Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Ecological Survey Report
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale
for
Holme Hale Farms
13 June 2016
13 June 2016 0
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Client Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Holme Hale Farms Ecological Survey Report
Planning authority Breckland District Council Elizabeth House Walpole Loke Dereham NR19 1EE
Document Ecological Survey Report Version 1.0 Date 13 June 2016 Author Diane Megias B.Sc. (Hons) Reviewer Etienne Swarts B. Compt (Hons) F Deg Sc ACIEEM Natural England licences (Bat survey level 2, Great crested newt class 2, dormouse level 1) Signed disclosure The information, data, advice and opinions provided in this report which I have provided is true and has been prepared in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Code of Professional Conduct. I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional bona fide opinions. Etienne Swarts, ACIEEM Greenlight Environmental Consultancy Limited The Old Lion All Saints South Elmham Halesworth Suffolk IP19 0NZ
13 June 2016 1
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Table of Contents
Summary 3
1 INTRODUCTION 5
2 METHODOLOGY 5
3 LEGISLATION AND POLICY 10
4 SITE CONTEXT 12
5 DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT 14
6 DESKTOP REVIEW 14
7 FIELD STUDY 17
8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 34
9 BIBLIOGRAPHY 38
Appendix A Map of protected sites and species within 2km 39
Appendix B Protected sites citations 41
Appendix C Legislation 44
Appendix D Bat Conservation Trust Protocol for visual inspection of trees 48
Appendix E GCN Habitat Suitability Index 49
Appendix F Examples of bat and bird boxes 56
Appendix G Native species suitable for planting and sowing 58
Appendix H Bat emergence survey results 59
13 June 2016 2
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Summary • This report considers the ecological aspects relating to a proposed development at Ivy Farm, Holme Hale. A preliminary ecological appraisal, bat emergence and great crested newt presence/absence survey have been carried out. • The ecology report is required in support of a planning application for a residential development with accompanying access and services. • The survey and assessment was completed by independent, qualified and experienced ecologists with Natural England survey licences for the relevant protected species. • The findings of the assessment are that the habitats on the site are of moderate ecological value. Mitigation measures are required for bats, birds and reptiles, outlined below.
Protected Status Potential effect Recommended mitigation and habitats/species enhancements Protected sites No statutory protected sites No impacts predicted None. within 2km. owing to the relatively small scale Seven County Wildlife Sites of the development within 2km. and distance to protected sites. Protected No priority habitats on the site. No impacts predicted Hedgerows and trees present within habitats on priority habitats. the site and on its boundaries should Six Priority Habitats Inventory be retained. within 2km of the site. Great crested One pond on site assessed as of No impacts As a general precautionary measure newts poor suitability for GCN and predicted, as for amphibians, the grass sward on two ponds within 250m of presence of GCN on site should be maintained short up excellent and average site considered highly to the point of ground works suitability. A presence/absence unlikely. commencing. survey revealed absence of
GCN in the ponds.
Some moderate quality terrestrial habitat for GCN on site but poor terrestrial habitat links to site.
No records of GCN within 2km.
Three trees on site with bat Bats Loss of bat roosting All works on the historic barn, which roosting potential. location for single might affect roofs and the timber non-breeding bat of High quality foraging habitats frame, to be conducted with special common species. care and under watching brief of a on site and connectivity of licenced bat ecologist. Works should mixed value. Potential disturbance take place at a time when bats are least likely to be present, during Several records of bat roosts to roosting, foraging within 2km. September/October and or commuting bats. March/April. In mitigation, the
13 June 2016 3
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Protected Status Potential effect Recommended mitigation and habitats/species enhancements Three buildings on site of low installation of six bat boxes on trees roost suitability for bats, and or buildings on site. one of moderate roosting suitability (historic barn) for The installation of a low light regime bats. around the development.
If trees with bat roosting potential are to be affected by proposed works, further presence/absence bat surveys should be conducted for the trees. Hedgerows and trees within site and its boundaries to be retained. Breeding birds Breeding habitat within Potential loss of The hedgerows and trees on site scrub/hedgerow within and on nesting habitat and should be retained as far as possible. edge of site. potential disturbance Any works to nesting vegetation or to nesting birds. Bird nests found within some of buildings are to be undertaken the buildings. outside nesting season. If not No signs of barn owl presence possible, a qualified ecologist must check the habitat prior to starting on site. work.
As enhancement measures, we
recommend the installation of six bird boxes on trees or buildings on site. Reptiles Some high quality habitat for Potential loss of Any groundworks at the site edges reptiles within the site. reptile habitat and which contain potential reptile potential disturbance habitat should be preceded by a Heathland habitat located to reptiles. reptile survey to determine approximately 1.1km of the site presence/absence and an but mixed quality habitat appropriate mitigation strategy, if connectivity. necessary.
Badgers No evidence found on site. No impacts None. predicted. Water voles, No evidence found on site and No impacts None. otters, white- no suitable habitat. predicted. clawed crayfish Other animals N/A No impacts Any excavations on the construction predicted. site should be covered during the night to prevent animals from falling in. Construction materials should be stored off the ground on pallets, to prevent providing shelter for animals and subsequent harm when materials are moved.
13 June 2016 4
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Greenlight Environmental Consultancy Ltd. has been commissioned to carry out a preliminary ecological appraisal and a bat emergence survey of a site for development at Ivy Farm, Holme Hale. The grid reference of the centre of the proposed site is TF 88922 07550. 1.2 This report provides an ecological appraisal of the site within the context of the surrounding area. It outlines the habitat features on the site, the likelihood of protected species being present and any potential effects of the proposed development on protected species. 1.3 This report also provides the results of a bat emergence survey and an impact assessment of the effects of the development on these species.
2 METHODOLOGY 2.1 A desk top review of published data, such as records of protected sites and species, OS maps and satellite images has been carried out. 2.2 A field survey visit was carried out on 26 April 2016 to confirm the findings of the desk top review and to record habitats and species located on site. Survey conditions were good with light wind, partly cloudy and dry conditions. The survey was carried out by Etienne Swarts and Diane Megias. 2.3 Equipment available for use during the survey were high powered torches, ladders, endoscope, digital camera and binoculars.
Bats Physical inspection 2.4 We made a preliminary roost assessment on and near the site to determine the value of habitats for bats. 2.5 The existing buildings on the site were assessed for their potential to support roosting bats. The building appraisal involved a thorough internal and external search of all suitable cavities, holes and crevices. All suitable areas, including objects, ledges and floors were inspected for the following signs: • Bat droppings • Stains around roosting places and entrance points • Urine marks • Prey remains • Areas devoid of cobwebs • Live or dead bats
13 June 2016 5
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
• Suitable cracks and crevices for bats to enter
2.6 An evaluation system was applied to the buildings using the following criteria.
• Low roost suitability for bats. Buildings in this category fall in to two main types: Generally, well maintained without cracks and crevices, no gaps between bargeboard or soffit and wall or without an attic space. Or those which contain some or all of the above features, but are both draughty and thick in cobwebs or contain strong odours such as solvents, diesel etc. It must be borne in mind that a building from this latter group can become suitable for bats following refurbishment. This often happens to houses once the attic space has been cleaned and under-felted prior to timber treatment. No licence is required for development to a building classified as Low probability of bat interest.
• Medium roost suitability for bats. These buildings contain many sites suitable for roosting bats although no obvious signs are recorded during the survey. In exposed conditions on large buildings the signs of bat usage such as droppings and urine marks can be obliterated by heavy rain. Occasionally a light scattering of droppings will be recorded in an attic or a semi derelict building, which is considered by the surveyor unsuitable for use as a bat roost. The medium probability of bat interest category can be used based on the surveyor’s experience. Whilst no licence is generally required for development to a building classified as Medium probability of bat interest, and if no evidence of a bat roost is found, it is often best practice to conduct sensitive roof stripping or architectural salvaging to minimise any possible disturbance.
• High roost suitability for bats. This group includes buildings with known roosts or signs of bat occupancy such as droppings and staining at a roost entrance. The description of high probability buildings will also contain an indication as to the time of the year when it will be occupied by bats i.e. summer – nursery roost, winter – hibernation. In some cases, sites with High probability of bat interest will require further survey and licensing.
2.7 Trees on and around the site were assessed for their suitability to support roosting bats. Features such as split limbs, woodpecker holes, cavities, lifted bark and dense thick-stemmed ivy may offer roosting potential to bats. Refer to Appendix D for the tree inspection protocol applied.
13 June 2016 6
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Activity surveys
2.8 One dusk emergence survey has been recommended to assess the level of use of bats in the historic barn. 2.9 The survey was undertaken on 17th May 2016 by Etienne Swarts (ES) and Diane Megias (DM). One surveyor was stationed north of the barn (DM) and the other surveyor was stationed south of the barn. 2.10 The dusk surveys started at 20:40 (sunset time was at 20:47) and lasted for approximately 1.5 hour after sunset. 2.11 Bat calls were recorded using an Echometer 3+, an Anabat SD2, and a SM2 remote recorder left inside the barn during the survey time. Call data were analysed using AnalookW software.
Great crested newts 2.12 Water features on and near the site were assessed for their suitability for occupation by great crested newts (“GCN”). The HSI is a theoretical index of a waterbody’s suitability to support a breeding population of GCN and is calculated from a series of ten variables recorded on site, as detailed in Table 1.
Indices Name Description SI1 Geographic Location Lowland England or upland England, Scotland and Wales SI2 Pond area To the nearest 50m² SI3 Permanence Number of years’ pond dry out of ten SI4 Water quality Measured by invertebrate diversity SI5 Shade Percentage shading of pond edge at least 1m from shore SI6 Fowl Level of waterfowl use SI7 Fish Level of fish population SI8 Pond count Number of ponds within 1km divided by 3.14 SI9 Terrestrial habitat Quality of surrounding terrestrial habitat SI10 Macrophytes Percentage extent of macrophyte cover on pond surface Table 1, HSI indices
13 June 2016 7
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
2.13 The HSI score is the geometric mean of the ten suitability indices calculated:
HSI = (SI1 x SI2 x SI3 x SI4 x SI5 x SI6 x SI7 x SI8 x SI9 x SI10)1/10
Once calculated, the HSI score for a waterbody can be categorised as follows:
Excellent (>0.8) Good (0.7 – 0.79) Average (0.6 – 0.69) Below Average (0.5 – 0.59) 2.13 Following the result of the HSI assessment and in order to determine the presence or absence of GCN in the ponds located within 250m of the site, four survey visits were carried out in suitable conditions between 12th and 19th May 2016. The surveys were conducted by Lee Rudd MCIEEM. 2.14 The presence/absence survey was conducted in accordance with the GCN Mitigation Guidelines (English Nature, 2001), using four different techniques as follows: • a search for GCN eggs on marginal aquatic vegetation in the ponds • a terrestrial search for GCN under logs, rocks and potential refuges • a search for GCN in ponds using a net • a search for presence of GCN in the ponds at night-time using high powered (1 million candlepower) torches 2.15 There were no constraints to the survey in terms of weather conditions (overnight temperatures above 5o Celsius) or seasonality for GCN surveys. Two surveys were conducted within the peak season (mid-April to mid-May) and two surveys were conducted only a few days later, during the sub-optimal period (mid-March to mid-June).
Water voles, otters and white-clawed crayfish 2.16 Water features on the site were assessed for use by water vole Arvicola amphibius, otter Lutra lutra and white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes. 2.17 Otters in England typically use areas of fresh water and streams and ditches for moving between habitats. Otter holts are usually located underneath tree roots, in tunnels. Field signs of presence include spraints on prominent features such as bridges, tree bases or boulders, and footprints. 2.18 Water voles inhabit burrows in the banks of ponds, ditches, streams and rivers. Field signs include droppings left in latrine spots, burrow entrances or feeding remains.
13 June 2016 8
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
2.19 White-clawed crayfish inhabit streams and rivers with a moderate flow rate, and lakes. Clear, well-oxygenated water is preferred. Typical habitat features include crevices in rocks, gaps between stones, submerged plants and tree roots.
Birds 2.20 We assessed the site and its surrounding habitat for its potential to support breeding birds, Bird nesting habitat could include grassland, hedgerows, scrub, trees and buildings. 2.21 Bird species noted during the site visit were recorded. Buildings and trees were checked for use by barn owl Tyto alba.
Badgers 2.22 An inspection of all habitats with the potential to support badger Meles meles sett construction and foraging activities on the application site was undertaken. Any incidental observations of badger signs were also recorded. The survey comprised searching for evidence of badger activity in the form of setts, droppings, pathways, snuffle holes, hair and footprints.
Reptiles 2.23 The habitats on the site and within the proposed area of works were assessed for suitability for reptiles. 2.24 Reptiles rely on conditions that allow them to maintain their body temperature through basking. They require access to direct sunlight, shelter from the elements, sufficiently large populations of prey species and hibernation sites. 2.25 Reptiles typically favour a habitat mosaic with a diverse vegetation structure, which could include grassland, scrub and woodland.
Other protected species 2.26 Particular regard was made to the nature of the proposed development and the potential of impact upon any other protected species from the development work, should it be present in the area.
13 June 2016 9
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
3 LEGISLATION AND POLICY
Legislation for protected sites and species (see Appendix C for detail) 3.1 The Ramsar Convention (1971) on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat seeks to promote the conservation and wise use of wetlands, particularly those which support internationally significant numbers of water birds. This is achieved through the designation of Ramsar Sites. 3.2 The European Community Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC) sets out general rules for the conservation of all naturally occurring wild birds, their nests, eggs and habitats. It requires member states to designate Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for protection of certain species. 3.3 The main piece of legislation relating to nature conservation in Great Britain is the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This Act is supplemented by provision in the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (in England and Wales). This act provides varying degrees of protection for the listed species of flora and fauna, including comprehensive protection of wild birds and their nests and eggs. 3.4 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 strengthens the protection given to SSSIs. It revises the procedures for the notification of SSSIs and for the consenting of operations which may damage the special interest of a SSSI. Local authorities have a duty to take steps, consistent with the proper exercise of their functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs. The act also strengthens the existing provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for the enforcement of wildlife legislation, including a new offence of "recklessly" destroying or damaging the habitats of certain protected species. 3.5 UK wildlife is also protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (which were issued under the European Communities Act 1972), through inclusion on Schedule 2. In 2010, these Regulations, together with subsequent amendments, were consolidated into the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. 3.6 The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 consolidates previous badger legislation by providing comprehensive protection for badgers and their setts, with a requirement that any authorised sett disturbance or destruction be carried out under licence. 3.7 The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 aim to protect important hedgerows in the countryside. They make it illegal to remove most countryside hedges without first notifying the local planning authority, and provide protection for 'important hedgerows'.
13 June 2016 10
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
3.8 County Wildlife Site (“CWS”) is a non-statutory designation used to identify high quality wildlife habitats in a county context. Local Authorities have a responsibility as part of their planning function to take account of sites of substantial nature conservation value and to consider them alongside other material planning considerations. The location of County Wildlife Sites will be included in Local Plans and Development Documents.
National Planning Policy - National Planning Framework (NPPF”) 3.9 Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF): Biodiversity and geological conservation states that ‘the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by …. minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible.’ Office of The Deputy Prime Minister (“ODPM”) Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their impact within the planning system. 3.10 Paragraph 98 of Circular 06/2005 states that ‘the presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat’.
Implications of legislation and policies 3.11 Without this ecological assessment the potential developer would be unable to demonstrate due diligence in his responsibilities. Furthermore, the local planning authority would not have been provided with sufficient information for a planning decision to be made. This could result in the application being designated incomplete and not determined, or simply refused. 3.12 With legal responsibilities and planning implications, it is essential that any ecological assessment of a potential development site, including the area of this report, must determine the possible presence or absence of any protected species as part of any planning development consideration.
13 June 2016 11
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
4 SITE CONTEXT
4.1 The site is located within the village of Holme Hale, approximately 2.8km south of the A47 road. 4.2 The surrounding landscape is rural in character, dominated by intensively farmed arable fields with a few blocks of woodland and pasture grassland in the vicinity.
4.3 The general location of the site is shown in Figure 1 below.
Photo 1, access drive to Ivy Farm from CookRoad.
13 June 2016 12
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Figure 1 Satellite image of site surroundings, site indicated by red triangle at TF 88922 07550. Image © Microsoft, date accessed 03.05.16
27 April 2016 13
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
5 DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT
5.1 The proposals are for a residential development on the site, with associated access and services.
6 DESKTOP REVIEW
Protected sites
6.1 There are no statutory protected sites within 2km. 6.2 Seven County Wildlife Sites (“CWS”) are located within 2km of the site (refer to Appendix B for full citations): 6.3 Church Lane Meadow, located approximately 250m west to the site:
“This site is an area of rough neglected neutral grassland divided by hedges and ditches. The east of the site is heavily grazed. Abundant grasses include false oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), red fescue (Festuca rubra) and cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerata). Common spotted-orchid (Dactylorhiza fuchsii), ragged-Robin (Lychnis flos-cuculi) and yellow rattle (Rhinanthus minor) are locally frequent.” 6.4 Wissey Meadow, located approximately 850m north-west to the site:
“An area of unimproved lowland acidic grassland with impeded drainage north of Church Farm. The grassland is mainly a diverse mixture within the sward. The south-west corner is mainly bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) and gorse (Ulex europaeus) scrub. A small pond contains a good variety of aquatic plants. (Based on the 1985 habitat survey (NWT)” 6.5 Fox Covert, located approximately 800m north to the site:
“An area of semi-natural broad-leaved woodland with some scattered coniferous species and one coniferous plantation block. A number of dry ditches run through the site supporting vegetation similar to that of the surrounding ground flora. (…) The woodland is floristically poor due to the dense canopy with abundant silver birch (Betula pendula), frequent oak (Quercus robur) and occasional beech (Fagus sylvatica).” 6.6 Necton Old Common, located approximately 1km north-east to the site:
“This site is composed of two habitats: semi-natural woodland to the north and acidic grassland to the south. It is bounded by a wire fence which, on the northern and eastern boundaries, is enclosed by a dry ditch where many of the species found in the common itself occur in varying abundance. (…) A number of grass species contribute to the ground flora in 27 April 2016 14
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
abundant and locally abundant cover. (…) The hollows support vegetation which varies from the overall community of this habitat and seem more representative of an aquatic habitat.” 6.7 Disused Railway, located approximately 1.5km south-east to the site:
“This railway line is composed of semi-natural woodland and grassland and rough hedge. This section runs from Great Hockham to King’s Lynn. The south is covered by a dense canopy which is overgrown in many places. Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) with ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and elder (Sambucus nigra) are all frequent to locally abundant with occasional grey willow (Salix cinerea) and oak (Quercus robur). (…) The north has a grassy bank with Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), sterile brome and meadow foxtail (Alopecurus palustris).” 6.8 Cant’s Corner Meadow, located approximately 1.6km west to the site:
“This is a level site composed of three fields on soils which are largely damp and peaty to the north, but lighter and sandier to the south. Most of the site is neutral grassland, which is damper and more species-rich in the northern field. Wet ditches surround the site and various sizeable excavations have been made, the more mature now supporting a range of aquatic and marginal species. Much of the northern field is damp, species-rich grassland.” 6.9 The Camping Land/Pickenham Church, located approximately 1.9km south-west to the site:
“Water meadows near North Pickenham Church. Semi-improved neutral grassland with a uniform structure. A wide variety of aquatic plants present in north-west corner. Semi- improved neutral grassland with a uniform structure. A wide variety of aquatic plants present in north-west corner. (Based on the 1985 habitat survey (NWT)”
Protected habitats
6.10 There are no priority habitats located on the site. 6.11 Several small to large areas of Priority Habitat Inventory - Deciduous Woodland are located within 2km. 6.12 Priority Habitat Inventory - Lowland Meadows is found within Church Lane Meadow CWS, approximately 250m west of the site. 6.13 One large block of Priority Habitat Inventory - Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh, one large block of Priority Habitat Inventory - Lowland Dry Acid Grassland, and one small block of Priority Habitat Inventory - Lowland Heathland are found approximately 1.2km north-east of the site. 6.14 Priority Habitat Inventory - Lowland Fens is found within The Camping Land/Pickenham Church CWS, approximately 1.9km south-west of the site.
13 June 2016 15
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Protected species
6.15 The 628 protected species records include one flowering plant species, 60 bird species, five bat species, four other mammal species, 39 insect species and one bony fish species. 6.16 Records of note within 2km and relevant to the proposed development include: - Twenty-four records of barn owl from 2002 to 2012. - Eighteen records of bats including serotine Eptesicus serotinus, Natterer’s bat Myotis nattereri, common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus and brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus from 2001 to 2011. This includes four roosts, the closest being a Natterer’s bat roost, approximately 100m to the site. - Further eleven Natural England registered bat roosts including Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii, Natterer’s bat, common pipistrelle and brown long-eared bat roosts. - One record of otters, from 2001, located in the village of Necton which is approximately 1.7km north of the site.
13 June 2016 16
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
7 FIELD STUDY
7.1 The site area is approximately 1.2 hectares and mainly comprises four buildings with a hard standing access drive, a large area of grassland, hedgerows and a pond.
B4 improved grassland 7.2 The main vegetation habitat on site is improved grassland which is dominated by perennial ryegrass Lolium perennis and Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus. A lower proportion of herbaceous vegetation is present, including: • daisy Bellis perennis • hoary plantain Plantago media • dandelion Taraxum officinale • ground elder Aegopodium podagraria • common nettle Urtica dioica • cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris • common cleavers Gallium aparine • white dead nettle Lamium album • ground ivy Glechoma hederacea • false oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius • cock’s foot Dactylis glomerata • red fescue Festuca rubra • herb Robert Geranium robertianum • groundsel Senecio vulgaris • ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata, • clover Trifolium spp. • lady's mantle Alchemilla spp. • yarrow Achillea millefolium • field woundwort Stachys arvensis • meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris • creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens • Spanish bluebells Hyacinthoides hispanica • ivy-leaved speedwell Veronica hederifolia • common chickweed Stellaria media • lesser celandine Ficaria verna • garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata • cuckoo-pint Arum maculatum • broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius • germander speedwell Veronica chamaedrys • ground elder Aegopodium podagraria • ivy Hedera helix.
J2 Hedgerow 7.3 A species-rich intact hedgerow with scattered trees is present on the east boundary of the site, along a seasonally wet ditch. It includes a diversity of species including elm Ulmus minor, crab apple Malus sylvestris, privet Ligustrum ovalifolium, brambles Rubus spp. and hawthorn
13 June 2016 17
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Crataegus monogyna. The mature trees along this hedgerow comprise beech Fagus sylvatica and ash Fraxinus excelsior. 7.4 A mature species-poor overgrown hedgerow is located on the southern boundary and is dominantly composed of hawthorn with some elder sambucus nigra. 7.5 Another species-poor hawthorn dominant hedgerow with elder and ivy is found in the centre of the site, connecting the eastern and western boundaries.
A3 Scattered trees 7.6 Several scattered semi-mature to mature trees are found within the site, including ash trees at the site entrance and on the eastern boundary, Leyland cypress Cupressus leylandii between the farm buildings and oak Quercus spp. on the western boundary, close to the pond.
A1 Woodland 7.7 A small wooded area with scrubs is present on the north part of the site, west to the buildings. It includes Lawson’s cypress Chamaecyparis lawsoniana and ash trees.
A2 Scrub 7.8 A scrub area, composed of brambles and honeysuckle Lonicera spp., is found along the south- west boundary of the site.
7.9 Other habitats include patches of rank vegetation, bare disturbed ground with sparse vegetation which compose a horse manege, a pond and a bare ground/hardstanding driveway.
13 June 2016 18
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Photo 2, species-rich hedgerow on the eastern site boundary, looking north-east.
Photo 3, improved grassland, patch of rank vegetation and hawthorn dominated hedgerow on the southern side of the site, looking south-west.
13 June 2016 19
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Photo 4, scrub area along the western boundary, looking north-west.
13 June 2016 20
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
1
2
7
5
3
8 4
6
Figure 2, Phase 1 habitat classification.
13 June 2016 21
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Target note Description number 1 Mature ash tree with low potential for bat roost (category 3) and with potential wood pigeon nest. 2, 3 and 4 Mature ash trees covered with ivy and with potential roosting features (category 2). 5 Mature oak tree with definite roosting potential for bats (category 1). 6 Scrub area with bramble and honeysuckle. 7 Goat willow scrub 8 Horse manege with bare ground and sparse vegetation. Table 1, Phase 1 target notes of key habitat features.
Great crested newts – HSI assessment 7.10 The site contains one pond on its western boundary (P1) which was assessed as of poor suitability for GCN. 7.11 Two further ponds located within 250m of the site but with poor habitat links to the site were assessed as of excellent (P2, located approximately 250m from the site, separated by closely grazed horse pasture), and average suitability for GCN (P3, located approximately 140m from the site, separated by arable land).
P2
P1
P3
Ivy Farm Barn site
Figure 3, water features assessed for suitability for occupation by GCN.
13 June 2016 22
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
SI Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 3 No. SI Comment SI Comment SI Comment score score score 1 1.0 Within UK Zone A 1.0 Within UK Zone A 1.0 Within UK Zone A 2 0.1 50m2 surface area 0.6 300m2 surface area 0.5 250m2 surface area
3 0.1 Dries annually 1.0 Rarely dries 1.0 Rarely dries 4 0.33 Low invertebrate 1.0 High invertebrate 0.33 Low invertebrate diversity diversity diversity
5 1.0 50% shade from 1.0 60% shade from 0.6 80% shade from surrounding trees surrounding trees surrounding trees 6 1.0 No evidence of 0.67 Minor impact from 0.67 Minor impact from wildfowl presence wildfowl wildfowl 7 1.0 No records of fish 1.0 No records of fish 1.0 No records of fish 8 1.0 More than 4 1.0 More than 4 1.0 More than 4 ponds/km2 ponds/km2 ponds/km2 9 0.67 Moderate terrestrial 1.0 Good terrestrial 0.33 Poor terrestrial habitat habitat (scrub and habitat (scrub, (arable field) grassland) grassland, woodland)
10 0.3 No macrophyte cover 0.6 30% macrophyte 0.3 No macrophyte cover cover Mean 0.48 Below average 0.87 Excellent suitability 0.60 Average suitability for suitability for GCN for GCN GCN Table 2, HSI score for ponds
7.12 The terrestrial habitat on the site is considered as of low to moderate quality for GCN, consisting mainly of improved grassland managed as regularly mown lawn or closely grazed by horses (low quality), with scrub areas and hedgerows along the site boundaries (moderate quality).
Great-crested newts – presence/absence surveys
7.13 Following the results of the HSI assessment, a presence/absence survey was conducted on Ponds 1, 2 and 3. 7.14 The weather conditions for each survey visit are shown in Table 3 below.
13 June 2016 23
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Visit number Date of the visit Conditions 1 12.5.16 Air temperature 11oC Still, dry 2 14.5.16 Air temperature 6.5oC Still, dry, rained earlier in the day 3 16.5.16 Air temperature 10oC Still, dry, rained earlier in the day 4 19.5.16 Air temperature 15oC Light wind, light rain prior to survey Table 3, conditions for GCN surveys.
7.15 The results of the surveys are shown in Table 4 below. Date Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 3
12.5.16 Torch : Nil Torch : 1 F SN Torch : Nil Damp, no water in Net: Nil Net: Nil pond
Terrestrial search Egg search: Nil Egg search: Nil under logs: Nil Terrestrial search Terrestrial search under logs: Nil under rocks: Nil 14.5.16 Torch : Nil Torch : 2 M SN Torch : Nil Dry pond 2 F SN Net: Nil 1 common frog Net: Nil Egg search: Nil Terrestrial search Egg search: Nil Terrestrial search under logs: Nil under rocks: Nil 16.5.16 Dry pond Torch : Nil Torch : 3 F SN Terrestrial search Net: Nil Net: 1 F SN under logs: Nil Egg search: Nil Egg search: Nil Terrestrial search Terrestrial search under rocks: Nil under logs: Nil 19.5.16 Dry pond Torch : Nil Torch : 1 M SN Terrestrial search 2 F SN under logs: Nil Net: Nil Net: Nil Egg search: Nil Egg search: Nil Terrestrial search Terrestrial search under rocks: Nil under logs: Nil Table 4, GCN survey results. Key: F – female; M – male; SN – smooth newt
7.16 No GCN or signs of GCN presence was found in any of the three ponds. 7.17 Pond 1, the pond located within the site, had dried out by the start of the presence/absence survey, making it unsuitable for GCN this season.
13 June 2016 24
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
7.18 A small number of smooth newts Lissotriton vulgaris, one common frog Rana temporaria and great diving beetles Dytiscus marginalis were recorded in Pond 2 and 3.
Bats – Preliminary Roost Assessment 7.19 The site contains high quality habitats for bats, including continuous mature hedgerows, a pond and mature trees, which would provide potential commuting, foraging and roosting sites. 7.20 Two large woodlands are located approximately 800m and 1km north of the site, and smaller wooded areas are found within 2km of the site. These would also provide high quality habitat for commuting, foraging and roosting bats. 7.21 The connectivity between the site and the wooded areas is of mixed value for bats, with a few gappy hedgerows and tree lines. 7.22 Four buildings are located on the site and are shown in Figure 4.
B4
B3
B1
B2
Figure 4, barns assessed for use by bats
7.23 Building 1 – open-fronted shed
13 June 2016 25
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
This open-fronted shed comprises corrugated metal sheet walls and roof, supported by larch poles. No signs of bat presence were found and this building is considered as of low roost suitability for bats
mainly owing to being well-lit and draughty.
7.24 Building 2 – horse stables
This prefabricated building includes a timber frame with timber cladding walls, and black onduline roof lined with plywood boards. Horses are currently kept in the stables. The building would not provide the thermal characterstics favoured by bats. . No signs of bats were found and the building is considered as of low roosting suitability for bats.
7.25 Building 3 – farm shed
Building 3 is an old farm shed divided into two sections: an open-fronted area used for hay and vehicle storage, and an enclosed compartment used as a workshop. The shed is built of a block plinth wall and corrugated metal sheet walls and roof, with a larch pole frame. Large gaps are present in the walls and roof, leaving both sections well-lit and draughty. No signs of bats were found, and the building is considered as of low roosting suitability for bats.
7.26 Building 4 – historic barn This building comprises brick and flint walls with red clay pantiles and ridge tiles. It is divided into four main sections. 7.27 A large compartment located in the centre of the barn is used as a garage and for storage. The roof in this compartment is supported by a mixture of modern sawn timber rafters and substantial historic beams, and is lined with polythene. A few scattered bat droppings potentially from 2015 were found on the floor of this area (approximately 30 potential pipistrelle droppings and up to ten potential brown long-eared bat droppings). Potential roosting locations include gaps in the brickwork and between timbers and the brickwork. 7.28 A small open-fronted area is located on the south-west wing of the barn. The roof in this compartment has no lining and is supported by a mix of modern sawn timber rafters and substantial historic beams. No signs of bats presence were found in the area. 7.29 A garage building is located on the north-west side of the barn. A loft space is present but is now open on its southern end and in several parts on its the floor. No signs of bats were found within this compartment. 7.30 A large area used for storage is located on the eastern wing of the barn. The roof in this compartment is supported by modern sawn timber frame and is lined with polythene. Large openings are found on the walls, windows and between tiles, making this compartment well-lit
13 June 2016 26
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
and draughty. A few scattered potential brown long-eared bat droppings (up to 15) were found on the floor of this area along with a low number of butterfly wings. 7.31 No concentrations of droppings were found within the barns. The relatively low number of scattered droppings suggests that bats may use the barn as a foraging site. The main central barn provides a few potential roosting locations which could be used by bats. We consider this building as of moderate roost suitability for bats. 7.32 Several mature trees are located on the site. Of these, three mature ash trees were covered in ivy and may contain potential bat roosting features. One of these is located at the entrance of the site, on the northern boundary, and three are located along the eastern boundary (refer to Figure 2 for precise locations). They are classified as Category 2 (Appendix D). Furthermore, a mature oak tree situated near the pond on the western boundary contains bat roosting potential and is classified as category 1 (Appendix D).
Photo 5, building 1, open-fronted shed, looking north-west.
13 June 2016 27
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Photo 6, building 2, horse stables, looking south-west.
Photo 7, building 3, farm shed, looking south-west.
13 June 2016 28
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Photo 8, building 3, inside view of the shed.
Photo 9, building 4, historic barn, looking south-west.
13 June 2016 29
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Photo 10, building 4, large compartment located in the centre of the barn.
Photo 11, building 4, open-fronted area on the south-west wing of the barn.
13 June 2016 30
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Photo 12, building 4, garage located on the north-west side of the barn.
Photo 13, building 4, compartment located on the east wing of the barn.
Bats – Emergence survey 7.33 The emergence survey conducted on 17th May 2016 started at 20:40 (sunset time at 20:47) and ended 1.5 hour after sunset, which was considered a sufficient duration to record the roosting activity of species likely to be present at the barn.
13 June 2016 31
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
7.34 The survey conditions were good with temperature at 16o C, light wind and dry conditions. 7.35 The surveyors’ stations are indicated in Figure 5. 7.36 The survey results revelead the use of the site for foraging by five different bat species: common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus, brown long-eared and Natterer’s bats. 7.37 The main foraging locations used by bats were within the trees located north-west of the historic farm and within the wooded area, south-west of the historic barn (Figure 5). 7.38 The first bat recorded was a common pipistrelle foraging within the trees north-west to the barn, which then entered the historic barn at 21:00 from a large gap in the wooden door located north of the barn (Figure 5). Two common pipistrelles were then observed emmerging from the barn and from the same location at 21:07. The SM2 remote recorder also recorded common pipistrelle calls at 20:54 inside the barn. This suggests that one common pipistrelle was roosting within the barn that day. 7.39 The complete record of the bat calls during the survey can be found in Appendix H.
13 June 2016 32
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
DM
ES
Figure 5, location of surveyors and areas where bats were observed foraging and emerging. Surveyors stations are indicated by their initials (ES and DM). The locations where the majority of bats were observed foraging are indicated in green and the location where common pipistrelle bats were entering/emerging the barn in indicated in red.
13 June 2016 33
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Birds 7.40 Birds in the UK are classified into three categories of conservation importance - red, amber and green. Factors such as global threat level, population decline, breeding population decline, and contraction of breeding range are taken into account to determine classification. 7.41 The hedgerows and scrub present within the site and on its boundaries provide habitat for scrub-nesting birds. 7.42 The site does not provide suitable habitat for ground nesting birds, with the internal pasture fields being too small and regularly disturbed. 7.43 Bird nests were found within some of the buildings, including black bird nests in the open- fronted shed (building 1) and the historic barn (building 4), swallow nests in the stables (building 2), and wren nests in the historic barn. 7.44 No signs of barn owl presence were found on site. 7.45 The following bird species were recorded during the site visit, with Red listed house sparrow and Amber listed dunnock and bullfinch potentially nesting on site:
Red listed • House sparrow Passer domesticus • Skylark Alauda arvensis
Amber listed • Dunnock Prunella modularis • Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula
Green listed: • Wren Trogladytes trogladytes • Blackbird Turdus merula • Pied wagtail Motacilla alba • Greenfinch Carduelis chloris • Wood pigeon Columba palumbus • Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis • Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs • Swallow Hirundo rustica
Reptiles
13 June 2016 34
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
7.46 Some areas within the site are considered as good quality habitat for reptiles. These include rank vegetation and bare ground patches, scrub areas and hedgerows along the edges of the site. 7.47 The site connectivity to the surrounding area is limited for reptiles, comprising mainly arable fields with some gappy hedgerows.
Badgers 7.48 No evidence of badger presence was found on site.
Water voles, otters and white-clawed crayfish 7.49 There is no suitable aquatic habitat for otters or white-clawed crayfish on the site. 7.50 No evidence of water vole presence was found on site and the pond banks were not considered suitable habitat, being too shallow.
13 June 2016 35
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Protected sites 8.1 There are no statutory protected sites within 2km. 8.2 Seven County Wildlife Sites are located within 2km of the site. No impacts are expected on these sites from the proposed development, owing to its limited impacts beyond the area of works and the distance to protected sites.
Habitats 8.3 There are no priority habitats located on the site. 8.4 Priority Habitat Inventory - Deciduous Woodland, Lowland Meadows, Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh, Lowland Dry Acid Grassland, Lowland Heathland and Lowland Fens are found within 2km of the site. 8.5 No impacts on priority habitats are expected from the proposed development. 8.6 We recommend retaining the hedgerows and trees present within the site and on its boundaries, as far as is possible. 8.7 Any construction activity should be conducted in a manner which avoids harming the root protection zones of trees on the site, as required by BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction, Recommendations.
Great crested newts 8.8 The site contains one pond on its western boundary which was assessed as of poor suitability for GCN. 8.9 Two further ponds located approximately 250m and 140m from the site were assessed, as of excellent and average suitability for GCN respectively, although both of these have poor terrestrial habitat links for GCN onto the site. 8.10 The desktop study revealed no record of GCN newts within 2km of the site. 8.11 The site terrestrial habitats are considered as of low to moderate value to GCN, consisting mainly of improved grassland managed as regularly mown lawn/closely grazed horse pasture, and scrub areas and hedgerows. 8.12 A presence/absence survey including four visits was conduted between 12th and 19th May 2016. 8.13 The results of survey revealed the presence of amphibians including smooth newt and of a common frog in Pond 2 and 3 but no signs of GCN presence were found. 8.14 With regard to these findings, we expect that there will be no GCN present on site.
13 June 2016 36
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
8.15 As a general precautionary measure for amphibians, we recommended that the grass sward on site is maintained short, up to the point of ground works commencing.
Bats 8.16 The site contains high quality foraging and commuting habitats for bats, and small to large woodlands are located within 2km of the site. 8.17 The connectivity between the site and the wooded areas is of mixed value for bats, with a few gappy hedgerows and tree lines. 8.18 Several records of bat roosts including Daubenton’s bat, Natterer’s bat, common pipistrelle and brown long-eared bats are located within 2km of the site. 8.19 Three buildings on site are assessed as of low roost suitability for bats, and the historic barn is considered as of moderate roosting suitability for bats. 8.20 Bat droppings consistent with pipistrelle and brown long-eared bats were found within the historic barn and the building is considered to be mainly used as a foraging site, but does contain some potential roosting cavities in brickwork and between timbers and brickwork. 8.21 Following these findings, we recommended conducting a bat activity survey in order to confirm the extent and nature of use by bats. 8.22 The bat emergence survey was conducted on 17th May 2016. During this survey, five bat species were recorded foraging on site and one common pipistrelle was observed emerging from the historic barn. 8.23 The survey results reavealed that the site was of high value for foraging bats and that a low number of bats were roosting within the historic barn. 8.24 We recommend the following mitigation measures: 8.24.1 The hedgerows and trees currently present within the site and on its boundaries should be retained as foraging and commuting resources for bats. 8.24.2 All works undertaken on the historic barn which include roofing works and works to the historic timber frame should be conducted with special care and under watching brief of a licenced bat ecologist. Any bats found are to be removed to safety to bat boxes previously installed on site. Works should take place at a time when bats are least likely to be present, during September/October and March/April. 8.24.3 The installation of a low light level regime around the development, without use of high powered security lighting, to minimise impacts on bats that may forage and commute in the vicinity and other nocturnal animals. 8.24.4 The installation of six bat boxes on trees or buildings on the site (see Appendix F for examples).
13 June 2016 37
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
8.25 After the effects of the above mitigation, we consider that the risks to bats will be reduced to a level with no significant impacts on the local bat population, and we consider that a European Protected Species Mitigation Licence will not be required for the proposed works. 8.26 Furthermore, three mature ash trees located on the site are covered in ivy and may contain potential bat roosting features. They are classified as Category 2. A mature oak tree located near to the pond on the site contains bat roosting potential and is classified as category 1. 8.27 If these trees are to be directly affected by the proposed works, further bat presence/absence surveys should be conducted to assess their use by bats.
Birds 8.28 The hedgerows and scrub present within the site and on its boundaries provide potential habitat for scrub-nesting species including Red listed house sparrow and Amber listed Dunnock and bullfinch which were recorded on site. 8.29 Any removal of vegetation on the site should be conducted outside the main nesting season, which lasts from March to August. If this is not possible, the nesting habitats will have to be checked by a qualified ecologist prior to starting the work, to ensure that no birds are nesting on site. 8.30 Bird nests were found within some of the buildings, including black bird nests, swallow nests, and wren nests. 8.31 Although only a few were used at the time of the survey, all nests should be checked just prior to starting the work for presence of birds. If signs of bird occupation are found, works should be suspended until birds have fledged from the nests, or an acceptable separation distance from works maintained. 8.32 No signs of barn owl presence were found on site. 8.33 As enhancements, we recommend the installation of six bird boxes on buildings or trees on the site, including two sparrow boxes (terraces) (see Appendix F for examples).
Reptiles 8.34 Some areas within the site are considered as of good quality habitat for reptiles. These include rank vegetation and bare ground patches, scrub areas and hedgerows. 8.35 A block of heathland of approximately 19 hectares, which would provide high quality habitat for reptiles is found approximately 1.1km north-east of the site. 8.36 The site connectivity is of mixed value for reptiles, being mainly constituted of arable fields, with a few gappy hedgerows and a road separating the site from the heathland habitat.
13 June 2016 38
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
8.37 If the areas considered as of good quality for reptiles on site are to be affected by the proposed development, a further reptile survey should be conducted.
Badgers 8.38 No evidence of badgers was found and no mitigation is required for this species.
Water voles, otters and white-clawed crayfish 8.39 No suitable aquatic habitat is present on the site for otters or white-clawed crayfish and no signs of water vole were found on the site. No mitigation is required.
13 June 2016 39
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
9 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baker, J., Beebee, T., Buckley, J. Gent, T. and Orchard, D. (2011), Amphibian Habitat Management Handbook, Amphibian and Reptile Conservation: Bournemouth Barn Owl Trust (2012), Barn Owl Conservation Handbook, Pelagic Publishing: Exeter.
British Standard BS 42020:2013 Biodiversity - Code of Practice for planning and development.
British Standard BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction, Recommendations.
Collins, J. (Ed.) (2016), Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn.), The Bat Conservation Trust, London.
Eaton, M.A., Aebischer, N.J., Brown, A.F., Hearn, R., Lock, L. Musgrove, A., Noble, D., Stroud, D., Richard, G. (2015) Birds of conservation concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 108, 708-746.
Edgar, P., Foster, J. and Baker, J. (2010) Reptile Habitat Management Handbook, Amphibian and Reptile Conservation: Bournemouth
English Nature (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines, Peterborough.
Froglife (1999), Reptile survey: an introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snakes and lizard conservation, Froglife advice sheet 10.
Griffiths, R.A., Raper, S.J., Brady, L.D. (1996). Evaluation of a standard method for surveying common frogs (Rana temporaria) and newts (Triturus cristatus, T. helveticus, and T. vulgaris). Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report No. 259.
JNCC (1993), Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey - a Technique for Environmental Audit, England Field Unit, Nature Conservancy Council, reprinted JNCC, Peterborough.
Langton, T., Beckett, C. and Foster, J. (2001) GCN Conservation handbook. Froglife.
Mitchell-Jones (2004), Bat mitigation guidelines, English Nature: Peterborough
Oldham, R.S., Keeble, J., Swan, M.J.S. and Jeffcote, M. (2000), Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal 10 (4), 143-155.
Pearce, G.E. (2011), Badger behaviour, conservation and rehabilitation, Pelagic Publishing: Exeter.
Strachan R, Moorhouse T and Gelling, M., (2011) Water Vole Conservation Handbook Third Edition, University of Oxford: Abingdon.
13 June 2016 40
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Appendix A
NBIS map of protected sites within 2km
27 April 2016 41
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
13 June 2016 42
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Appendix B Protected sites citations CWS Name Description Last Number surveyed 937 Church This site is an area of rough neglected neutral grassland divided by hedges and 1996 Lane ditches. The east of the site is heavily grazed. Abundant grasses include false oat- Meadow grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), red fescue (Festuca rubra) and cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerata). Common spotted-orchid (Dactylorhiza fuchsii), ragged-Robin (Lychnis flos-cuculi) and yellow rattle (Rhinanthus minor) are locally frequent. The more southerly fields have an abundance of common reed (Phragmites australis). The ditches dividing the fields in the east are overgrown; the central drain however has flowing water. Here nettle (Urtica dioica), creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) and common reed dominate with hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium) and bittersweet (Solanum dulcamara) and a variety of grasses. The western grassland is marshy with abundant common sedge (Carex nigra), plicate sweet-grass (Glyceria plicata) and frequent to locally frequent soft rush (Juncus effusus) and hard rush (Juncus inflexus). Early marsh-orchid (Dactylorhiza incarnata) is present. There are small scattered areas of grey willow (Salix cinerea). In the centre of the site to the north is a small area of common reed with spear thistle (Cirsium vulgaris), tufted-vetch (Vicia cracca) and hop (Humulus lupulus). In the south is a small stand of young grey willow with some ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and elder (Sambucus nigra). There is no understorey as the canopy is closed and so there is little ground flora excepting nettle and herb-Robert (Geranium robertianum) with occasional water avens (Geum rivale).
940 Fox An area of semi-natural broad-leaved woodland with some scattered coniferous 1996 Covert species and one coniferous plantation block. A number of dry ditches run through the site supporting vegetation similar to that of the surrounding ground flora. The soil quality varies from sandy neutral to acid, becoming more acidic in the coniferous areas. On the northern boundary of the site there is what appears to be the remains of a moat and small hill which may at some time have enclosed a structure of some sort. As well as its timber value, the wood is managed for “paint balling” and has a number of camps and battle areas. The woodland is floristically poor due to the dense canopy with abundant silver birch (Betula pendula), frequent oak (Quercus robur) and occasional beech (Fagus sylvatica). Shading is also provided by abundant bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) and locally abundant bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.). Soft rush (Juncus effusus) and gorse (Ulex europaeus) are occasionally present. With increased light availability from the open canopy, the mound “Mona Hill” has the most floristic diversity in the wood, but is still quite species-poor with locally frequent lesser stitchwort (Stellaria graminea) and tufted forget-me-not (Myosotis cespitosa) in local abundance. The dry boundary ditch along the western edge has vegetation which is typical for this type of habitat. Locally frequent nettle (Urtica dioica), along with locally abundant bittersweet (Solanum dulcamara), rosebay willowherb (Chamerion angustifolium) and red campion (Silene dioica) occur. Occasional great willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum). Abundant scot's pine (Pinus sylvestris) with occasional to frequent silver birch and oak. The ground flora is dominated by an abundance of bramble and frequent male-fern (Dryopteris filix-mas).
27 April 2016 43
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
939 Necton This site is composed of two habitats: semi-natural woodland to the north and 1996 Old acidic grassland to the south. It is bounded by a wire fence which, on the northern Common and eastern boundaries, is enclosed by a dry ditch where many of the species found in the common itself occur in varying abundance. The soil is light and sandy and the southern half of the common in particular is pitted with numerous hollows, some of which appear to be the dried up remnants of ponds. On the southern edge of the woodland there is evidence of recent felling along the whole of the front, possibly to prevent further succession of the area to woodland. Acid grassland with scattered gorse and silver birch. A number of grass species contribute to the ground flora in abundant and locally abundant cover. Yorkshire fog and red fescue both occur in abundance while meadow fox-tail is found only occasionally. Soft rush and hard rush are also locally abundant in patchy clumps throughout the common. Other species include locally frequent cut-leaved crane's-bill and heath bedstraw. The latter along with occasional heather provide an indication of the common heathland characteristics, hence classification of this particular area. Sheep's fescue, fen bedstraw and sneezewort are also present in the community. The hollows (mentioned in the overview) support vegetation which varies from the overall community of this habitat and seem more representative of an aquatic habitat. Water pepper and red shank are both present in abundance, the latter to a lesser extent along with common chickweed locally frequent, water mint and occasional marsh penny-wort, greater stitchwort, marsh marigold and branched bur-reed. Covering the northern half of the site, but previously more extensive as can be seen from the felling work on the southern edge. The canopy is composed mainly of silver birch with occasional to frequent oak and ash and locally frequent sloe and hawthorn. Some vegetation is fairly continuous with that of the open area to the south. Gorse occurs in occasional to locally frequent abundance as do hard rush, soft rush and ragwort. Occasional ragged robin and wild strawberry also present in occasional and local abundance respectively.
936 Cant's This is a level site composed of three fields on soils which are largely damp and 2011 Corner peaty to the north, but lighter and sandier to the south. Most of the site is neutral Meadow grassland, which is damper and more species-rich in the northern field. Wet ditches surround the site and various sizeable excavations have been made, the more mature now supporting a range of aquatic and marginal species. Much of the northern field is damp, species-rich grassland. Grass species include Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus, creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera, tufted hair-grass Deschampsia cespitosa and false oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius, with frequent lesser pond- sedge Carex acutiformis. Rushes are abundant, mainly soft Juncus effusus and hard rush Juncus inflexus, but there are also areas of blunt-flowered rush Juncus subnodulosus and much jointed rush Juncus articulatus, with patches of brown sedge Carex disticha. Other forbs occur throughout this field, such as meadow vetchling Lathyrus pratensis, bog stitchwort Stellaria alsine, greater bird’s-foot trefoil Lotus pedunculatus, water mint Mentha aquatica, fen bedstraw Galium uliginosus, meadowsweet Filipendula ulmaria, square-stalked St John’s-wort Hypericum tetrapterum, common sorrel Rumex acetosa and marsh thistle Cirsium palustre. An area in the south-west corner has been fenced off to raise ducks. The eastern and southern edges of the northern field are drier, semi-improved and less diverse grassland, with forbs such as creeping thistle Cirsium arvense, broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius and creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens. An old ditch line runs diagonally across the north-eastern corner of the northern field and supports frequent soft rush and hard rush, with some greater bird’s-foot trefoil, meadowsweet, water forget-me-not Myosotis scorpioides and water mint. The far
13 June 2016 44
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
north-west corner of the site has been left unmanaged and is very tall, dense vegetation made up of white willow Salix alba, alder Alnus glutinosa, reed sweet- grass Glyceria maxima, bulrush Typha latifolia and broad-leaved dock. The middle section is dominated by water features and grassland dominated by Yorkshire fog and false oat-grass with Timothy Phleum pratense and cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata. Other forbs include creeping, creeping buttercup and hemlock Conium maculatum. Ornamental and orchard trees have been planted here and a ring- shaped lake has been dug; the aquatic species include fennel pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus, curled pondweed Potamogeton crispus, rigid hornwort Ceratophyllum demersum and yellow water-lily Nuphar lutea. The damp margins to the lake support yellow iris Iris pseudacorus, hemp agrimony Eupatorium cannabinum, water forget-me-not and water mint, with frequent reed sweet-grass. A linear, sinuous lake occurs on the western side of the site, with grassy margins and patches of grey willow (Salix cineria, reed sweet-grass, lesser pond-sedge, great willowherb Epilobium hirsutum and meadowsweet. Lesser duckweed Lemna minor is the only aquatic species present. The southern field is semi-improved and much drier with large areas dominated by broad-leaved dock and dandelion Taraxacum agg.. The north-west corner of the southern field is totally dominated by Russian comfrey Symphytum x uplandicum. Ditches to the south support frequent water violet Hottonia palustris, with other species including fool’s water- cress Apium nodiflorum, lesser water-parsnip Berula erecta, blunt-flowered rush, lesser pond-sedge and branched bur-reed Sparganium erectum. Transverse ditches do not have the water violet, but are still species rich, including jointed rush, water forget-me-not and marsh bedstraw with lesser pond-sedge. The small southern pond is spring-fed, with mainly dense vegetation and just a few areas of open water. Water violet is frequent, with much reed sweet-grass, reed canary-grass Phalaris arundinacea and branched bur-reed, as well as brooklime Veronica beccabunga, water plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica, marsh speedwell Veronica scutellata, marsh bedstraw and amphibious bistort Persicaria amphibia. Aquatics include starwort Callitriche agg. and broad-leaved pondweed Potamogeton natans. An overgrown hedge along the northern boundary includes blackthorn Prunus spinosa, ash Fraxinus excelsior, alder and holly Ilex aquifolium. Another tall hedge of ash and hawthorn Crataegus monogyna separates the southern field from the middle one. A line of mature oaks Quercus robur runs along the western boundary.
991 Disused This railway line is composed of semi-natural woodland and grassland and rough 1996 Railway hedge. This section runs from Great Hockham to King’s Lynn. The south is covered by a dense canopy which is overgrown in many places. Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) with ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and elder (Sambucus nigra) are all frequent to locally abundant with occasional grey willow (Salix cinerea) and oak (Quercus robur). The ground flora consists of large areas of nettle (Urtica dioica), bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) with cow parsley (Anthriscus sylvestris), herb- Robert (Geranium robertianum) and cleavers (Galium aparine). Other species occurring include marsh thistle (Cirsium palustre), wood avens (Geum urbanum), sterile brome (Bromus sterilis) and cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerata). The north has a grassy bank with Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), sterile brome and meadow foxtail (Alopecurus palustris). Common knapweed (Centaurea nigra), dog’s mercury (Mercurialis perennis), and oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) occur and tufted forget-me-not (Myosotis caespitosa) along with frequent false oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius). The top of the embankment in the southern half of the grassland area has a hedge of dense sloe (Prunus spinosa) with hawthorn and frequent dog-rose (Rosa canina), oak, ash and field maple (Acer campestre).
13 June 2016 45
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Appendix C Legislation
European Protected Species
Bats All bat species in Britain are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 through inclusion on Schedule 5. They are also protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (which were issued under the European Communities Act 1972), through inclusion on Schedule 2. On 1st April 2010, these Regulations, together with subsequent amendments, were consolidated into the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. European protected animal species (“EPS) and their breeding sites or resting places are protected under Regulation 39. It is an offence for anyone to deliberately capture, injure or kill any such animal or to deliberately take or destroy their eggs. It is an offence to damage or destroy a breeding or resting place of such an animal. It is also an offence to have in one's possession or control, any live or dead European protected species. The threshold above which a person will commit the offence of deliberately disturbing a wild animal of a European protected species has been raised. A person will commit an offence only if he deliberately disturbs such animals in a way as to be likely significantly to affect (a) the ability of any significant groups of animals of that species to survive, breed, or rear or nurture their young, or (b) the local distribution of abundance of that species. The existing offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended which cover obstruction of places used for shelter or protection (for example, a bat roost), disturbance and sale still apply to European protected species. This legislation provides defences so that necessary operations may be carried out in places used by bats, provided the appropriate Statutory Nature Conservation Organisation (in England this is Natural England) is notified and allowed a reasonable time to advise on whether the proposed operation should be carried out and, if so, the approach to be used. The UK is a signatory to the Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe, set up under the Bonn Convention. The Fundamental Obligations of Article III of this Agreement require the protection of all bats and their habitats, including the identification and protection from damage or disturbance of important feeding areas for bats.
Water Vole The water vole received limited legal protection in April 1998 through its inclusion in Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) for some offences. This protection has recently
13 June 2016 46
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report been extended (6th April 2008), so the water vole is now fully protected under Section 9 and is also protected under the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000. Legal protection makes it an offence to: • intentionally kill, injure or take (capture) a water vole; • possess or control a dead or live water vole, or any part of a water vole; • intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy access to any structure or place which water voles use for shelter or protection or disturb Water Voles while they are using such a place; • sell, offer for sale or advertise for sale live or dead Water Voles
Unlike works affecting other protected species such as badgers, bats or great crested newts, there is no provision under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 for licensing what would otherwise be offences for the purpose of development, maintenance or land management. At present in England and Wales, if it can be demonstrated that any action which otherwise would have been an offence was the ‘incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided’, this constitutes a defence against prosecution under the Act. The defence does, however, require that all reasonable steps must be taken to avoid any unnecessary damage. Water voles are also a UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species for which a Species Action Plan has been developed.
Badger The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and its subsequent amendment in 1985 made it an offence to take, kill, injure or ill-treat a badger. The badger gained further protection under the auspices of The Protection of Badgers Act (1992) which consolidates all former protective legislation in relation to badgers, except their inclusion on Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Under the 1992 Act, the badger sett is protected against obstruction, destruction, and damage; furthermore, the animal’s access to and from the sett must not be impeded. It should be noted that the concept/definition of the sett extends beyond the main sett to include annexe, subsidiary and outlying setts. However, although the badger and its sett are protected (including access to the sett), the wider habitat and foraging ground is not.
Otters Otters are protected under Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and revised by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2004, making it an offence to: • intentionally kill, injure or take an otter; • possess or control any (live or dead) otter, or any part of or anything derived from an otter;
13 June 2016 47
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
• intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place used for shelter or protection by an otter; • intentionally or recklessly disturb an otter while it is occupying a structure or place for that purpose; • to sell, offer for sale, possess or transport for the purpose of sale any (live or dead) otter or part or derivative of an otter; • to advertise for buying and selling such things.
Furthermore, otters are included on Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Habitats &c.) Regulations (1994), making it an offence to: • deliberately to capture or kill a wild animal of a European protected species; • deliberately to disturb any such animal; • deliberately to take or destroy the eggs of such an animal; or • damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal.
Otters are also listed as a priority species on the UK and Biodiversity Action Plans.
Reptiles Reptiles such as common lizard, slowworm, grass snake or adder are protected under Section 9 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981) as amended. The legislation makes it illegal to deliberately or recklessly kill or injure any native reptile. This protection therefore requires that reasonable effort be made to avoid harm to reptiles during developments on land occupied by reptiles.
Barn Owls The Habitats Regulations (1994), as amended, states that a person commits an offence in the case of Barn Owl only if this species is disturbed in the breeding season. This applies equally to all those bird species listed under Schedule 1.
Breeding Birds It is an offence to kill, injure or take any wild bird; take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built (even of "pest" species); take or destroy the eggs of any wild bird.
13 June 2016 48
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Dormice Dormice are protected from being killed, injured, captured or disturbed and their resting and breeding places should not be damage or destroyed.
White-Clawed Crayfish This crayfish is listed under Annex II of the habitats directive and areas are designated as Special Areas of Conservation to protect this species. Outside of this a licence is required to capture this species. It is listed as a priority species under the Biodiversity Action Plan and is a Species of Principal Importance under section 41 of the NERC Act 2006.
Great Crested Newts Great crested newts are protected under both English and European law. It is an offence to kill, injure, disturb or take great crested newts or to damage or destroy their places of shelter, whether the animals are present or not.
Natural England Licensing - EPS Mitigation Licensing Since September 2000, building development that affects bats or their roosts needs a Development Licence under the Habitats Regulations (1994), administered in England by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Since October 2006, licences have been granted by Natural England.
Licences can be obtained from the Wildlife Management and Licensing Service at Natural England to allow certain activities that would otherwise constitute an offence, for the puroses of development
13 June 2016 49
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Appendix D Bat Conservation Trust Protocol for visual inspection of trees
13 June 2016 50
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Appendix E
13 June 2016 51
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
13 June 2016 52
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
13 June 2016 53
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
13 June 2016 54
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
13 June 2016 55
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
13 June 2016 56
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
13 June 2016 57
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Appendix F Examples of bat and bird boxes (images sourced from www.nhbs.com and www.habibat.co.uk) 2F Schwegler Bat Box (General purpose) 1FF Schwegler Bat Box with built-in wooded rear panel
2H Schwegler Robin Box 1B Schwegler Nest Box
1FQ Schwegler Bat Roost (For External Walls) Habibat access box 003
House Sparrow Terrace FSC Nest Box 1SP Schwegler Sparrow Terrace
13 June 2016 58
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Recommendations for installing bat boxes: Recommendations for installing bird boxes: (Sourced from Bat Conservation Trust www.bct.org) (Sourced from British Trust for Ornithology www.bto.org)
Ideally, several boxes should be put up facing in The highest priority when siting a nest box must be different directions to provide a range of to provide a safe and comfortable environment in conditions. which birds can nest successfully.
Locate boxes: Tips for putting up nest box:
• Where bats are known to feed close to hedges • Not too close to another nest box - nest boxes of and tree lines (some bats use a tree line or the same type should not be sited too close hedgerow for navigation, putting boxes near these together as this may promote aggressive behaviour features may help the bats find the box). between neighbours.
• Boxes should be put as high as possible in • Shelter your box from the weather - the front of sheltered sunny places. Ideally at least 4m above the nest box should be angled vertically or slightly the ground (where safe installation is possible). downwards to prevent rain from entering the nest box. Make sure it is sheltered from prevailing wind, • Sheltered from strong winds and exposed to the rain and strong sunlight (box should be faced sun for part of the day (usually south or south- between north and east). west). • Height from the ground should be 3 metres - • On buildings, boxes should be placed as close to small-hole boxes are best placed 1-3m above the eaves as possible. ground on tree trunks, but avoid sites where foliage obscures the entrance hole. If there are no Bats need time to find and explore new homes, trees in your garden, the next best option is to and it may be several months or even years before place your box on the side of a shed or wall. boxes have residents. Once bats find a place they want to live they can return over and over again. • Make sure cats cannot get into the box. Droppings on the landing area, urine stains around the lower parts of the box and chittering noises • Keep nest box away from bird feeders. from inside on warm afternoons and evenings are signs of occupation. • Use galvanized or stainless steel screws or nails that will not rust. If fixing boxes to trees, galvanised wire can be used to tie the box to the trunk or hang it from a branch. Make sure to regularly inspect these fittings (every two or three years) to ensure the box remains securely attached.
13 June 2016 59
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Appendix G Native species suitable for planting and sowing The plants should be obtained from specialist nurseries and preferably be of local genetic stock.
1. Native Shrub and Tree Species Shrubs Blackthorn Prunus spinosa Buckthorn Rhamnus catharticus Crab apple Malus sylvestris Dog rose Rosa canina Dog wood Cornus sanguinea Field maple Acer campestre Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna Hazel Corylus avellana Holly Ilex aquifolium Spindle Euonymus europaeus Wild privet Ligustrum vulgare Trees Ash Fraxinus excelsior Pedunculate oak Quercus robur Silver birch Betula pendula Wild cherry Prunus avium
2. Native Wildflower Species Grasses Common bent Agrostis capillaris Crested dog's-tail Cynosurus cristatus Meadow fescue Festuca pratensis Red fescue Festuca rubra Rough meadow-grass Poa trivialis Small timothy Phleum bertolonii Smooth meadow-grass Poa pratensis Sweet vernal-grass Anthoxanthum odoratum Yellow oat-grass Trisetum flavescens Herbs Bird's-foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus Black knapweed Centaurea nigra Common cat's-ear Hypochoeris radicata Common sorrel Rumex acetosa Common vetch Vicia sativa Cowslip Primula veris Field scabious Knautia arvense Lady's bedstraw Galium verum Meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris Meadow vetchling Lathyrus pratensis Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare Red clover Trifolium pratense Selfheal Prunella vulgaris Yarrow Achillea millefolium
13 June 2016 60
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
Appendix H Bat emergence survey results
Key: Ppip – common pipistrelle, Ppyg – soprano pipistrelle, Mnat – Natterer’s bat, Paur – brown long-eared, Bbar – barbastelle bat
Bat passes recorded by the surveyor on the north Bat passes recorded by the surveyor on the south Bat passes recorded by the SM2 remote recorder inside side of the historic barn during the survey side of the historic barn during the survey the historic barn during the survey Number of Number of Number of Time Species Time Species Time Species records records records 20:57 Ppip 1 20:59 Ppip 1 20:54 Ppip 2 20:58 Ppip 1 21:00 Ppip 2 21:30 Ppip 1 20:58 Ppip 1 21:07 Ppip 1 21:34 Ppip 1 20:58 Ppip 9 21:10 Ppip 1 22:02 Ppip 2 20:58 Ppip 2 21:13 Ppip 1 22:03 Ppip 1 20:59 Ppip 1 21:14 Ppip 1 20:59 Ppip 4 21:17 Ppip 1 20:59 Ppip 1 21:19 Ppip 1 20:59 Ppip 1 21:20 Ppip 2 21:00 Ppip 1 21:22 Ppip 2 21:00 Ppip 1 21:23 Ppip 1 21:00 Ppip 1 21:24 Ppip 1 21:06 Ppip 2 21:25 Ppip 1 21:15 Ppip 4 21:26 Ppip 1
13 June 2016 61
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
21:17 Ppip 2 21:26 Ppyg 1 21:18 Ppip 2 21:27 Ppip 2 21:19 Ppip 3 21:28 Ppip 3 21:29 Ppip 1 21:29 Bbar 2 21:33 Ppip 3 21:29 Ppip 1 21:36 Ppip 1 21:33 Ppip 2 21:37 Ppip 2 21:34 Ppip 2 21:43 Mnat 1 21:35 Ppip 1 21:46 Ppip 2 21:36 Ppip 1 21:50 Ppip 1 21:37 Ppip 2 21:53 Mnat 1 21:38 Ppip 1 21:54 Mnat 1 21:43 Paur 1 21:59 Ppip 1 21:43 Ppip 1 22:00 Mnat 1 21:45 Paur 1 22:06 Ppip 1 21:46 Ppip 1 22:11 Ppip 1 21:47 Ppip 1 22:12 Ppip 2 21:50 Ppip 1 22:13 Ppip 4 21:51 Ppip 2 21:52 Paur 1 21:54 Ppyg 1 21:55 Ppip 2 21:57 Paur 1
13 June 2016 62
Ivy Farm, Holme Hale Ecological Survey Report
21:57 Ppip 1 21:58 Paur 1 21:58 Ppip 1 21:59 Ppip 1 21:59 Ppyg 1 22:00 Ppip 1 22:01 Ppip 1 22:02 Possible Paur 1 22:02 Ppip 2 22:03 Ppip 1 22:04 Paur 1 22:04 Ppip 3 22:06 Paur 1 22:12 Ppip 2
13 June 2016 63