the site under assessment although it is noted that August is a sub-optimal time of year to confirm their presence, however basal leaves of Dactylorhiza spp. are still likely to persist even if the species could not be determined. No basal leaves of this genus were noted during the surveys. Other species, associated with ditches noted in the SSSI were Menyanthes trifoliata and Valeriana dioica, neither of which were noted on site.
The East Harnham Meadows SSSI citation also notes that “it is now unusual to find large areas of herb-rich grassland associated with fen vegetation, since agriculturally improved grassland often occurs within metres of the fen.” Although the site under assessment included generally species-poor grassland it did comprise a mosaic of grassland and fen communities and as such is likely to be considered to be of ecological/botanical interest.
The desk study conducted as part of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Middlemarch Environmental Report RTMME-105540) indicated that Oenanthe fistulosa, a Priority National BAP species and also listed on Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006, has been recorded within 410 m of the site. This species is associated with fresh water, fens and marshes and as such has the potential to occur on site; despite suitable habitat it was not noted on site during the surveys.
4.2 CONCLUSIONS Although no particularly notable species of plant except the locally important Oenanthe crocata were recorded during the surveys, the intricate mosaic of habitats is of high botanical and ecological interest. However, the stand of Fallopia japonica Japanese knotweed and establishment Himalayan balsam Impatiens glanduifera are significant on account of their invasive and non-native status and subsequent legal implications. The mature/veteran trees are also of botanical interest.
The current vegetation floristics and study of Google Earth images (taken in 2002 and 2005) suggests that agricultural management of the site has broadly been neglected; the exception being the north-east corner which had been cut and baled this season. It is anticipated that with further drying, vegetating ditches and lack of intervention, Urtica dioica will continue to invade and the current mosaic nature of the vegetation will become more homogenous with the botanical interest of the site potentially declining. With appropriate management and perhaps raising the water table it could be expected that the site, particularly the mosaic of habitats occurring in the south and east of site and along the old drainage ditches, could be enhanced and support a higher diversity of species including those of local/national interest. The removal of the Fallopia japonica stand would also be beneficial to minimise it’s spread further into the site and the wider landscape.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 23 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
REFERENCES
Rodwell, J S (2006) National Vegetation Classification: Users’ handbook. JNCC, Peterborough. Rodwell J S (1991 et. seq). British Plant Communities, Volumes 1-5. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Malloch, A. (1999) MATCH Lancaster University CEH, (2000) MAVIS Middlemarch Environmental Report RTMME-105540 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey: Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 24 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Phase 1 Habitat Surveys Appendix 2: Botanical survey data
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 25 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
APPENDIX 1: PREVIOUS PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEYS Middlemarch Environmental Ltd Drawing C108361-01
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 26 >
&§ 15 2 &§ H! &§ H! 11
> &§ H! 20 H! 1 19 &§H! &§ H! 18 &§ H! &§ 4 13 &§ 12 E H! H! H! &§ 3 &§ &§ 10 H! 7 5 H!&§ H! 16 14 H! R H! H! &§ iv &§ e &§ r 8 A v o &§ H! n &§ 13 &§ H! 6 ! 9 17 H H! H! &§ E E E
Client Project Pinsent Masons LLP Southampton Road, Salisbury Legend Drawing Drawing Number Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey C108361-01
Revision Date Site boundary Amenity grassland C A 00 September 2010 Scale at A4 Drawn By ! ! ! 1 Target note Bare ground H! ! 1:3,000 SKS 0 ! ! Approved B y Notes Dense scrub 8 HSM - Scattered scrub 3 E Hardstanding 6
&§ Scattered trees Neutral grassland 1 -
Ditch/depression Swamp 0 1 Tall ruderal > Running water Tall ruderal/neutral grassland Triumph House, Birmingham Road, Allesley, Coventry CV5 9AZ Species-poor defunct hedgerow T:01676 525880 F:01676 521400 Tall ruderal/swamp E:[email protected]
This map is reproduced from the Ordance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office. (c) Crown copyright. PFA Consulting drawing C423_07.dwg $ Licence No: AL100000054 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
APPENDIX 2: BOTANICAL SURVEY Middlemarch Environmental Ltd Drawing C105589-01 Quadrat data for each community Quadrat locations
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 27 ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! SOUTHAMPTON ROAD ! ! ! 3
H! !
7 !
H! ! !
!! 1 !
!H! 3 !!
H! 5 ! !
H! 6 !
H! !
! ! ! 4 !
H! !
! ! ! !
! ! 6 !
! H! !
!
!
! ! ! 4
! !
H! ! ! ! ! ! ! 9 H! 8 H! ! 2 H!
R iv e r A v o n
Target notes:
1. Locally frequent Phragmites australis 2. Locally frequent Phalaris arundinacea 3. Locally frequent Oenanthe crocata 4. Locally frequent Heracleum sphondylium 5. Locally frequent Epilobium hirsutum 6. Invading Urtica dioica & Cirsium arvense 7. Locally frequent Eupatorium cannabinum 8. Locally abundant Dactylis glomerata 9. Locally abundant Petasites hybridus
Client Project Pinsent Masons LLP Southampton Road, Salisbury
Drawing Drawing Number Legend NVC Survey C105589-01 Revision Date
01 September 2010 C Site boundary Simple communities: OV24a W22c Scale at A3 Drawn By 1 ! ! ! ! ! 1:2,000 SKS Approved By Notes Bare ground 0 H! Target note ! ! ! ! ! S26 W24a ! ! ! ! ! HSM - 5 Japanese Knotweed ^ ^ ^ 5 ! Scattered trees S26 variant Hybrid communities: 8 MG1b ^ ^ ^ S5/S28 Linear communities: S28 9
! ! ! ! - ! ! ! ! No NVC match (linear) MG9b S5/S7/S28/S26 0 S5 ! ! ! ! 1 W21a (linear) MG11a S7 Triumph House, Birmingham Road, Allesley, Coventry CV5 9AZ T:01676 525880 F:01676 521400 E:[email protected] $ This map is reproduced from the Ordance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office. (c) Crown copyright. PFA Consulting drawing C423_07.dwg Licence No: AL100000054 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
Quadrat data for each community
S5
Scientific Name English Name S5 Q48 Q53 Q54 Q55 Q76 Q83
Glyceria maxima Sweet reed grass D 60 80 20 40 90 90
Urtica dioica Nettle A 5 20 3 3 1 10
Phalaris arundinacea Canary reed grass F/LD 10 10 90 25
Carex acutiformis Lesser sedge LA 10
Symphytum officinale Common comfrey O 10 2 2 5 1
Angelica sylvestris Angelica R
Calystegia sepium Bindweed R 2
Iris pseudacorus Yellow flag iris R 1
Lycopus europaeus Gipsywort R
Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife R
Oenanthe crocata Hemlock water dropwort R 1 1 5
Solanum dulcamara Bittersweet R 2
Sparganium erectum Branched bur-reed R 1
Cirsium arvense Creeping thistle 1
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 28 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
S7
Scientific Name English Name S7 Q43 Q44 Q45 Q68 Q46 Q47 Q64 Q85
Carex acutiformis Lesser sedge D 10 80 50 80 5 80 60 40
Holcus lanatus Yorkshire Fog L
Mentha aquatica Water mint L 2
Myostis scorpioides Water forget-me-not L
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup L
Glyceria fluitans Floating reed grass L/R
Agrostis stolonifera Creeping bent LA
Potentilla anserina Silverweed LA
Glyceria maxima Sweet reed grass LF 20 20 2 10
Calystegia sepium Bindweed O
Oenanthe crocata Hemlock water dropwort O 1
Rumex obtusifolius Broadleaf dock O 2 1
Symphytum officinale Common comfrey O 3 10 10
Phalaris arundinacea Canary reed grass O/LD 70 5 10 90 10 50
Urtica dioica Nettle O/LF 3 20 10 10 20 5
Angelica sylvestris Angelica R
Arrhenatherum elatius False Oat Grass R
Carex hira Hairy sedge R
Cirsium arvense Creeping thistle R
Epilobium hirsutum Great willowherb R 2
Equisetum fluviatile Water horsetail R 1
Filipendula ulmaria Meadow sweet R 1 1
Iris pseudacorus Yellow flag iris R 5 3
Juncus effusus Soft rush R
Phleum pratense Timothy grass R
Pulicaria dysenterica Common fleabane R
Solanum dulcamara Bittersweet R
Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife R/O 5
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 29
Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
S26 and S26 Variant
Scientific Name English Name S26 Variant Q56 Q57 Q58 Q59 Q60 Q61 Q62 Q63 Q87 Q88 Q89
Phragmites communis Common reed
Urtica dioica Nettle D 90 90 80 70 50 60 70 50 40 70 40
Calystegia sepium Bindweed F 3
Carex acutiformis Lesser sedge LA/R 5
Phalaris arundinacea Canary reed grass O 5
Oenanthe crocata Hemlock water dropwort LF 1 25 40 50
Symphytum officinale Common comfrey O 5 5 10 10 5 5
Angelica sylvestris Angelica R 5
Equisetum sp. Horsetail R 2
Poa trivialis Rough meadow grass L 5 5
Glyceria maxima Sweet reed grass L
Mentha aquatica Water mint L
Filipendula ulmaria Meadow sweet L/O 2
Glechoma hederacea Ground ivy LF 15 5
Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed LF 10 20 40
Rumex obtusifolius Broadleaf dock O 1 2 1 2
Galium aparine Cleavers O 1 1 3 3 10 10 10
Cirsium arvense Creeping thistle O 5 3 5 10 30
Epilobium hirsutum Great willowherb O 1 2 5 5 50 5
Cirsium palustre Marsh thistle O 1 5 5 2
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup R 1
Lycopus europaeus Gipsywort R
Sencio vulgaris Groundsel R 5
Juncus inflexus Hard rush R
Eupatorium cannabinum Hemp agrimony R
Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife R 10 1
Cirsium vulgare Spear thistle R 1
Dipsacus fullonum Teazle R
Myostis scorpioides Water forget-me-not R
Iris pseudacorus Yellow flag iris R
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 30 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
S28
Scientific Name English Name S28 Q49 Q82 Q84 Q86 Q90 Q91 Q92 Q93
Phalaris arundinacea Canary reed grass D 30 50 40 90 90 10 10 60
Urtica dioica Nettle A 10 60 30 10 10 40 60 50
Glyceria maxima Sweet reed grass F 60 40 5
Symphytum officinale Common comfrey F 5 5 5 5 3 5
Carex acutiformis Lesser sedge O 1 3 20
Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife R 1
Filipendula ulmaria Meadow sweet R 2
Calystegia sepium Bindweed R 2
OV24a
Scientific Name English Name OV24a Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q69 Q70 Q71 Q72 Q73 Galium aparine Cleavers D 40 60 80 80 5 5 Urtica dioica Nettle D 30 100 90 80 80 50 70 40 50 40 Cirsium arvense Creeping thistle A 30 40 10 50 30 10 40 Glechoma hederacea Ground ivy F 20 5 80 3 10 Dactylis glomerata Cocksfoot L 1 10 60 80 5 Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup L 3 Arrhenatherum elatius False Oat Grass L 50 5 20 30 Poa trivialis Rough meadow grass L 30 Potentilla reptans Creeping cinquefoil LA 40 1 Arctium lappa Bur dock - greater O 10 Geranium dissectum Cut leaved geranium O 3 1 Epilobium hirsutum Great willowherb O 1 20 30 Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble R 10 Rumex obtusifolius Broadleaf dock R 2 Symphytum officinale Common comfrey R 1 15 10 Pulicaria dysenterica Common fleabane R 1 Taraxacum officinale Dandelion R 1 Lycopus europaeus Gipsywort R Filipendula ulmaria Meadow sweet R 2 Mentha aquatica Water mint R 5 Lamium album White dead nettle R 1 Pastinaca sativa Wild parsnip R 1 2
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 31
Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
W21a
Scientific Name English Name W21a Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15
Galium aparine Cleavers A 20 60 80 40
Ulmus glabra Wych elm A 25 30 20 50
Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble F 10 5 20
Sambucus nigra Elder F 90 10 10
Urtica dioica Nettle F 15 40 40 40 10
Glechoma hederacea Ground ivy L 15
Hedera helix Ivy L 20 20 2 10
Euonymus europaeus Spindle O 5 30 5
Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore R 10
Arctium lappa Bur dock - greater R 1
Geum urbanum Wood avens R 3
W24a
Scientific Name English Name W24a Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q68 Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble D 60 80 50 40 50 75 Urtica dioica Nettle A 40 50 30 30 15 25 Cirsium arvense Creeping thistle F 5 25 10 5 10 Arctium lappa Bur dock - greater L 5 Calystegia sepium Bindweed L 5 Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn L 40 Galium aparine Cleavers L 5 10 20 15 Glechoma hederacea Ground ivy L 5 10 5 Poa trivialis Rough meadow grass L 5 5 Reynoutria japonica Japanese knotweed L 25 Sambucus nigra Elder L 25 40 20 10 Dipsacus fullonum Teazle O 25 5 Epilobium hirsutum Great willowherb O 10 5 10 3 Rhamnus cathartica Buckthorn O 50 Salix fragilis Crack willow O Symphytum officinale Common comfrey O 25 25 Buddleia davidii Budlia R 25 Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed R 2
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 32 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
MG1b Scientific Name English Name MG1b Q25 Q26 Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30 Q31 Q32 Q33 Q34 Q35 Q36 Q74 Q75 Q80 Arrhenatherum elatius False Oat Grass A 60 70 50 30 10 50 20 20 40 5 95 100 Galium aparine Cleavers A 20 5 2 Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed F 10 1 5 1 5 Galium mollugo Hedge bedstraw L Phalaris arundinacea Canary reed grass L/R 10 Cirsium arvense Creeping thistle LA 3 3 5 10 20 10 40 20 30 Petasites hybridus Butterbur LA Urtica dioica Nettle LA 5 80 60 5 5 5 3 5 Agrostis stolonifera Creeping bent LF 5 3 90 20 20 50 5 Achillea millefolium Yarrow O 1 Dactylis glomerata Cocksfoot O 5 10 30 10 10 20 30 5 40 Epilobium hirsutum Great willowherb O Festuca rubra Red fescue O 10 5 10 5 5 25 Filipendula ulmaria Meadow sweet O 5 Holcus lanatus Yorkshire Fog O 5 Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain O 1 Stellaria media Common chickweed O 3 Symphytum officinale Common comfrey O 2 Tussilago farfara Coltsfoot O 20 10 Angelica sylvestris Angelica R 1 Calystegia sepium Bindweed R 2 Carex hira Hairy sedge R 1 1 2 2 Cerastium fontanum Common mouseear R 1 1 Cirsium palustre Marsh thistle R Cirsium vulgare Spear thistle R 1 Dipsacus fullonum Teazle R Geranium dissectum Cut leaved geranium R Juncus inflexus Hard rush R Mentha aquatica Water mint R Oenanthe crocata Hemlock water dropwort R 1 Phleum pratense Timothy grass R Potentilla anserina Silverweed R 1 Pulicaria dysenterica Common fleabane R Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup R Rumex acetosa Sorrel R 1 Rumex crispus Curled dock R 1 1 Rumex obtusifolius Broadleaf dock R 1 Taraxacum officinale Dandelion R Trifoilum pratense Red clover R 2 2 Veronica chamaedrys Germander speedwell R 10 1 Potentilla reptans Creeping cinquefoil R/O 2 2 2 5
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 33
Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
MG11a
Scientific Name English Name MG11a Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q77 Agrostis stolonifera Creeping bent D 80 50 30 50 80 90 100 100 100 50 Potentilla anserina Silverweed A 10 40 40 40 25 1 70 Mentha aquatica Water mint LA 40 20 40 5 Carex hira Hairy sedge O/LA 3 30 10 10 3 Phleum pratense Timothy grass O 5 Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hair grass R/O 1 2 Rumex obtusifolius Broadleaf dock R/O 1 1 1 3 1 1 Filipendula ulmaria Meadow sweet R/O 2 5 5 1 Symphytum officinale Common comfrey R Glyceria maxima Sweet reed grass R 1 Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed R Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble R Oenanthe crocata Hemlock water dropwort R Epilobium hirsutum Great willowherb R 1 Urtica dioica Nettle R Myostis scorpioides Water forget-me-not R 1 1 Iris pseudacorus Yellow flag iris R 1 Arrhenatherum elatius False Oat Grass R 1 Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup R 1 Juncus inflexus Hard rush R Phalaris arundinacea Canary reed grass R 3 Holcus lanatus Yorkshire Fog R 3 Juncus effusus Soft rush R 1 5 Cerastium fontanum Common mouseear R Equisetum fluviatile Water horsetail R 2 3 3 1 Glyceria fluitans Floating reed grass R 2 5 Pulicaria dysenterica Common fleabane R Sencio aquaticus Marsh ragwort R
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 34 Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
MG9b
Scientific Name English Name MG9b Q37 Q38 Q39 Q78 Q79 Q81 Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hair grass D 10 40 50 50 40 50 Festuca rubra Red fescue F 60 30 2 20 20 Potentilla anserina Silverweed F 10 5 3 1 Agrostis stolonifera Creeping bent L 20 40 40 30 10 Elytrigia repens Twitch grass L 5 Urtica dioica Nettle L 10 5 3 Arrhenatherum elatius False Oat Grass L-R 5 Carex hira Hairy sedge O 2 2 3 Dactylis glomerata Cocksfoot O 10 10 20 Cirsium arvense Creeping thistle R 2 2 5 2 3 Equisetum sp. Horsetail R 1 Filipendula ulmaria Meadow sweet R 1 Glyceria maxima Sweet reed grass R 1 Holcus lanatus Yorkshire Fog R 5 Juncus effusus Soft rush R Juncus inflexus Hard rush R Lathyrus pratensis Meadow vetchling R 1 Mentha aquatica Water mint R 1 Phalaris arundinacea Canary reed grass R 3 Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup R 1 Symphytum officinale Common comfrey R 1 Taraxacum officinale Dandelion R 1
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 35
Phase 2 Botanical Survey Southampton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire RT-MME-105589-rev01
Quadrat Locations
Grid references taken with a hand held GPS unit and gave accuracy readings of +/- 5 to 23 m. As a result of a boundary change since the survey was conducted in 2009, the quadrat reference numbers are not consecutive.
National Grid National Grid National Grid Ref. Ref. Ref. Reference: SU Reference: SU Reference: SU
1 15744 29086 30 15762 28390 65 15966 28990 2 15719 29078 31 15799 28852 68 15798 29123 3 15735 29048 32 15814 28859 69 15802 29124 4 15749 29025 33 15803 28886 70 15845 29126 5 15753 29046 34 15837 28976 71 15881 29124 6 15785 29082 35 15844 28977 72 15826 29009 7 15831 29083 36 15875 28966 73 15843 29009 8 15997 29115 37 15825 28917 74 15854 29006 9 15906 29102 38 15821 28922 75 15887 2876 10 16005 29069 39 15841 28947 76 15844 28958 11 15777 29089 43 15797 28980 77 15909 28913 12 15838 29096 44 15776 28998 78 15870 28904 13 15903 29110 45 15755 29003 79 15889 28866 14 15957 29121 46 15847 28886 80 15856 28825 15 16013 29132 47 15836 28873 81 15868 28885 16 15747 29004 48 15823 28842 82 15778 28884 17 15750 29015 49 15854 28929 83 15738 28904 18 15734 29018 53 15643 28995 84 15696 28899 19 15760 28973 54 15667 28985 85 15674 29061 20 15778 28969 55 15683 28973 86 15636 29057 21 15783 28957 56 15715 29041 87 - - 22 15740 28909 57 15684 29065 88 15636 29037 23 15742 28905 58 15670 29089 89 - - 24 15740 28902 59 15637 29091 90 15676 28946 25 15775 28934 60 15625 29088 91 15683 28950 26 15759 28945 61 15615 29063 92 15665 28954 27 15729 28958 62 15608 29038 93 - - 28 15737 28950 63 15620 29021 29 - - 64 15641 29005
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 36