Land between Dinting Road & Shaw Lane, Hadfield, Glossop

Protected Species Ecological Report

for Loxley Homes

Report Reference: SE478/J/01/DH Author: Dr David Hackett BSc(Hons) MLD PhD CMIEEM CEnv Checked + approved by: J. Oliver Version: Final Date: 7th June 2013

Solum Environmental Limited Suite 6, 9 to 11 Princess Street, Knutsford, Cheshire, WA16 6 BY t 01565 755337 e [email protected] w www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

Contents

1.0 Summary

2.0 Introduction 2.1 Background and Commission 2.2 Aims of the Survey 2.3 Site Context Plan 1 Survey Site Boundary Plan 2 Survey Site Location

3.0 Legal Protection and Planning Guidance 3.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 3.2 Biodiversity Action Plans 3.3 Priority Habitats and Species 3.4 Vegetation 3.5 Hedgerows 3.6 Great Crested Newts (Triturus cristatus) 3.7 Other Amphibians (including Common Toad [Bufo bufo]) 3.8 Reptiles 3.9 Bats (Chiroptera) 3.10 Badgers (Meles meles) 3.11 Breeding Birds

4.0 Methodologies 4.1 Desktop Survey Methodology 4.2 Field Survey Methodology Plan 3 Locations of Reptile Tiles Across Site 4.3 Timing of Field Surveys in Relation to Optimal Seasons 4.4 Survey Team Members 4.5 Survey Constraints

5.0 Survey Results 5.1 Desktop Survey Results Plan 4 MagiC Site Check Map (Centre SK019950) Plan 5 All Waterbodies Lying Within 250m of Centre of Site Table 1 LER Records of Protected Species Within 1km of Site Over Past Ten Years 5.2 Habitats, Hedgerows, Vegetation, Trees Table 2 Habitat Types Recorded On Site Table 3 Significant Plant and Tree Species Recorded on Site Table 4 Flora Species Observed on Site During EP1H Survey 5.4 All Target Notes Table 5 All Target Notes Including Photographs 5.5 Great Crested Newts (Triturus cristatus) Figure 1 HSI Pond Suitability Scores Table 6 Assessment of Waterbodies On Site to Support Great Crested Newts 5.6 Reptiles 5.7 Other Species Observed: Badgers

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 6.1 Assessment of Site’s Current Ecological Value 6.2 Habitats, Hedgerows, Vegetation, Trees 6.3 Great Crested Newts

SE478/J/01/DH Page 2 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

6.4 Reptiles 6.5 Other Species: Badgers and Bats 6.6 Biodiversity Enhancement Measures 6.7 All Ecological Recommendations

7.0 Contacts, References and Bibliography 7.1 Ecologist Contacts 7.2 References and Bibliography

Appendix 1 Extended Phase One Habitat Map Appendix 2 Ecological Survey Calendar Appendix 3 Planting Specification to Support Badger Foraging Appendix 4 Planting Specification to Support Bat Foraging

This report has been prepared with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, within the terms of the contract with the client. This report is confidential to the Client. Solum Environmental Limited accepts no responsibility of whatever nature to third parties to who this report may be made known. No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written approval of the Client.

This report is based on survey data gathered at this site at Dinting Road, Glossop between March and May 2013.

SE478/J/01/DH Page 3 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

1.0 Summary

1.1 Solum Environmental was commissioned in March 2013 by John Coxon of Emery Planning to undertake a suite of ecological surveys at land lying between Dinting Road and Shaw Lane, Hadfield, Glossop, SK13. Specifically these surveys included:  update to previous Extended Phase One Habitat survey;  desktop survey including contacting local conservation groups;  optimal-season Habitat Suitability Indices survey for Great crested newts (Triturus cristatus);  four Great crested newt surveys of the pond on site and any other suitable ponds lying within 250m of the site’s boundaries in any direction; and  seven reptile surveys.

1.2 Survey was commissioned on behalf of Loxley Construction to support a planning application to develop this site for residential use.

1.3 Our understanding is that the proposed re-development will include:  clearance of the site’s vegetation (all hedgerows and mature trees at site to be retained);  erection of approximately 30 new build residential properties;  creation of a series of footpaths, walkways and green spaces linking the housing units, including new associated tree and shrub planting; and  creation of a 40 to 60m buffer zone, running alongside the western boundary of this site, along its border with the railway line, incorporating additional native tree and shrub planting.

1.4 This site is roughly triangular, approximately 4.5 ha in total, lying between Dinting Road to the south, Shaw Lane to the west and a railway line to the east. This site comprises a large area of open grassland, with scattered trees and scrub areas, gently sloping westwards. Towards the north of the site lies an ephemeral pond, approximately 60m2 in total, which dries out complete in dry weather. Around this pond area the grassland becomes marshy, with tall ruderal vegetation. Mature trees line the northern and western boundaries. The site is bisected by a footpath which runs north to south across the centre of the site.

1.5 Desk study was carried out to identify any nearby national and local nature conservation designations, and any protected species records which already exist for this area. The MagiC website was interrogated to determine whether any statutory or non-statutory conservation sites lay within 1km of the survey area. A thorough examination of Ordnance Survey base maps and Google Earth aerial photographs was conducted to locate any waterbodies lying within 250m of this survey site’s boundaries in any direction. The location of these waterbodies was then examined in relation to best practice guidelines on GCN survey, with ponds which were separated from the survey area by busy roads or railway lines being discounted, in line with this guidance. All four of the waterbodies which lay within 250m of the centre of the site were discounted in this way, leaving the single pond on site suitable for GCN survey.

1.6 Details of all protected species recorded within a 1km radius of the site over the past ten years were obtained from the following ecological organisations:  Derbyshire Wildlife Trust; and  Derbyshire Amphibian and Reptile Group; and  Derbyshire Bat Group The National (UK) and local (Peak District Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) were also interrogated for protected habitats and species relevant to this site.

1.7 A series of field surveys was undertaken by a team of four surveyors (GCN survey led by licence-holder Richard Castell) on seven dates between 11th April 2013 and 27th May 2013. Despite falling within optimal season, the first two GCN pond surveys had to be abandoned due to the pond on site being completely dry. As surveyors were already present on site on both occasions, hand searches for GCNs were carried out during both abandoned pond surveys. The pond was noted to contain water for the first time during reptile survey on 16th May, when it was approximately 10cm deep.

SE478/J/01/DH Page 4 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

1.8 Great crested newt surveys were conducted following best practice methodology as set out by Froglife and Natural England. The potential of the single waterbody lying within the survey boundaries to support GCNs was assessed during optimal season, using all ten suitability indices within the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI). In addition terrestrial habitats on site were assessed for their potential to support GCNs and other amphibians, and any suitable refugia that could be lifted were examined for GCNs and other amphibians. During the two GCN surveys conducted of the pond containing water, three of the recognised four methods of surveying for GCNs were employed (netting, torching and egg searching). Bottle trapping was not suitable at this location given the shallow depth of the pond. Given historical records of a common toad population at a waterbody close to the site, particular attention was paid during GCN and reptile survey, to check for other amphibian species, particularly common toad.

1.9 Reptiles: Both the habitat within the survey area and that of the surrounding landscape was assessed for its potential to support reptiles. In early April a total of 20 reptile tiles (made from roofing felt) were laid out to create ‘artificial refuges’ at specific locations around the site with most potential to support reptiles. Once laid out, reptile tiles were left for two weeks to allow time for them to slightly naturalise before the full suite of reptile surveys was undertaken. Reptile surveys followed best practice methodology as set out in Froglife Advice Sheet 10: Reptile Survey and were only undertaken during optimal times of day, ie between 8.30 and 11.00 am, or between 4.00 and 6.00 pm, adjusted depending upon weather conditions to coincide with optimal basking periods.

1.10 All field surveys were undertaken during optimal seasons. The Spring season has been notably delayed in 2013, we estimate by between two and five weeks, depending on geographic location. During the first two surveys the only pond to be surveyed was completely dry, meaning that only terrestrial searches for GCNs could be undertaken. Given the lateness of the Spring season this year, the dates of the final two surveys, 24th and 27th May, represent optimal period for GCN survey at this location.

1.11 The MagiC site check returned two sites of local, national or international protected status within 2km of the survey site: North Peak Environmentally Sensitive Area and the Peak District National Park. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust supplied records of four protected species within 1km of the survey area over the past ten years: three bat species and badger. A further record was supplied by the local amphibian group of a common toad population at a pond on nearby land and a toad road crossing site further along Dinting Road (away from the retaining wall). No reptiles had been recorded within 1km of the site over the past ten years.

1.12 The pond on site which was included in the GCN survey, was found during field survey to be an ephemeral pond, largely overgrown. It returned an optimal season HSI score of 0.5, ie just falling into the ‘below average’ category (borderline ‘poor’). There is only a short length of beech hedgerow to the northern boundary of this site and the only mature trees on site are located on the northern and western boundaries. Improved grassland at this site was found to be neutral and unexceptional, modified by the addition of fertiliser and probably liming in the recent past.

1.13 No amphibians or amphibian eggs were found in this pond, or anywhere in the site’s terrestrial habitat during any of the four GCN surveys. Neither were any amphibians found during any of the seven reptile surveys. No reptiles or evidence of reptiles were found at this site during any of these surveys. A single well-travelled badger path was observed running along the eastern boundary of the site. A badger sett was also observed at this location.

1.14 The site has generally low to medium ecological value at present. It does however, have substantial potential for improvement, particularly along the northern and eastern boundaries. While the pond on site is unexceptional, ponds are a rapidly disappearing habitat with potential to be very biodiverse. It is recommended therefore, that the pond area and the eastern boundary are developed under a management plan as green corridors to maximise their biodiversity, by the encouragement and introduction of na tive species and the removal of invasive non-native species. This ephemeral pond could be made more permanent by a variety of means, including:  partial deepening of the existing pond basin;  partial re-routing of the stream/ ditch that runs through this area to fill the pond;

SE478/J/01/DH Page 5 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

 accepting surface water drainage from the development through an enlarged pond area. This option could include an additional area of reedbed filtering surface water run-off before it discharges into the enhanced pond.

1.15 In general landscape proposals for this re-development should retain a mix of habitat types at this site to further develop biodiversity throughout the site. All of the recommendations set out in Arbtech’s Report of Enhancement Measures should be undertaken at this site. In particular the ‘buffer zone’ incorporating hibernacula would provide an effective means of both protecting and enhancing habitats, hedgerow, native plant species and trees at this site.

1.16 In addition native species which favour badger and bat populations should be included in the planting mix for this re-development. Any necessary felling or works to trees should take place outside the bird breeding season. An ecological management plan should be prepared which sets out the methodology for managing this site for ecological gains over the coming years, focusing on the enhanced pond area and the railway embankment buffer zone in particular.

1.17 Provided that all of the recommendations provided in this report are followed, re-development at this site is unlikely to adversely affect any protected species and is likely to result in a net gain in biodiversity at this site. Following an ecological management plan over coming years will further enhance this site’s overall biodiversity value.

SE478/J/01/DH Page 6 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

2.0 Introduction

2.1 Background and Commission

2.1.1 Solum Environmental was commissioned in March 2013 by John Coxon of Emery Planning to undertake a suite of ecological surveys at land lying between Dinting Road and Shaw Lane, Hadfield, Glossop, SK13. Specifically these surveys included:  update to previous Extended Phase One Habitat survey;  desktop survey including contacting local conservation groups;  optimal-season Habitat Suitability Indices survey for Great crested newts (Triturus cristatus);  four Great crested newt surveys of the pond on site and any other suitable ponds lying within 250m of the site’s boundaries in any direction; and  seven reptile surveys.

2.1.2 Survey was commissioned on behalf of Loxley Construction to support a planning application to develop this site for residential use.

2.1.3 Our understanding is that the proposed re-development will include:  clearance of the site’s vegetation (all hedgerows and mature trees at site to be retained);  erection of approximately 30 new build residential properties;  creation of a series of footpaths, walkways and green spaces linking the housing units, including new associated tree and shrub planting; and  creation of a 40 to 60m buffer zone, running alongside the western boundary of this site, along its border with the railway line, incorporating additional native tree and shrub planting.

2.1.4 The following documents were supplied by Emery Planning to inform ecologists of proposed re-development at this site:  The Appleton Group: Indicative Masterplan Land off Shaw Lane, Dinting Road, Ref 1832_03, August 2012.  Arbtech Consulting Ltd: Phase 1 Habitat Survey, undated.  Arbtech Consulting Ltd: Report of Enhancement Measures, Dinting Lane Glossop, 20th December 2012.

2.2 Aims of the Survey

2.2.1 These protected species and vegetation surveys aimed to:  identify any protected habitats within or adjacent to this site;  confirm the presence or absence of great crested newts at this site;  confirm the presence or likely absence of reptiles at this site;  highlight any potential ecological constraints to the proposed re-development of this site; and  advise on any further ecological survey, mitigation or licensing requirements, where re-development is likely to impact on either protected species or habitats.

2.3 Site Context

2.3.1 The site survey area is shown as a red-line boundary at Plan 1 below. The site’s wider location is shown at Plan 2 below.

2.3.2 This site is roughly triangular, approximately 4.5 ha in total, lying between Dinting Road to the south, Shaw Lane to the west and a railway line to the east. This site comprises a large area of open grassland, with scattered trees and scrub areas, gently sloping westwards. Towards the north of the site lies an ephemeral pond, approximately 60m2 in total, which dries out complete in dry weather. Around this pond area the grassland becomes marshy, with tall ruderal vegetation. Mature trees line the northern and western boundaries. The site is bisected by a footpath which runs north to south across the centre of the site.

SE478/J/01/DH Page 7 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

2.3.3 Land surrounding this site is generally farmland, with light industrial units to the south-west of the site, across Dinting Road. To the south-east of the site are further farmland and a small car park associated with the adjacent Dinting Railway Station. Beyond Shaw Lane to the north the site is bounded by housing, with farm buildings lying immediately beyond the site at its northernmost point. The whole of the site is bounded to the east by a railway line, beyond which lie woodland, further farmland and Mouselow Quarry.

2.3.4 The grid reference for the approximate centre of this site is SK019950.

Plan 1 : Survey Site Boundary

SE478/J/01/DH Page 8 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

Plan 2 : Survey Site Location

SE478/J/01/DH Page 9 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

3.0 Legal Protection and Planning Guidance

3.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 3.1.1 The NPPF came into force in March 2012. It sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It gives guidance to local planning authorities on the content of their local plans but is also a material consideration in determining planning applications. The NPPF states that the planning system should provide a net gain for biodiversity wherever possible. The NPPF replaces much of the previous planning policy guidance, including PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. However, the Government Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and Their Impact within the Planning System (which accompanied PPS9) remains valid.

3.2 Biodiversity Action Plans 3.2.1 UK Biodiversity Action Plans: The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) was established in response to the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992, signed by 150 members at the Rio Earth Summit, which aimed to promote sustainable development amongst all signatories. Specific action plans have been prepared for highly protected species. As well as a national Biodiversity Action Plan, local Biodiversity Action Plans identify species of note at local level throughout the UK. The survey site is covered by the Peak District Biodiversity Action Plan.

3.3 Priority Habitats and Species 3.3.1 Under the terms of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, all public bodies are required to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity when carrying out their activities. This means that efforts must be made to consider priority and protected species and habitats in particular. There would be a presumption in the land-use planning process against any development that would result in loss to an area of priority habitat or harm to the population of any priority species.

3.4 Vegetation 3.4.1 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) lists plants which are statutorily protected. In relation to development these plants are rare and are not often encountered. The bluebell is scheduled, with commercial bulb-picking from the wild being prohibited. There is also a category of plants which it is an offence to introduce to the wild. This category includes Japanese knotweed, which is often found on brownfield sites. Care is needed to avoid spreading the species around the site during earthworks, and to ensure that any removal of infested soils off-site is to a licensed tip. Giant hogweed and Himalayan balsam are also listed in this category of invasive alien plant species. In addition the Ragwort Control Act came into force on 20 February 2004 and enables the Secretary of State to make a Code of practice to prevent the spread of common ragwort.

3.5 Hedgerows 3.5.1 As a priority habitat for conservation concern, hedgerows also receive further protection under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. Under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 it is against the law to remove or destroy certain hedgerows without permission from the local planning authority. Local planning authority permission is normally required before removing hedges that are at least 20 metres (66 feet) in length, more than 30 years old and contain certain plant species. The authority will assess the importance of the hedgerow using criteria set out in the regulations. The local planning authority is also the enforcement body for offences created by the Regulations. If a hedgerow is removed without permission, there may be an unlimited fine and the hedgerow may have to be replaced.

3.6 Great Crested Newts (Triturus cristatus) 3.6.1 A European Protected Species (EPS) and fully protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Under the legislation it is an offence to:  Intentionally or deliberately capture, kill or injure great crested newts (GCNs).  Intentionally or recklessly disturb them in a place used for shelter or protection.  Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place.

SE478/J/01/DH Page 10 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

 Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to a place used for shelter or protection.  Possess a great crested newt, or any part of it, unless acquired legally.  Sell, barter, exchange or transport or offer for sale great crested newts or parts of them.

3.6.2 Where Great crested newts (GCNs) are present at a proposed development site it is usually possible to continue with the project, re-locating the animals in advance of development, but only upon receipt of a site-specific licence from Natural England. The licence application process can be complex and can only be conducted by a suitably qualified GCN-specialist ecologist. Each licence application must be supported by:  full optimal-season great crested newt survey results and analysis;  a suitable mitigation strategy that ensures that the favourable conservation status of the GCN population will be maintained (this usually involves the provision by the developer of additional land with ponds as compensation for loss of habitat and breeding sites). This mitigation strategy should usually be agreed by the ecologist through liaison with Natural England; and  a method statement explaining how GCNs will be accommodated legally if found during the development process.

3.7 Other Amphibians including Common Toad (Bufo bufo) 3.7.1 One other native amphibian species, natterjack toad (Bufo calamito) receives the same level of protection as the GCN, ie full protection as a European protected species. Four other amphibian species are native to the UK: common frog (Rana temporaria), common toad (Bufo bufo), palmate newt (Triturus helvetica) and smooth newt (Triturus vulgaris). These four species receive a lesser level of protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), however they are not protected under European law. Under this legislation it is an offence to:  Sell, barter, exchange or transport or offer for sale any animal or parts of them. Since 2007 common toad has also been listed as a priority species under the UK (national) Biodiversity Action Plan. This means that local authorities must consider this species in considering planning applications and, where its presence is confirmed, habitat mitigation should be put in place.

3.8 Reptiles 3.8.1 Two of the six widespread species of native reptile (smooth snake [Coronella austriaca] and sand lizard [Lacerta agilis]) receive the same level of full protection as GCNs, ie full protection as a European protected species. Four other reptile species are widespread and native to the UK: common lizard (), slow-worm (), grass snake () and adder (). All four species receive a lesser level of protection under all protected under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), however they are not fully protected under European law. This level of protection prohibits the intentional killing and injuring and trade of these reptiles. Where a survey identifies potential habitat for reptiles at a development site, a reptile survey may be needed prior to submission of a planning application and mitigation may be required by Natural England for any loss of reptile habitat as a result of a site’s re-development.

3.9 Bats (Chiroptera) 3.9.1 All species of bats are European Protected Species and their breeding and nesting sites (roosts) are given a high degree of legal protection under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. In addition, all bats are the subject of a UK-wide Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). This combined legislation offers bats, their roost sites and resting places strict protection from intentional or reckless disturbance (see wording of GCN legislation above). It should be noted that, under the legislation, a bat roost is defined as any structure or place which is used by bats to shelter, breed or perch whilst feeding. As bats tend to reuse the same roosts, the roost is legally protected, whether the bats are present at the time or not.

3.9.2 Where bats are present at a proposed development site it is usually possible to continue with the proposed project, but only upon receipt of a site-specific licence from Natural England. The licence application process can be complex and can only be conducted by a suitably qualified bat-specialist ecologist. Each licence application must be supported by:  full optimal-season bat survey results and analysis;

SE478/J/01/DH Page 11 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

 a suitable mitigation strategy that ensures that the favourable conservation status of the bat population will be maintained (this usually involves the provision by the developer of replacement permanent bat roosts, additional bat boxes and both bat-friendly planting and lighting within the development site). This mitigation strategy should usually be agreed by the ecologist through liaison with Natural England; and  a method statement explaining how bats will be accommodated legally if found during the development process.

3.10 Badgers (Meles meles) 3.10.1 All badgers are protected from harm under the Protection of Badgers Act (1992). Under this act it is an offence:  to kill, injure or take a badger, or to attempt to do so;  to use badger tongs in the course of killing or taking, or attempting to kill or take, any badger;  to kill or take a badger with a firearm which does not fall within the specifications laid down in the Act;  to dig for a badger;  to cruelly ill-treat a badger;  to possess or control a live badger;  to sell or offer for sale a live badger;  to mark, or attach any ring, tag or marking device to a badger;  to possess or control any dead badger, any part of one, or anything derived from one;  to interfere with a badger sett by (a) damaging a sett or any part of one; (b) destroying a sett; (c) obstructing access to or any entrance of a sett; (d) causing a dog to enter a sett; or (e) disturbing a badger when it is occupying a sett.

3.10.2 Where badgers are present at a proposed development site it is usually possible to continue with the proposed project, but only upon receipt of a site-specific licence from Natural England. A licence is always required to shut down a badger sett or for works within 30m of a badger sett. The licence application process can be complex and can only be conducted by a suitably qualified badger-specialist ecologist. Each licence application must be supported by:  full optimal-season badger survey results and analysis;  a suitable mitigation strategy that ensures that the favourable conservation status of the badger population will be maintained (this usually involves the provision by the developer of replacement artificial setts, planting of suitable fruit-bearing shrubs, erection of badger gates and underpasses within the development site). This mitigation strategy should usually be agreed by the ecologist through liaison with Natural England; and  a method statement explaining how badgers will be accommodated legally if found during the development process.

3.11 Breeding Birds 3.11.1 All wild birds, their nests and their eggs are protected by the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). It is an offence (with certain exceptions), to intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild bird (this includes chicks); to take, damage or destroy any wild bird’s nest while it is use or being built; and to take or destroy the egg of any wild bird. The definition of a wild bird is ‘any bird of a kind which is resident in or a visitor to Great Britain in a wild state’.

3.11.2 Species named in Schedule 1 of the Act are given special protection and it is an offence to disturb these species at the nest of while they are caring for dependant young. The RSPB and the UK’s leading bird conservation organisations work together to regularly review the status of birds within the UK. A total of 246 species are assessed against a set of objective criteria to place each on one of three lists - green, amber and red – indicating an increasing level of conservation concern. These lists provide a tool for guiding conservation actions for birds in the UK and for setting priorities for action on individual species. The last review of these lists was completed in May 2009.

3.11.3 For certain species, eg feral pigeon, general licences are available for an authorised person to lawfully carry out the actions outlined above providing that it is in the overriding interest of public health or air safety and that all other attempts to prevent the problem caused by the species have failed.

SE478/J/01/DH Page 12 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

4.0 Methodologies

4.1 Desktop Survey Methodology

4.1.1 Desk study was carried out to identify any nearby national and local nature conservation designations, and any protected species records which already exist for this area. The MagiC website was interrogated to determine whether any statutory or non-statutory conservation sites lay within 1km of the survey area. The data supplied was subsequently assimilated and reviewed.

4.1.2 A thorough examination of Ordnance Survey base maps and Google Earth aerial photographs was conducted to locate any waterbodies lying within 250m of this survey site’s boundaries in any direction. These waterbodies could include not only ponds, but also streams, brooks, rivers, canals, ditches, ash lagoons and temporary pools of water where Great crested newts (GCNs) could potentially breed. The location of these ponds was then examined in relation to best practice guidelines on GCN survey, with ponds which were separated from the survey area by busy roads or railway lines being discounted, in line with this guidance. All four of the waterbodies which lay within 250m of the centre of the site were discounted in this way, leaving the single pond on site suitable for GCN survey. Further details are given at Table 3 in Section below.

4.1.3 Ecological records were requested from the following ecological organisations:  Derbyshire Wildlife Trust; and  Derbyshire Amphibian and Reptile Group; and  Derbyshire Bat Group Details were requested of all protected species recorded within a 1km radius of the site over the past ten years.

4.1.4 The National (UK) and local (Peak District Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) were also interrogated for protected habitats and species relevant to this site.

4.2 Field Survey Methodology

4.2.1 A series of field surveys was undertaken by a team of 4 surveyors (GCN survey led by Richard Castell) on the following dates:

Reptile survey (1 of 7) inc tile placing 11th April 2013 Optimal Reptile survey (2 of 7), EP1H survey 26th April 2013 Optimal but vegetation levels low (GCN survey 1 abandoned due to complete lack of 26th April 2013 Optimal but too dry water in pond, hand search carried out) Reptile survey (3 of 7) 10th May 2013 Optimal (GCN survey 2 abandoned due to complete lack of 10th May 2013 Optimal but too dry water in pond, hand search carried out) Reptile survey (4 of 7) 13th May 2013 Optimal Reptile survey (5 of 7) 16th May 2013 Optimal Reptile survey (6 of 7) 24th May 2013 Optimal HSI survey of pond 24th May 2013 Optimal given late Spring GCN survey (3 of 4) 24th May 2013 Optimal given late Spring Reptile survey (7 of 7) 27th May 2013 Optimal GCN survey (4 of 4) 27th May 2013 Optimal given late Spring

4.2.2 Despite falling within optimal season, the first two GCN pond surveys had to be abandoned due to the pond on site being completely dry. As surveyors were already present on site on both occasions, hand searches for GCNs were carried out during both abandoned pond surveys. The pond was noted to contain water for the first time during reptile survey on 16th May, when it was approximately 10cm deep.

SE478/J/01/DH Page 13 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

4.2.3 Extended phase one habitat survey was conducted following best practice methodology (JNCC, 1993, as amended 2010). This survey work included visual inspection of the site and adjacent habitat. Broad habitat compartments around the site were noted in order to establish the potential for movement of fauna between habitats. The presence (or potential to support) protected species was noted, and particular note was made of any invasive species present. Target notes were recorded of any points of ecological value and photographs were taken throughout this survey.

4.2.4 Great crested newt surveys were conducted following best practice methodology as set out by Froglife and Natural England. The potential of the single waterbody lying within the survey boundaries to support GCNs was assessed during optimal season, using all ten suitability indices within the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI). Although HSI is not a substitute for optimal-season full GCN survey, it provides an objective score for each pond, which can then inform a decision as to whether or not further detailed survey should be undertaken. In addition terrestrial habitats on site were assessed for their potential to support GCNs and other amphibians, and any suitable refugia that could be lifted were examined for GCNs and other amphibians.

4.2.5 In line with best practice guidelines, during each GCN survey two surveyors were present, both experienced GCN surveyors. During the first two GCN surveys only a terrestrial hand search could be carried out, given the lack of water present at the ephemeral pond location. During the two GCN surveys conducted of the pond containing water, three of the recognised four methods of surveying for GCNs were employed (netting, torching and egg searching). Bottle trapping was not suitable at this location given the shallow depth of the pond.

4.2.6 Other amphibian species given historical records of a common toad population at a waterbody close to the site (Pond 2, see Plan 5 below for location), particular attention was paid during GCN and reptile survey, to check for other amphibian species, particularly common toad.

4.2.7 Reptiles: Both the habitat within the survey area and that of the surrounding landscape was assessed for its potential to support reptiles. In early April a total of 20 reptile tiles (made from roofing felt) were laid out to create ‘artificial refuges’ at specific locations around the site with most potential to support reptiles. The location of reptile tiles is given at Plan 3 below.

Plan 3: Locations of Reptile Tiles Across Site

SE478/J/01/DH Page 14 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

4.2.8 Typical reptile habitats at this site included the railway embankment, rough grassland and scrub edges. Grass snakes in particular favour wetland areas, so as well as covering the eastern railway boundary, a number of tiles were distributed around land surrounding the ephemeral pond area . Once laid out, reptile tiles were left for two weeks to allow time for them to slightly naturalise before the full suite of reptile surveys was undertaken.

4.2.9 Reptile surveys followed best practice methodology as set out in Froglife Advice Sheet 10: Reptile Survey and were only undertaken during optimal times of day, ie between 8.30 and 11.00 am, or between 4.00 and 6.00 pm, adjusted depending upon weather conditions to coincide with optimal basking periods. Reptile surveys were carried out by an experienced reptile surveyor and an ecological assistant, and were abandoned where air temperatures fell below 9oC. During six of the seven surveys, reptile tiles were carefully hand-lifted, checking beneath and around the tile for any reptiles (as well as for amphibians). During all reptiles surveys, both surveyors carefully examined likely habitat features or ‘hot spots’, including banks, wood/ brash piles and woodland edges.

4.3 Timing of Field Surveys in Relation to Optimal Seasons

4.3.1 All field surveys were undertaken during optimal seasons (please see Section 4.2.1 above and the ecological survey calendar at Appendix 2).

4.3.2 The Spring season has been notably delayed in 2013, we estimate by between two and five weeks, depending on geographic location. During the first two surveys the only pond to be surveyed was completely dry, meaning that only terrestrial searches for GCNs could be undertaken. Given the lateness of the Spring season this year, the dates of the final two surveys, 24th and 27th May, represent optimal period for GCN survey at this location.

4.4 Survey Team Members

4.4.1 Dr David Hackett BSc(Hons) MLD PhD CMIEEM CEnv is a Director of Solum Environmental, a highly experienced ecologist and ecological project manager. David has over 15 years’ experience of ecological surveying for multiple terrestrial species and is a member of the Cheshire Bat Group as well as a full member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, and a Chartered Environmentalist. David has extensive experience of surveying for amphibians and reptiles and developing ecological mitigation packages, across a range of UK sites. David is currently project managing bat roost mitigation across a 4-square mile re-development site in Bishopton, Renfrewshire.

4.4.2 Richard Castell is a Senior Ecologist at Solum Environmental. He has over 30 years’ field experience, with particular expertise in the study of the breeding ecology of European birds and Great crested newts. Richard is also an experienced reptile surveyor and has designed reptile mitigation programmes. He has surveyed with Solum Environmental for over four years and is also a highly-experienced, general-species ecologist. Richard holds a licence to survey for great crested newts in all counties of England, and several schedule 1 bird species in England, Wales and Scotland. He is also Ecological Clerk of Works for a 1000 ha redevelopment site in Bishopton, Scotland, supporting 12 badger clans, otter, bats, water vole, kingfisher and barn owl, and works closely with SNH to ensure the well-being of the resident protected species across this site.

4.4.3 Laura Holmes is an Ecologist at Solum Environmental. She has a first class honours degree in Biological Sciences and has worked in the ecological sector for 6 years for Cheshire Wildlife Trust, The NBN and rECOrd, the Cheshire local biodiversity records centre. She is experienced in the field identification of plants, amphibians and mammals. Laura is a member of the Cheshire Bat Group.

4.4.4 Dr Victoria Ward worked as a temporary Senior Ecologist at Solum Environmental in Spring 2013. Victoria has a first degree in Conservation Management BSc and a PhD in Urban Ecology. She has worked in professional ecological consultancy for five years, with particular expertise in the study of great crested newts and bats. She is also an experienced general-species ecologist with a Natural England licence to survey for both bats and great crested newts.

SE478/J/01/DH Page 15 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

4.5 Survey Constraints

4.5.1 The only constraint of this survey was the lateness of the Spring season and the drying out of the waterbody on site as detailed above.

SE478/J/01/DH Page 16 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

5.0 Survey Results

5.1 Desktop Survey Results

5.1.1 The MagiC site check conducted in March 2013 returned two sites of local, national or international protected status within 2km of the survey site: North Peak Environmentally Sensitive Area and the Peak District National Park. The Peak District National Park is shaded in lilac on Plan 4 below.

Plan 4: MagiC Site Check Map (Centre SK019950)

5.1.2 Desktop survey identified a total of five waterbodies lying either within the site boundaries or within 250m of the centre of the site. The location of these five waterbodies lying is illustrated at Plan 5 below. Each pond was assessed as follows, in line with best practice guidance, to determine whether GCN survey was required to support the proposed re-development:

Plan 5 : All Waterbodies Lying Within 250m of Centre of Site

SE478/J/01/DH Page 17 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

5.1.3 Relevant local records for this area were obtained from the following organisations:  Derbyshire Wildlife Trust;  Derbyshire Amphibian and Reptile Group; and  Derbyshire Bat Group.

5.1.4 The following species have been recorded within 1km of the survey area over the past ten years.

Table 1 : LER Records of Protected Species Within 1km of Site Over Past Ten Years

Latin Name Common Name Recorded Protection

Pipistrellus pipistrellus Common Pipistrelle Unknown All UK bat species protected under Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations

Myotis sp. 2012 All UK bat species protected under Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations

Pipistrellus pygmaeus Soprano pipistrelle 2012 All UK bat species protected under Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations

Meles meles Badger 2011 All badgers protected under specific UK badger legislation

5.1.4 Reptiles: Desktop survey returned no records of reptiles within 1km of this site over the past ten years. Grass snake (Natrix natrix), common lizard (Zootoca vivipara) and slow-worm (Anguis fragilis) have all been found, albeit in low numbers, in Derbyshire over the past fifteen years. Grass snake has been recorded to the west of this site, further down the River Etherow valley. In 2000 Grass snake was recorded on the outskirts of Glossop at Wrens Nest millpond and on land near Queen Street (SK027940). Slow-worm was recorded at Tintwhistle churchyard (SK021972), to the north of the search area, in April 2012, at Long Clough Nature Reserve (SK031925) and to the west of the county near Broadbottom in 1988. Common lizard has been recorded at a number of sites to the east of Glossop.

5.1.5 Amphibians: Desktop survey returned no records of European protected amphibians within 1km of this site over the past ten years. In 2007 a colony of common toad (Bufo bufo), a UK BAP species, was recorded at Pond 2, on land separated from this site by Dinting Road. West of this site, on Shaw Lane (past the site of the retaining wall) a toad road crossing point had been recorded up to 2007.

5.2 Habitats, Vegetation, Hedgerows, Trees

5.2.1 The following habitats were recorded within the survey area (these habitats are mapped at Appendix 1 : Extended Phase One Habitat Plan):

SE478/J/01/DH Page 18 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

Table 2 : Habitat Types Recorded On Site JNCC Code Habitat Type

A1.1 Mixed trees

A2.2 Semi-improved scattered scrub

A3.1 Scattered trees

B2.2 Neutral grassland semi-improved

B5 Marshy grassland

C3.1 Tall ruderal

G1.2 Pond : Standing water mesotrophic

G2.2 Drain: Running water mesotrophic

J2.1.2 Hedgerow: defunct native species-rich

J2.4 Fence line

No code Gate

eg J4 Tarmac/ public footpath

5.2.2 No buildings lie within the survey boundary.

5.2.3 Table 3 below gives an assessment of the five waterbodies identified above and explains the criteria for inclusion/ exclusion from GCN survey.

Table 3 : Assessment of Waterbodies Lying Within 250m of Centre of Site Waterbody On/ Off Site Requires GCN Reason No survey? 1 On site Yes, marginally HSI score of 0.5 ie average (0.49 would be below average and would normally be assessed as not requiring GCN survey pre- planning). Pond completely dry until mid-May, so throughout optimal season for breeding GCNs. 2 Off site, No Separated from site by Dinting Road and a immediately to retaining wall (2m high at its highest point). south of boundary This parcel of land is managed under a woodland management plan. A grounds maintenance worker at this site, Matt (encountered during survey) confirmed that there have been no records of GCNs at this pond over the past fifteen years. In addition he confirmed that this pond, Pond 4 and a further waterbody immediately south of Pond

SE478/J/01/DH Page 19 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

Waterbody On/ Off Site Requires GCN Reason No survey? 4 are kept stocked with fish under an arrangement with a local fishing club. Taken as a whole the road, retaining wall and fishing mean that this pond is unsuitable for GCNs and does not require survey. 3 Off site, beyond No Separated from site by railway line. eastern site boundary 4 Off site, further No See Pond 2. southern site boundary 5? Off site, No Sinkhole with evidence of very recent heavy immediately machinery activity during 1st survey in March beyond survey 2013. Completely dry during first two surveys boundary to north and unsuitable for GCNs: does not require survey.

5.2.4 Further waterbodies were identified as lying within 250m of the site’s southern and eastern boundaries, however all were separated by the same barriers: Dinting Road (including high retaining wall) and the railway line.

5.2.5 Pond 2 (see Target Note 2, Table 5 below) which was included in the GCN survey, was found during field survey to be an ephemeral pond, largely overgrown with reed mace, with horsetail and soft rush dominant around the margins. The pond is surrounded to the east, south and west by scattered hawthorn, elder, young oak and mountain ash.

5.2.6 A list of flora species observed on site during survey is given at Table 4 below.

5.2.7 There is only a short length of beech hedgerow to the northern boundary of this site, separating it from an adjacent residential garden. There are scattered hawthorn bushes and young, scattered trees (mainly ash and oak) along the southern and western site boundaries. The eastern boundary lies adjacent to self-seeded birch woodland with native bluebells beneath and bramble at the junction with the field.

5.2.8 The only mature trees on site are located on the northern and western boundaries. Two mature sycamores, a single large ash and a single goat willow are of particular interest for wildlife: the former due to splits and hollows in the trunk and the latter as large native trees. The native tree species diversity towards the northern boundary of the site and includes alder, apple, cherry, goat willow and mountain ash.

5.2.9 The improved grassland at this site is unexceptional and has been modified by the addition of fertiliser and probably liming in the recent past. There are a large number of ‘weed’ species within the grassland mix, including broad-leaved dock, dandelion and creeping thistle. The grassland grades into patches of generally wetter ground, apparent by the prevalence of great hairy willowherb, hogweed, marsh thistle and soft rush. In less disturbed areas (including in a narrow strip running north-south on the steepest section of the eastern field) species more typical of MG9 mesotrophic grassland occur, including tufted hair-grass and Yorkshire fog, with scattered false oat also present. There is early colonisation by oak and hawthorn scrub in these areas. Elements of MG9 mix are apparent around the pond to the northern boundary, but great hairy willowherb and soft rush are locally dominant with horsetail locally frequent. The northern boundary is dominated by bramble and extensive patches of snowberry.

SE478/J/01/DH Page 20 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

Table 4: Flora Species Observed on Site During EP1H Survey

Latin Name Common Name DAFOR GRASSLAND AND TALL RUDERAL Alopecurus pratensis Meadow foxtail A Angelica sylvestris Wild angelica O Anthoxanthum oderatum Sweet vernal grass F Arrhenatherum eliatus False oat O Bellis perennis Daisy O Cardamine pratensis Lady’s smock/Cuckoo flower F Carex nigra Black sedge R Chamerion angustifolium Rosebay willowherb F Cirsium arvense Creeping thistle O Cirsium palustre Marsh thistle O Conopodium majus Pignut R Dactylis glomerata Cock’s foot F Deschampsia caespitosa Tufted hair grass F Epilobium hirsutum Great hairy willowherb D Equisetum arvense Field horsetail O Festuca ovina Sheep’s fescue F Festuca rubra Red fescue O Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed F Holcus lanatus Yorkshire fog A Hyacinthoides hispanica x H. Hybrid bluebell R non-scripta Juncus effusus Soft rush A Poa annua Annual meadow grass O Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain F Ranunculus acris Meadow buttercup F Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup F Rumex acetosa Sorrel F Rumex obtusifolium Broad-leaved dock F Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion O Trifolium pratense Red clover O Urtica dioica Nettle F Vicia sativa Common vetch R

SE478/J/01/DH Page 21 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

Latin Name Common Name DAFOR HAWTHORN SCRUB AND SCATTERED TREES

Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble D Rosa arvensis Field rose R Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn F Quercus petraea Oak O POND AND WETLAND AREAS Typha latifolia Reedmace D Equisetum fluviatile Water horsetail F Juncus effusus Soft rush F Iris pseudacorus Yellow flag R Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary-grass O TREES AND SHRUBS Acer psuedoplatanus Sycamore Fraxinus excelsior Ash Quercus petraea Oak Betula pubescens Birch Symphoricarpus alba Snowberry Alnus glutinosa Alder Malus domestica Apple Prunus sp. Cherry Salix caprea Goat willow Sorbus aucuparia Mountain ash Sambucus nigra Elder

5.3 All Target Notes

5.3.1 The following target notes were recorded at this site, in relation to both habitats and species:

SE478/J/01/DH Page 22 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

Table 5 : All Target Notes Including Photographs Target Description Photographs Note No.

1 Badger sett on railway embankment

2 Large ash near northern boundary. One of a number of mature trees at this location

3 Ephemeral pond and associated wetland

SE478/J/01/DH Page 23 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

5.4 Great Crested Newts (Triturus cristatus)

5.4.1 Pond 1 (on site) was assessed for its potential to support GCNs using the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI). HSI pond suitability scores are given at Figure 1 below. The results of the HSI for Pond 1 are given at Table 6 below:

Figure 1 : HSI Pond Suitability Scores (extract from ARG UK Advice Note 5: Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index — 7)

Table 6 : HSI Assessment of Waterbodies On Site to Support Great Crested Newts Index Pond 1

S1 Location 1 S2 Pond area 0.1 S3 Permanence 0.1 S4 Water quality 0.33 S5 Shade 1 S6 Fowl 1 S7 Fish 1 S8 Ponds 0.4 S9 Terrestrial habitat 0.67 S10 Macrophytes 1 Score 0.5 Suitability Below average

5.4.2 The ephemeral pond on site, Pond 1, was visited twice during optimal season for GCN survey to assess its potential for great crested newts and to conduct full pond surveys. During both site visits (26th April and 10th

SE478/J/01/DH Page 24 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

May) the pond had fully dried out and only GCN hand searches of terrestrial habitats could be undertaken. During the third and fourth GCN surveys on 24th and 27th May, following heavy rain, the pond was deep enough (at approximately 10cm – 20cm at deepest) to carry out egg search, netting and torching survey techniques.

5.4.3 No amphibians or amphibian eggs were found in this pond, or anywhere in the site’s terrestrial habitat during any of the four GCN surveys. Neither were any amphibians found during any of the seven reptile surveys.

5.5 Reptiles

5.5.1 No reptiles or evidence of reptiles were found at this site during any of these surveys.

5.6 Other Species Observed: Badgers

5.6.1 A single well-travelled badger path was observed running along the eastern boundary of the site. A badger sett was also observed at this location (see Target Note 1 at Table 5 above and plan at Appendix 1).

SE478/J/01/DH Page 25 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 Assessment of Site’s Current Ecological Value

6.1.1 The site has generally low to medium ecological value at present. It does however, have substantial potential for improvement, particularly along the northern and eastern boundaries. There are a number of mature trees and a good mix of native species on the northern boundary with close proximity to the ephemeral pond. The birch scrub with native (hybridised) bluebells, along the site’s eastern boundary, also has ecological value, as does the railway embankment, which is currently used by badgers and could potentially provide a commuting line for bats. While the pond on site (Pond 1) is unexceptional, ponds are a rapidly disappearing habitat with potential to be very biodiverse. It is recommended therefore, that the pond area and the eastern boundary are developed under a management plan as green corridors to maximise their biodiversity, by the encouragement and introduction of native species and the removal of invasive non-native species.

6.2 Habitats, Hedgerows, Vegetation, Trees

6.2.1 Wherever possible trees and hedgerows should be retained at this site during the proposed re-development. Any gaps in hedges should be planted with native species, particularly those which provide foraging habitat for badgers and bats (see Appendices 3 and 4 for suitable species).

6.2.2 The ‘buffer zone’ outlined in the Arbtech Report of Enhancement Measures would provide an effective means of both protecting and enhancing habitats, hedgerow, native plant species and trees at this site.

6.3 Great Crested Newts

6.3.1 Despite best-practice optimal-season survey at this site, no evidence was found for GCNs at this site. Considered together with its relative isolation, the low HSI score, and its ephemeral nature, it can be concluded that there are no great crested newts present at this location and no licence will be required from Natural England for works to be carried out in or around this pond.

6.3.2 There is some limited potential for GCNs to use this pond, however adjacent roads and the railway line are likely to provide effective barriers to colonisation at this location. Nevertheless much could be done to improve the existing ephemeral pond and surrounding marshy grassland to enhance its potential to support all amphibian species, including common toad, a UK BAP species.

6.3.3 This ephemeral pond could be made more permanent by a variety of means, including:  partial deepening of the existing pond basin;  partial re-routing of the stream/ ditch that runs through this area to fill the pond;  accepting surface water drainage from the development through an enlarged pond area. This option could include an additional area of reedbed filtering surface water run-off before it discharges into the enhanced pond.

6.4 Reptiles

6.4.1 The vegetation recorded within and adjacent to this site has many characteristics favoured by reptiles, including a combination of tussocky grassland adjacent to a line of trees, wetland and standing water. However despite dedicated search and observation following best-practice methodology during optimal season, no evidence was found for reptiles at this site. Although records exist for reptiles in and around Glossop, none have been recorded within 1km of this site over the past ten years, and there is generally limited connectivity between the sites at which they have been recorded and this survey area. It can be concluded, therefore, that there are either no reptiles on this site or that their numbers are so low that they are undetectable by best practice reptile survey methodology undertaken during optimal season.

SE478/J/01/DH Page 26 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

6.4.2 Although no reptiles appear to be present at this location currently, the railway corridor in particular represents a viable means of migration for reptiles, which might allow for future colonisation of this site. It is recommended therefore that best-practice methodology is employed and a hand search is conducted for both amphibians and reptiles, by a suitably qualified and experienced surveyor, immediately prior to construction works beginning on site. Particular attention should be paid to checking any vegetation /leaf-litter piles in the area immediately adjacent to the railway line.

6.4.3 Hibernacula should be created and managed within the buffer zone at the eastern boundary. Typically such hibernacula would comprise log piles/brash produced as part of the vegetation clearance during the site’s re- development and as part of the ongoing management of the site, particularly its wildlife areas.

6.5 Other Species: Badgers and Bats

6.5.1 Badgers are active along the eastern boundary of the site. There is a well-travelled badger path that moves in and out of the boundary fence adjacent to the railway line and an outlier sett approximately 3m from the boundary fence on the embankment of the railway line. The sett would appear to be an outlier, possibly attached to a main sett situated to the rear of the house to the north of the site. It is our understanding that there is to be no disturbance to any land within 30m of this identified sett (digging, heavy plant movement etc), or up to 100m of this site where there is to be piling. Should such works prove necessary then further survey would need to be undertaken and a licence would be required from Natural England to allow the re-development to proceed.

6.5.2 Planting plans should be drawn up to encourage badger species at this site, particularly in the buffer zone to the railway embankment.

6.5.3 Particularly given the local records of bats within 1km of this site, planting plans should be drawn up to encourage bat species at this site.

6.6 Biodiversity Enhancement Measures

6.6.1 The biodiversity enhancement measures set out in Arbtech’s Report of Enhancement Measures should all be undertaken to ensure that a net gain in biodiversity results from this re-development. An ecological management plan should be prepared which sets out the methodology for managing this site for ecological gains over the coming years. This management plan should provide detail on the enhanced pond area and the railway embankment buffer zone in particular.

6.6.2 Provided that all of the recommendations provided in this report are followed, re-development at this site is unlikely to adversely affect any protected species and is likely to result in a net gain in biodiversity at this site. Following an ecological management plan over coming years will further enhance this site’s overall biodiversity value.

6.7 All Ecological Recommendations

R1 In general landscape proposals for this re-development should retain a mix of habitat types at this site to further develop biodiversity throughout the site.

R2 All of the recommendations set out in Arbtech’s Report of Enhancement Measures should be undertaken at this site.

R3 In addition native species which favour badger and bat populations (from the lists at Appendices 3 and 4) should be included in the planting mix for this re-development.

R4 The ephemeral pond on site should be enhanced as set out above.

SE478/J/01/DH Page 27 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

R5 Any necessary felling or works to trees should take place outside the bird breeding season. The bird breeding season normally runs from March to September inclusive. Should these works be essential during the bird breeding season then all trees, hedgerows and buildings to be affected should be checked for the presence of breeding birds by a suitably qualified and experienced bird surveyor 24 hours prior to the works taking place. Works should only take place once the ecologist is satisfied that no active nests will be affected.

R6 Hand searches for both amphibians and reptiles should be undertaken immediately prior to works commencing on site by a suitably qualified and experienced surveyor.

R7 An ecological management plan should be prepared which sets out the methodology for managing this site for ecological gains over the coming years, focusing on the enhanced pond area and the railway embankment buffer zone in particular.

SE478/J/01/DH Page 28 www.solumenvironmental.com Land at Dinting Road/ Shaw Lane, Glossop 7th June 2013

7.0 Contacts, References and Bibliography

7.1 Ecologist Contacts

Richard Castell, Senior Ecologist Solum Environmental Limited Suite 6 9-11 Princess Road Knutsford WA16 6BY Phone 01565 755337 Email [email protected]

7.2 References and Bibliography

JNCC Handbook for Phase One Habitat Survey (2010) MJ Wiggington (1999), British Red Data Books: 1 Vascular Plants, JNCC, Peterborough. EA (1995), Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment, Institute of Environmental Assessment. E&FN Spon, An Imprint of Chapman and Hall, London.

Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook, Froglife Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines (2001), English Nature Natural England Standing Advice Species Sheet Great Crested Newts Oldham R.S., Keeble J., Swan M.J & Jeffcote M (2000) Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal 10 (4) 143-155 UK Advice Note 5 Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index (May 10), Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the United Kingdom

English Nature Reptiles: Guidelines for Developers, 2004. Reptile Habitat Management Handbook Froglife, Advice Sheet 10, Reptile Survey

Natural England (2007), Badgers and Development A Best Practice Guide, Peterborough

Wildlife and Countryside Act, (1981), as amended. HMSO, London. The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. HMSO, London. The Conservation and Habitats Regulations 2010. HMSO London

UK BAP www.ukbap.org.uk

SE478/J/01/DH Page 29 www.solumenvironmental.com

Appendix 1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Map

Appendix 2 Ecological Survey Calendar

Appendix 3 Planting Specification to Support Badger Foraging

English name Latin name

Blackberry Rubus fruticosus

Elder Sambucus nigra

Apple Pyrus malus

Pear Pyrus communis

Oak Quercus robur

Blackthorn (sloe) Prunus spinosa

Bird cherry Prunus padus

Wild cherry Prunus avium

Crabapple (wild) Malus sylvestris

Guelder rose Viburnum opulus

Hazel Corylus avellana

Holly Ilex aquifolium

Mountain ash (rowan) Sorbus aucuparia

Plum (Myrobolan) Prunus cerasifera

Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna

Dog rose Rosa canina

Other native roses Rosa spp

Wayfaring tree Viburnum lantana

Appendix 4 : Planting Specification to Support Bat Foraging

Planting to enhance a site for bats should aim to provide a habitat rich in insects, and with the potential for alternative r oosting sites. The following are examples of plant species, which can be used where appropriate, to enhance a landscape for bats .

Trees and Shrubs (of local provenance where possible) Oak Quercus robur Ash Fraxinus excelsior Silver Birch Betula pendula Field Maple Acer campestre Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna Alder Alnus glutinosa Goat Willow Salix caprea Guelder Rose Viburnum opulus Hazel Coryllus avellana Blackthorn Prunus spinosa Elder Sambucus nigra

Night-scented flowers As bats usually feed at dusk and dawn it is advantageous to use night-scented flowers which will attract moths and other night- flying insects: Nottingham Catchfly Silene nutans Night -flowering Catchfly S. noctiflora Bladder Campion S. vulgaris Night-scented Stock Matthiola bicornis Dame’s-violet Hesperis matronalis Common Evening-primrose Oenothera biennis Soapwort Saponaria officinalis

Scented herbs Chives Allium schoenoprasum Sage Salvia officinalis Marjoram Origanum vulgare Borage Borago officinalus Mint Mentha sp.

Climbers Honeysuckle (native) Lonicer periclymenum Traveller’s-joys Clematis vitalba Dog-rose Rosa canina Sweet-briar R. rubiginosa Field-rose R. arvensis Ivy Hedera helix Bramble Rubus fruticosus agg.

Where re-seeding is to take place the choice of a ‘conservation mix’ of grass seed would be preferential. The management of grassland areas as hay meadows, without use of herbicides/fertilisers and allowing the grass to go to seed prior to cutting is beneficial in allowing larval stages of the insects to develop.