DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecological Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Ecological Assessment Land North of Dowding Way, Waltham Abbey, Essex On Behalf of: Next plc and Trinity Hall May 2018 © SES 2018 www.ses-eco.co.uk Lucy Addison BSc (Hons) MSc Grad CIEEM, Dr Authors Graham Hopkins MCIEEM FRES and Darren Denmead BSc (Hons) Grad CIEEM Technical Review Sean Crossland BSC BCA MCIEEM Report Status Final Date of Issue 15th May 2018 Contents 1.0 Introduction and Aims ...............................................................................................................................1 2.0 Methods ....................................................................................................................................................3 3.0 Results .......................................................................................................................................................6 4.0 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................... 24 5.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 28 6.0 References .............................................................................................................................................. 30 Tables Table 1: Statutory designated sites within 8km of the Site (European) and 5km from Site (UK) .................. 6 Table 2: Non-statutory Designated Sites within 2km of the Site ................................................................... 8 Table 3: Hedgerow Survey Summary Results .............................................................................................. 10 Table 4: Bat records held by data suppliers (EFC, 2018) .............................................................................. 11 Table 5: Activity Survey Summary (by season) ............................................................................................ 12 Table 6: Activity Survey Summary (by stop / walk) ...................................................................................... 12 Table 7: Static Detector Survey Summary (2017 - 2018) ............................................................................. 13 Table 8: Trees on site surveyed for roosting bats. ....................................................................................... 14 Table 9: Status of breeding and non-breeding birds within the Site ........................................................... 16 Table 10: Hazel Dormouse Survey Summary ................................................................................................. 18 Table 11: ISIS Summary of Data Search ......................................................................................................... 18 Table 12: Assemblage Type Associations of Widespread but Declining Moths ............................................ 19 Table 13: Descriptions of Sampling Stations .................................................................................................. 20 Table 14: Number of species in Broad and Specific Assemblage Types ........................................................ 20 Table 15: Occurrence of Specialist Species within Specific Assemblage Types ............................................. 21 Table 16: Reptile Species Recorded from Data Search .................................................................................. 22 Table 17: Weather Conditions and Reptile Species Recorded ....................................................................... 22 Table 18: Site value based on breeding bird community size (Fuller 1980) .................................................. 26 Table 19: Summary Evaluation of Site Features ............................................................................................ 28 Appendices Appendix 1 Site Boundary Plan Appendix 2 Proposed Layout Phase 1 and Parameter Plan Phase 2 Appendix 3 Phase 1 Habitat Plan Showing Study Area and Indicative Site Boundary Appendix 4 Legislation Appendix 5 Survey Methods Appendix 6 Bats Survey Results Appendix 7 Badger Survey Results Appendix 8 Hazel Dormouse Tube Locations Appendix 9 Invertebrate Sampling Stations and Survey Results Appendix 10 Reptile Refugia Locations Appendix 11 Hedgerow Survey Results Appendix 12 Plant Species of Known Benefit to Bats 1.0 Introduction and Aims 1.1 Southern Ecological Solutions Ltd. (SES) was commissioned by Next plc and Trinity Hall to undertake Phase 2 ecology surveys and assessments at Land North of Dowding Way, Waltham Abbey in Essex (the site). A site boundary plan is provided in Appendix 1. 1.2 The development proposals for the site (the ‘Development’) are subject to a hybrid planning application being submitted to Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) and are defined as: “Hybrid: full planning application for erection of 1 no. warehouse (Class B8) including access and servicing arrangements, car parking and landscaping and associated works including new junction to A121; outline planning application for up to 22,733m2 Gross Internal Area (GIA) of employment floorspace (Classes B1(c), B2 and B8) with all matters reserved.” 1.3 Phase 1 of the Development is submitted in detail and Phase 2 is submitted in outline with all matters reserved. The Development would provide up to 80,000m2 GIA of employment floorspace. Appendix 2 provides details of the proposed layout for Phase 1 and the development Parameter plan for Phase 2. Site Description 1.4 The site extends to 12.01ha and bordered by the M25 Motorway to the north and agricultural land to the south, with the A121 dissecting the southern part of the Site east/west. Within the wider landscape, Greater London dominates to the south and west, agricultural land to the north and Epping Forest to the east. The Site is in agricultural use and is divided by a hedgerow into two fields. Zone of Influence 1.5 The ‘zone of influence’ has been established as 2km from the site boundary for records of notable and protected species as well as non-statutory designated sites, 5km for non-statutory designated sites and 8km for statutory designated sites. In addition, the boundary used for the protected species surveys is shown in Appendix 3 and is hereafter referred to as the ‘study area’. The results reflect this wider site boundary. Phase 2 Surveys and Assessments 1.6 Following an initial Phase 1 Habitat Survey in 2013 and an update in 2017, the following surveys and assessments were recommended: Habitats • Hedgerows. Protected and Notable Species • Badger; • Bats – roosting (including emergence) and activity; • Birds – breeding and wintering; • Hazel Dormouse; 1 • Invertebrate; • Reptiles; and • Small and medium-sized mammals. 1.7 The aims of these surveys were to: • Determine the value of habitats on Site and within the study area; • Determine the usage and value of the Site and within the study area for protected and notable species; • Assess the value of the Site and within the study area and potential direct and indirect impacts the proposed development may have on habitats and species; and • Inform the impact assessment and mitigation strategy within the Environmental statement. 1.8 This report summarises the results of the Phase 2 surveys and assessments. All features, including statutory and non-statutory sites, habitats and protected and notable features are evaluated using the evidence from the desk study, field surveys and relevant literature. 1.9 The assessment within this report are made in accordance with relevant wildlife legislation and planning policy such as Chapter 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment (DCLG, 2012), current policies within the Combined Policies with the Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006) document (EFDC, 2008) and draft policies relating to the new, draft Local Plan (EFDC, 2016). Personnel 1.10 All surveys were undertaken following best practice guidance. Other than those listed in section 2, all surveys were undertaken or supervised by suitably qualified ecologist Lucy Addison BSc (Hons) MSc Graduate Member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM, Grad CIEEM) and overseen by suitably qualified ecologist Sean Crossland MSc Full Member of CIEEM (MCIEEM). 2 2.0 Methods Desk Study 2.1 A search for European designated sites was undertaken up to 8km from the study area, via the MAGIC online spatial data resource (magic.defra.gov.uk), including those listed on Schedules within the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. 2.2 A radius of 5km, or within the Natural England Impact Risk Zones (IRZ) from the study area for UK designated sites via the MAGIC online spatial data resource (magic.defra.gov.uk), including those listed on Schedules within; the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 Section 21. 2.3 A data search was requested from the Essex Field Club (EFC) in April 2013 with the results being updated in April 2018. The data search included records of all protected and notable species within 2km of the study area boundary, including those listed as priority species on Schedule 41 (S41) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006, previously Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species / habitats; those listed on other wildlife legislation for example Badgers (detailed within Chapter 3, Results), and other
Recommended publications
  • (Public Pack)Agenda Document for District Development Management

    (Public Pack)Agenda Document for District Development Management

    committee agenda District Development Management Committee Wednesday, 20th April, 2016 You are invited to attend the next meeting of District Development Management Committee, which will be held at: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, High Street, Epping on Wednesday, 20th April, 2016 at 7.30 pm . Glen Chipp Chief Executive Democratic Services Gary Woodhall Officer The Directorate of Governance Tel: 01992 564470 Email: democraticservices@eppingofrestdc/gov.uk Members: Councillors B Sandler (Chairman), B Rolfe (Vice-Chairman), A Boyce, H Brady, R Butler, J Hart, R Jennings, S Jones, H Kauffman, J Knapman, Y Knight, A Mitchell, G Mohindra, C C Pond and J M Whitehouse SUBSTITUTE NOMINATION DEADLINE: 16:00 1. WEBCASTING INTRODUCTION 1. This meeting is to be webcast. Members are reminded of the need to activate their microphones before speaking. 2. The Democratic Services Officer will read the following announcement: ”I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live to the internet (or filmed) and will be capable of repeated viewing (or other such use by third parties). If you are seated in the lower public seating area then it is likely that the recording cameras will capture your image and this will result in the possibility that your image will become part of the broadcast. This may infringe your human and data protection rights and if you wish to avoid this 1 District Development Management Committee Wednesday, 20 April 2016 then you should move to the upper public gallery. Could I please also remind Members to activate their microphones before speaking.” 2. ADVICE TO PUBLIC AND SPEAKERS AT COUNCIL PLANNING SUB- COMMITTEES (Pages 5 - 6) (Director of Governance) General advice to people attending the meeting is attached.
  • M25 Junction 23 to 27 - Section 5 Managed Motorways – All Lanes Running Stage 3 - Preliminary Design

    M25 Junction 23 to 27 - Section 5 Managed Motorways – All Lanes Running Stage 3 - Preliminary Design

    M25 Junction 23 to 27 - Section 5 Managed Motorways – All Lanes Running Stage 3 - Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Document No: 5084755-S5-DO-EN-251 November 2012 Volume 1 M25 Junction 23 to 27 - Section 5 Revision: E Environmental Assessment Report Volume: 1 Contents Section Page 1. Introduction 8 1.1 Project Identification 8 1.2 Purpose of this Report 8 1.3 Scope and Content 9 1.4 The Overseeing Organisation 10 1.5 The DBFO Contractor 10 2. The Project 11 2.1 Background to the Project 11 2.2 History of the Project 11 2.3 Regulatory Framework 12 2.4 Project Objectives 12 2.5 Any Further Support of Government Policies 14 2.6 Project Description 14 2.7 Land Use Setting and Land Take 15 2.8 Construction, Operation and Long Term Management 15 3. Alternatives Considered 18 3.1 Design Options 18 4. Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology 20 4.1 Scoping 20 4.2 Surveys and Predictive Techniques, Method and Constraints 21 4.3 Changes to DMRB 22 4.4 Significance Criteria 22 4.5 Mitigation and Enhancement 22 5. Air Quality 23 5.1 Introduction 23 5.2 Study Area 23 5.3 Baseline Conditions 24 5.4 Methodology 38 5.5 Regulatory/Policy Framework 49 5.6 Design, Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 58 5.7 Magnitude of Impacts (Change) 59 5.8 Supplementary Information 73 5.9 Indication of Any Difficulties Encountered 73 5.10 Summary 73 6. Cultural Heritage 75 6.1 Study Area 75 6.2 Baseline Conditions 75 6.3 Methodology 75 6.4 Value (Sensitivity of Resource) 76 6.5 Regulatory/Policy Framework 76 6.6 Design, Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 81 Document No: 5084755-S5-DO-EN-251 Page 1 M25 Junction 23 to 27 - Section 5 Revision: E Environmental Assessment Report Volume: 1 6.7 Magnitude of Impacts (Change) and Significant Effects 81 6.8 Significance of Effects on Plans and Policies 92 6.9 Indication of Any Difficulties Encountered 92 6.10 Recommendations 92 6.11 Summary 92 7.
  • A Biodiversity Action Plan for the Lee Valley Regional Park

    A Biodiversity Action Plan for the Lee Valley Regional Park

    Lee Valley Regional Park Biodiversity Action Plan A BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN FOR THE LEE VALLEY REGIONAL PARK 1. INTRODUCTION Why conserve biodiversity ? Concern for the environment has perhaps never been greater than at the present time. It is widely recognised that unless behaviour which damages the environment is changed much of our natural resource may be lost forever. Although environmental losses in this country are no longer on the scale they were in the past, they are still steadily occurring and arguably more significant now in relation to the total resource of habitats and species remaining. Biodiversity (the variety of life) should be maintained because our future needs and values are unpredictable. Our understanding of ecosystems is insufficient to be certain of the impact of removing any individual component. There is concern globally that if we continue to degrade what remains of our natural resources we will dangerously reduce the planet's capacity to support not only wildlife but also people. The arguments for maintaining biodiversity are strong. An economic value may be placed on eco-tourism, on products from the environment and on ecological processes. Wetlands, for example, act as natural pollution filters, buffer the effects of flood and drought and reduce soil erosion. It must be accepted that these principles apply not only to far flung parts of the planet but equally to our local environment. Whilst the scientific and economic rationale for conserving biodiversity can be quantified, the less tangible intrinsic value of plants and animals should not be overlooked. The natural world enriches the quality of our lives in many ways.
  • Description of Proposal

    Description of Proposal

    Report to District Development Management Committee Report Reference: DEV-022-2015/16 Date of meeting: 20 April 2016 Subject: Planning Application EPF/3028/15 – Gunpowder Mill, Powdermill Lane/Beaulieu Drive, Waltham Abbey – Full planning application for the use of parts of the site as an outdoor recreation and activity centre for children together with the erection of new buildings to provide: guest accommodation, dining hall and kitchen, pavilion (changing rooms); and the conversion of several listed buildings to provide further guest accommodation and classrooms, together with a new lake for water based activities and the erection of free- standing activity structures. Responsible Officer: Graham Courtney (01992 564228) Democratic Services: Gary Woodhall (01992 564470) Recommendation: That consent is granted subject to the below conditions and the completed legal agreement (Unilateral Undertaking) that ensures: 1. That the income from the PGL lease is used for the preservation and enhancement of the whole site (including the SAM/SSSI outside of the application site area), in accordance with the charitable objectives of the Trust. 2. The preparation of a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) and Access Management Plan (AMP) prior to first occupation of the development and 3. The implementation of the LEMP and AMP from first occupation of the development. Planning Conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this notice. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). 2 The development hereby permitted will be completed strictly in accordance with the approved drawings these being those set out in the Drawing Register (Sheets 1 to 4) submitted with the application.
  • Essex Biodiversity Action Plan

    Essex Biodiversity Action Plan

    BROWN HARE (Lepus europaeus) National Lead Partners: Mammal Society, TGCT County Lead Partners: EWT, FWAG (01206 729678 & 01245 420705) Associated plans: Cereal field margins, grey partridge, skylark 1. CURRENT STATUS IN THE UK 1.1 The brown hare is one of two species of hare that occurs in the British Isles, the other being the native mountain hare. The brown hare is considered a common and widespread farmland species in Britain and was probably introduced by the Romans from mainland Europe. In Europe this species inhabits the open steppe and has colonised farmland. In Britain it is most abundant in arable areas with cereal farming, although woods and hedgerows can provide cover and resting areas (Tapper, 1991). 1.2 It is widespread over the whole of Britain except the north-west and western Highlands. Although it was formally considered as abundant, the brown hare seems to have undergone a decline in numbers since the 1960s. Population estimates now vary between 817,500 and 1,250,000. Numbers have remained relatively constant for the last 10 years. Similar population changes have taken place over the rest of Europe (Anon, 1995). 1.3 This species does not have any specific protection under EU or English law. However, together with all wild mammals, cruelty to the brown hare is prohibited under The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. 2 CURRENT STATUS IN ESSEX 2.1 This species has always been locally common in Essex and a general ü ü increase in numbers was seen after the ü ü onset of myxomatosis in the rabbit population.
  • Sec 2 – Results Update

    Sec 2 – Results Update

    2. RESULTS 2.1 Identification of Local Wildlife Sites The suite of LoWS been amended from those identified in the report in 1992 for the following reasons: • Some sites (15 in total) have been de-selected on account of their decreased nature conservation value or failure to satisfactorily meet the revised and now more stringent selection criteria. Two sites are no longer in Essex, following changes to the district/county boundary; • New, modified or previously overlooked sites have been identified and added to the register. In most instances, such changes involve alterations to the boundaries of existing sites, but 66 completely new areas have also been identified; • SSSIs have been removed from the system; • Some sites have been amalgamated where they lie next to each other or are otherwise sufficiently connected. Probably the greatest single change for Epping Forest District is that areas designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest SSSI, included in the previous survey, are now no longer included in the LoWS network, in line with national guidance. With regards to Epping Forest District this removes (old SINC identification numbers are given for ease of reference): • W1. Alder Wood, part of Waltham Abbey SSSI • W50. Hainault Forest SSSI • G1. Cornmill Stream and Old River Lea Meadow SSSI • G8. Hunsdon Mead SSSI • G11. Roding Valley Meadows SSSI • G37 and G38 were two Essex County Council Special Roadside Verges that lie within the Epping Forest SSSI and are therefore not eligible for selection. • M7. Epping Forest SSSI • FW1. Hall Marsh Scrape – now part of Turnford and Cheshunt Pits SSSI • FW3.
  • 19STAT0006 Lee Valley Regional Park Authority Appendix A

    19STAT0006 Lee Valley Regional Park Authority Appendix A

    EPPING FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION STATEMENT OF THE LEE VALLEY REGIONAL PARK AUTHORITY SUBMITTED IN RESPECT OF MATTER 2 APPENDICES A – AUTHORITY RESPONSE TO LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATIONS B – EXTRACTS FROM LEE VALLEY REGIONAL PARK ACT 1966 C – RELEVANT PDF AREA PROPOSALS FOR AREAS 5, 6 AND 7 Appendix A Alison Blom-Cooper Email: [email protected] Planning Policy Team Direct Dial: 01992 709885 Epping Forest District Council Civic Offices High Street Epping Essex CM16 4BZ 23rd January 2018 Dear Alison RE: CONSULTATION ON EPPING FOREST DRAFT LOCAL PLAN REGULATION 19 - LEE VALLEY REGIONAL PARK AUTHORITY COMMENTS Thank you for consulting the Regional Park Authority on the Draft Local Plan consultation document. This document was considered by the Authority’s Regeneration and Planning Committee on the 18th January 2018 and this letter represents the Authority’s formal response Key Draft Local Plan Policies of relevance to the Regional Park As set out in the strategic context for the draft Local Plan a substantial area of the Regional Park lies within Epping Forest District (3929.52 acres or 39.64%) and as such the Local Plan once adopted will be a major influence on future use of and development within the Park. Vision and Strategic Policies Whilst the new vision for the District references the ‘recreational aims’ of the Regional Park, this should be revised to refer to the Authority’s statutory purpose which includes in addition to ‘recreation’, references to both ‘leisure and nature conservation’. General text included
  • Lee Valley Regional Park Landscape Character Assessment 243 April 2019 LCA L6: Millfields Park

    Lee Valley Regional Park Landscape Character Assessment 243 April 2019 LCA L6: Millfields Park

    LCA G3: Clayton Hill Lee Valley Regional Park Landscape Strategy 175 April 2019 LCA G3: Clayton Hill Key characteristics x Series of low, rounded hills rising up from the River Lea floodplain to the west, underlain by London Clay x A managed agricultural landscape with a strong rural character providing an undeveloped skyline and backdrop to the floodplain x Mixture of small to medium scale arable fields, irregular in pattern, with a strong network of hedgerows and occasional field trees in the north, including mature and veteran oaks x Blocks of deciduous woodland on hill slopes, such as Coleman’s Shaw, providing important landscape features and a wooded backdrop to parts of the valley floor x Isolated farmsteads on the western slopes, including Hayes Farm housing Lee Valley Park Farm x Occasional cottages, including Grade II listed Chestnut Cottage x Some noise from nearby transport corridors to the west, but generally high levels of tranquility x Strong rural and undeveloped character, although glasshouse developments in the north and a line of pylons cutting across the slopes in the south reduce this locally x Wide, far reaching views available from the ridgeline between Coleman’s Shaw and Clayton Hill across open bodies of water and wetlands within the Lee Valley floor, to the urban edge of Cheshunt Evaluation Landscape Quality & Condition 4.166 The area has a rural character with an absence of large scale built development and a strong landscape structure of hedgerows and woodland which contributes to the rural setting of the valley floor. Although subject to intensification, the area retains an irregular field pattern and some mature field trees, and in some areas strips of wild-flower meadows have been sown around field margin to increase biodiversity interest.