ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL
Holyoakes Field First School Prepared for: Jacobs UK Limited
SLR Ref: 404.04946.00016 Version No:1 January 2019 Jacobs UK Limited Holyoakes Field First School – Ecological Appraisal 404.04946.00016: Filename: 190207_404.04946.00016 HolyoakesFieldFirstSchool_EA_JH_MPM_vf1 v1 February 2019
BASIS OF REPORT
This document has been prepared by SLR Consulting Limited with reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the manpower, timescales and resources devoted to it by agreement with Jacobs UK Limited (the Client) as part or all of the services it has been appointed by the Client to carry out. It is subject to the terms and conditions of that appointment.
SLR shall not be liable for the use of or reliance on any information, advice, recommendations and opinions in this document for any purpose by any person other than the Client. Reliance may be granted to a third party only in the event that SLR and the third party have executed a reliance agreement or collateral warranty.
Information reported herein may be based on the interpretation of public domain data collected by SLR, and/or information supplied by the Client and/or its other advisors and associates. These data have been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid.
The copyright and intellectual property in all drawings, reports, specifications, bills of quantities, calculations and other information set out in this report remain vested in SLR unless the terms of appointment state otherwise.
This document may contain information of a specialised and/or highly technical nature and the Client is advised to seek clarification on any elements which may be unclear to it.
Information, advice, recommendations and opinions in this document should only be relied upon in the context of the whole document and any documents referenced explicitly herein and should then only be used within the context of the appointment.
.
Jacobs UK Limited Holyoakes Field First School – Ecological Appraisal 404.04946.00016: Filename: 190207_404.04946.00016 HolyoakesFieldFirstSchool_EA_JH_MPM_vf1 v1 February 2019
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...... 3 1.1 Details of Proposed Development ...... 3 1.2 Study Area ...... 3 1.3 Scope of Ecological Works ...... 3 1.4 Purpose of this Report ...... 4
RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY3 ...... 5 2.1 Relevant Legislation ...... 5 2.1.1 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 ...... 5 2.1.2 Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) ...... 5 2.1.3 Protection of Badgers Act 1992 ...... 5 2.1.4 Natural Environment & Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 ...... 5 2.2 Relevant Planning Policy ...... 6 2.2.1 National Planning Policy ...... 6 2.2.2 Local Planning Policy ...... 6
METHODOLOGY ...... 9 3.1 Desk Study ...... 9 3.2 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey ...... 9 3.3 Limitations ...... 10
ECOLOGICAL BASELINE ...... 11 4.1 General Site Description ...... 11 4.2 Designated Sites ...... 11 4.2.1 Statutory Designated Sites ...... 11 4.3 Non-Statutory Designated Nature Conservation Sites ...... 12 4.4 Habitats ...... 13 4.5 Protected, Rare and Notable Species ...... 18 4.5.1 Flora and Fauna – Data Search Records ...... 19 4.6 Flora and Fauna – Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey ...... 21 4.6.1 Notable Flora ...... 21 4.6.2 Mammals ...... 21 4.7 Predicted Trends ...... 23 4.8 Summary of Important Ecological Features ...... 23
POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT ...... 25
.
Jacobs UK Limited Holyoakes Field First School – Ecological Appraisal 404.04946.00016: Filename: 190207_404.04946.00016 HolyoakesFieldFirstSchool_EA_JH_MPM_vf1 v1 February 2019
5.1.1 Designated Sites ...... 25 5.1.2 Habitats ...... 25 5.1.3 Invasive Non-Native Plant Species ...... 25 5.1.4 Protected and Other Notable Species ...... 25
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT ...... 27 6.1 Recommendations for Avoidance of Impact ...... 27 6.1.1 Positioning of the Development Footprint ...... 27 6.1.2 Timing of Site Clearance ...... 27 6.2 Recommendations for Mitigation of Potential Impact ...... 28 6.3 Recommendations for Compensation ...... 28 6.4 Recommendations for Ecological and Biodiversity Enhancement ...... 28
CONCLUSIONS ...... 30
DOCUMENT REFERENCES
DRAWINGS DRAWING 1: ECOLOGICAL SURVEY PLAN DRAWING 2: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
APPENDICES Appendix 01: WBRC Data
.
Introduction In January 2019, Jacobs UK Limited commissioned SLR Consulting Limited (SLR) to undertake an Ecological Appraisal (EA) of the proposed new Holyoakes Field First School site, off Cookridge Close, Redditch, B97 6GU. Previous ecological appraisal of the site was undertaken in March 2016 on behalf of Worcestershire County Council and this report has been produced to renew the now out-of-date record.
1.1 Details of Proposed Development The proposed development comprises the relocation and expansion of the existing Holyoakes Field First School. The current school accommodates 48 pupils in facilities that are considered to be sub-optimal and deteriorating. The proposed new school would be purpose built and able to accommodate 60 pupils plus a 26 place nursery, with the potential for expansion to accommodate 90 pupils. Draft development proposal plans are provided in Drawing 2. Whilst currently intensively managed farmland, the landscape to the immediate north and east of the application site is scheduled for future residential development under the Borough of Redditch Local Plan Number 4 (2016), and planning applications have been submitted with regard to the redevelopment of Lowan’s Hill Farm for residential purposes. The designs for the school and associated grounds have taken into account the proposed future development, with the aim of ensuring cohesion at the landscape level.
1.2 Study Area The application site covers approximately 2.35 hectares and is centred on Ordnance Survey Grid Reference SP032687, located north of Lowan’s Hill Farm, off Cookridge Close in Redditch. The area of study includes: all land within the application site boundary (Drawing 1); a 30m radius around the application site boundary, where accessible (Drawing 1); and any identified ecologically sensitive receptors within the zone of influence of the site which may have the potential to be directly or indirectly impacted by the development proposals. The ‘development footprint’ relates to all ground within the application site that will be directly impacted by the construction process, and includes areas used for storage and temporary site offices etc. in addition to ground that will be physically built on. In some cases this can be a smaller area than the application site boundary, but in this instance they are effectively the same as all the land within the application site is likely to be directly impacted to some degree due to the sloping site and consequently required ground works. The desktop data search sought records for protected sites and notable species within 1km of the application site. In light of the development proposals and the character of the surrounding landscape it was considered that there was a negligible risk of any significant impacts arising beyond this range.
1.3 Scope of Ecological Works SLR was instructed to: • undertake a baseline desk study; • undertake an extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, including survey for potential ecological constraints; • to identify the requirement for any further species or habitat-specific surveys that may be required in order to ensure compliance with wildlife legislation and planning policy; and to make recommendations for mitigation and ecological enhancement.
1.4 Purpose of this Report This report presents the findings of the Ecological Appraisal. The report seeks to: • Establish the baseline conditions and determine the importance of ecological features present (or those that could be present), as far as is possible; • To identify potential ecological constraints to the proposed development and make initial recommendations to avoid potentially significant effects of important ecological features, where possible; • To identify potential requirements for mitigation, where possible, including mitigation measures that will be required and those that may be required (depending on results of further surveys or final scheme design); • To identify opportunities for biodiversity enhancements as part of the project; and • To demonstrate the compliance of the proposals in relation to planning policies relevant to biodiversity and nature conservation.
Relevant Legislation and Planning Policy3
2.1 Relevant Legislation
2.1.1 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations) transpose Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna (Habitats Directive) into English law, making it an offence to deliberately capture, kill or disturb4 wild animals listed under Schedule 2 of the Regulations. It is also an offence to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal (even if the animal is not present at the time).
2.1.2 Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CRoW) 2000 and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006, consolidates and amends existing national legislation to implement the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) and Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds Directive), making it an offence to: • Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird or their eggs or nests (with certain exceptions) and disturb any bird species listed under Schedule 1 to the Act, or its dependent young while it is nesting; • Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild animal listed under Schedule 5 to the Act; • Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct any place used for shelter or protection by any wild animal listed under Schedule 5 to the Act; • Intentionally or recklessly disturb certain Schedule 5 animal species while they occupy a place used for shelter or protection; • Pick or uproot any wild plant listed under Schedule 8 of the Act; or • Plant or cause to grow in the wild any plant species listed under Schedule 9 of the Act.
2.1.3 Protection of Badgers Act 1992 The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 makes it illegal to kill, inure or take a badger or to intentionally or recklessly interfere with a badger sett. Sett interference includes disturbing badger whilst they are occupying a sett or obstructing access to it.
2.1.4 Natural Environment & Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 The NERC Act 2006 places a duty on authorities to have due regard for biodiversity and nature conservation during the course of their operations. Section 41 of the Act (Section 42 in Wales) requires the publication of a list of habitats and species published which are of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity. The Section 41 list (Section 42 in Wales) is used to guide authorities in implementing their duty to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity.
2.2 Relevant Planning Policy
2.2.1 National Planning Policy The recently revised National Planning Policy (NPFF) published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in July 2018[1] sets out several recommendations as to how Local Planning Authorities should address and consider biodiversity matters in their local plans. Further to this the NPPF sets out measures to be taken when considering planning applications, as follows: “175. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles: a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; b) development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest; c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and d) development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity. 176. The following should be given the same protection as habitats sites: a) potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation; b) listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and c) sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on habitats sites, potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites. 177. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment because of its potential impact on a habitats site is being planned or determined.
2.2.2 Local Planning Policy The Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.41 contains the following policies of relevance to ecology: “Policy 11: Green Infrastructure ‘11.1 Green Infrastructure (GI) is defined in the NPPF as ‘a network of multifunctional green space, urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities’. In order to realise the Vision and Objectives of this Plan that, by 2030 Redditch Borough will be distinctively ‘green’, a well-planned and managed GI Network is essential. The multifunctionality of the GI Network means that it can also contribute to delivering Objectives regarding biodiversity, climate change, historic environment and flood risk.
______1 Adopted 30th January 2017
11.2 The Green Infrastructure (GI) Network makes an important and valued contribution to the Borough of Redditch and its distinctiveness. The GI Network is a multifunctional resource that includes, but is not limited to, green spaces and corridors, waterways, natural heritage and wildlife habitats. 11.3 The existing GI Network will be safeguarded and new development will be required to contribute positively to the GI Network, in line with the findings of the Redditch Borough GI Strategy and to support the Worcestershire Sub-Regional GI Framework. Opportunities will be sought to improve and maintain the Network for the benefit of people, wildlife and the character and appearance of the Borough. 11.4 The Borough Council will produce Green Infrastructure Concept Statements to guide master-planning and development of Strategic Sites.’ Policy 16: Natural Environment ‘16.1 The natural environment is one of the assets of Redditch Borough that make it special. It is essential to ensure that the natural environment is protected and enhanced and that good design principles are adopted, particularly to ensure that features of the natural environment are incorporated into new development. This policy can help to achieve the Objectives of this Plan for the Borough to have a high quality environment and landscape. A. Natural Environment and Landscape 16.2 A high quality natural environment and landscape is integral to delivering the Vision of BORLP4. In order to achieve this all relevant proposals will be expected to: i. demonstrate how the use of natural resources will be minimised; ii. protect and, where appropriate, enhance the quality of natural resources including water, air, land, wildlife corridors, species (including protected species), habitats biodiversity and geodiversity; iii. demonstrate the Borough’s distinctive landscape is protected, enhanced or restored, as appropriate and proposals are informed by, and sympathetic to, the surrounding landscape character; iv. avoid any significant adverse impact on skylines and hill features, including established views of these features; v. where possible retain existing trees (including Ancient Trees), woodlands (including ancient woodlands) and hedgerows (including important hedgerows) and semi-natural habitats with appropriate management. Particular emphasis should be placed on the expanding and linking of ancient woodlands, and the creation of targeted new native woodland for wider benefits; and vi. contribute to the achievement of relevant Worcestershire Biodiversity Action Plan targets where appropriate. B. Sites of Wildlife Importance 16.3 The location of sites of national (Sites of Special Scientific Interest), regional (Local Wildlife Sites) and local (Local Nature Reserves) wildlife importance are shown on the Policies Map. Applications for development should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the principles of the NPPF. In determining applications affecting sites of wildlife importance, the Borough Council will apply the hierarchy of designated sites and appropriate weight will be given to their importance and contribution to wider ecological networks. 16.4 Due to the national importance of Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI) proposals likely to have an adverse impact within or outside of a SSSI, either individually or in combination with other developments, will not normally be permitted. An exception will only be made when it can be demonstrated that the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impact on the site or network of sites. 16.5 New development or land use changes likely to have an adverse effect on Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Local Wildlife Sites and Local Nature Reserves, directly or indirectly, will not be allowed unless there are no
reasonable alternative means of meeting that development need and the reasons for development clearly outweigh the intrinsic nature conservation and/or geological value of the site or network of sites. 16.6 In all cases where new development or land use change is permitted, any damage to the nature conservation and/or geological value of the site will need to be kept to a minimum. Adequate and appropriate protection and enhancement of the site’s nature conservation and/or geological interest will need to be secured, and where necessary, appropriate and adequate compensatory measures will need to be provided, using conditions and/or planning obligations where necessary.
Methodology The baseline ecological data was collated by a combination of desk-based study and field survey consistent with all current standard methodologies and published good practice guidelines.
3.1 Desk Study In December 2018, a desk study was undertaken for the site and surrounding land within a one-kilometre (km) radius. As the proposed development will not emit significant chemical, thermal or other pollutant discharges to either the air or to water courses it was not considered necessary to extend the search area beyond 1km. The desk study included a review of the following sources of information: • The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal report produced by SLR Consulting in 20162; • Worcester Biological Records Centre (WBRC, the local biological records centre) data request for protected and notable species records and details for Local Wildlife Sites. • www.magic.gov.uk for statutory designated sites, granted European Protected Species Licences, UK Priority Habitats and Ancient Woodland; and • Redditch Borough Council for local planning application reports and site designations.
3.2 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey The Study Area was subject to survey on 15th January 2019 using the Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology6, extended to include preliminary checks for notable, protected or rare species of both flora and fauna. Particular features of interest were recorded on the field map using target notes, the locations of which are shown in Drawing 1, together with the survey extents. A Phase 1 Habitat Survey provides an inventory of the basic habitat types present and allows identification of areas of greater potential which may require more detailed botanical survey. This level of survey includes the documentation of habitats to a recognised standard, but also includes the recording of field evidence indicating the presence or potential presence of species that could constitute a material consideration in planning terms, such as protected or notable plant or faunal species. Notes of principle habitat types, supported by photographs, were recorded. Whilst not a full botanical or protected species survey, the Extended Phase 1 method of survey enables experienced ecologists to obtain an understanding of the ecology of a site such that it is possible either: • To confirm the conservation significant of the site and assess the potential for impacts on habitats/species likely to represent a material consideration in planning terms, or • To establish the scope and extent of any additional specialist ecological surveys that will be required before such confirmation can be made. In addition, the presence of plant species included within Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) was searched for during the survey. Plants included within the schedule are considered derogated pest species that are pernicious or injurious, such as Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) and giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum). It is an offence under the Act to plant or cause the spread of these species in the wild.
______2 SLR Consulting Limited (2016) report ref: 160330_404.01809.00006_WorcestershireCountyCouncil_HolyoakesSchool_Redditch_PEA_MPM_AW_V2
3.3 Limitations January is considered to be a sub-optimal time of year for undertaking detailed vegetation surveys, as a number of broad-leaved plant species have entered dormancy for the colder months and may not be apparent. However, it is considered that sufficient botanical data was recorded to enable the classification of the site’s habitats to the degree required for Phase 1 Habitat survey and to enable the determination of the site’s ecological and biodiversity importance to the extent required to support and determine the planning application. The Phase 1 Habitat Survey results are considered to provide a sound and accurate representation of the habitats that are present within the survey area. Full access was available to the entirety of the application site, and the majority of the 30m buffer surrounding it. The only inaccessible area within the buffer being related to the grounds of Lowan’s Hill Farm. Permission was not obtained to access Lowan’s Hill Farm, which was fenced off due to the unsafe structure of the remaining farm buildings. However, inability to access this area is not considered to have formed a significant limitation to the appraisal of the potential impacts of the application. Clear viewpoints across the inaccessible area were available from the boundary of the application site and the proposed development should have no direct impacts upon it. Whilst it is felt unlikely that significant factors have been overlooked, due to the nature of the subjects of ecological surveys it is feasible that species that use the site may not have been recorded by virtue of their seasonality, cryptic behaviour, habit or random chance. It should be noted that the lack of evidence of any one particular protected species during survey visits does not necessarily preclude its presence at the site either at this current time or in the future. However, it is considered that the survey was suitable for conducting protected species risk assessments based on habitat type, collected data and local knowledge. Please note that where guidance is provided regarding legislation, it is given in good faith. SLR does not purport to provide advice on legislation and in cases of any doubt the reader should approach a legal practice specialising in environmental law for advice.
ECOLOGICAL BASELINE This section provides an overview of the ecological baseline conditions within the proposed application site and the area immediately surrounding it.
4.1 General Site Description The application site is broadly triangular in shape, occupying sections of four fields lying to the immediate north of Lowan’s Hill Farm (see Drawing 1). The application site is dominated by species-poor semi-improved grassland that is beginning to form tussocks (Figure 1). Also present are small areas of arable crops, ruderal vegetation, disturbed ground, hard-standing and species-poor defunct hedgerow.
Immediately to the south of the application site lies Lowan’s Hill Farm, a collection of derelict and collapsing brick-built barns and other agricultural buildings, beyond which is an estate of newly built residential properties. To the north and east of the application site lies open farmland, and to the west lies pasture, a small brook known as the Red Ditch, and beyond these, a further residential estate.
4.2 Designated Sites
4.2.1 Statutory Designated Sites There are no statutory wildlife sites within 1km of the application site. The closest statutory wildlife site is Redditch Woods – Foxlydiate and Pitcher Oak Wood Local Nature Reserve (LNR) is located approximately 1.4km south of the application site. The citation for this wildlife site reads as follows: ‘This site comprises two large ancient semi-natural woodlands split into a total of four compartments by roads and housing development. Between them they form a significant habitat block and a particularly important component of Redditch’s green infrastructure. Both woods are listed on the NCC Inventory of Ancient Woodland and have a diverse structure with significant open glade areas adding to the overall diversity. These are predominantly oak woodlands with both pedunculate and sessile oak dominating the canopy, though other species including birch, small leaved lime, large leaved lime, hazel, ash, field maple, yew, wild service and sweet chestnut are also found. The ground flora is similarly diverse with a range of woodland indicators augmented by rich grassland in the glades. In places the flora tends towards a more acidic mix with species including heather and tormentil occurring. Faunal records for the two woods are incomplete but bats and a variety of nesting birds are likely to use both and there are records for a range of butterflies including small pearl-bordered fritillary, white admiral and small heath, particularly associated with Pitcher Oak Wood.’
As described above, in light of the lack of potential sources of indirect impact from the development proposals and the distance between the application site and Foxlydiate and Pitcher Oak Wood LNR, the proposed development is expected to have no significant impact on this wildlife site, or on any of the more distant statutory wildlife sites
4.3 Non-Statutory Designated Nature Conservation Sites There are four non-statutory wildlife sites within 1km of the application site:
Brockhill Wood is located approximately 440m to the west of the application site and is designated as a Local Wildlife Site (LWS). The citation describes the site as follows: ‘Though shown on the Inventory of Ancient Woodland (NCC 1986), much of the native broadleaf canopy was cleared in the late 20th Century and replaced by commercial broadleaves for timber to supply the brush handle industry – such as aspen, sycamore, birch, sweet chestnut and grey alder. Virtually none of the site retains its original canopy trees, except around the wood’s boundaries. However, this is an extensive site, with varied terrain, springs, ditches, damp grassland rides and at least three different broadleaved woodland habitats present; therefore it remains a valuable wildlife resource. The ground flora throughout is recorded (1977-1997) as being fairly species-poor, being dominated by mixtures of bramble, bracken though with bluebells in the spring. Other typical species at low frequency include primrose, yellow archangel and wood sorrel. Special/local flora found throughout: past records (the damp rides and springs) include lesser scullcap (Scutellaria minor) – a rare species in Worcestershire, more typical of woodland margin acidic wet heaths and boggy habitats in the north-west of the county; lesser spearwort (Ranunculus flammula) and heath woodrush (Luzula multiflora). The wood is stocked with pheasants and managed for field sports. Mammals: Muntjac, red fox, badger sett complexes’.
The River Arrow LWS is located approximately 730m north-east of the application site. Rising from an overflow at Lower Bittell Reservoir, the River Arrow flows south through Redditch to join the River Avon at Salford Priors in Warwickshire. For much of its length it is lined with trees and shrubs (which in some places broaden out into woodland) and creates an important wildlife corridor through the landscape. It is a particularly valuable feature where it flows through the centre of Redditch where both the river and its attendant valley form a significant green wedge through the town. Overshadowing by bankside trees means that the aquatic flora is limited in most stretches although in places there are beds of both in-stream and marginal vegetation. In combination with a full range of natural features, including fast flowing riffle sequences, these help to support a reasonable aquatic fauna. Otters are known to be present and kingfishers breed in several places. Butler’s Hill Wood LWS is located approximately 800m north-west of the site. The site, like Brockhill Wood, is designated as ancient woodland, however it was also replaced in the late 20th century by commercial broadleaves and conifers for the brush handle industry. The ground flora throughout is recorded (1977-1991) as being fairly species-poor, being dominated by mixtures of bramble and bracken though with bluebells in the spring. Other typical species at lower frequency include dog’s mercury, greater stitchwort, primrose, yellow archangel and wood sorrel. The damp grass rides and ditches provide contrasted habitat, the semi-open conditions supporting sedges, rushes and species of poorly drained soils such as bugle and ragged robin.
Abbey and Forge Mill Ponds LWS is located approximately 1km east of the site, just beyond the A441 Alvechurch Highway. A group of four ancient mill and fish ponds ranged around the site of Bordesley Abbey and fall within the wider Scheduled Ancient Monument. The pools feed into the River Arrow, which flows to the north of the pool complex, via a narrow outflow stream and are for the most part fringed with a mixture of woodland and grassland. Between them they support a reasonable aquatic flora and marginal swamp vegetation, whilst some of the surrounding woodland tends towards a wet woodland community with alder in the canopy. Some of the surrounding grassland is unimproved and there are past records for meadow saxifrage.
No significant direct or indirect impact pathways have been identified between the application site and any of the non-statutory wildlife sites within 1km. There is considered to be a negligible risk of potential negative impact on them from the proposed development, and they are therefore not considered further.
4.4 Habitats In summary the application site is dominated by semi-improved grassland, which comprises approximately 95% of the habitat present within the application area. A species-poor hedgerow lies on the southern end of the western boundary. In the southern corner of the site is a tarmacked road surrounded by area of disturbed ground. The wider survey area incorporated a 30m margin around the site, bar the inaccessible land at Lowan’s Hill Farm. Habitats recorded within this area included arable crops and species-poor semi-improved grassland. Drawing 1 shows the locations and extent of habitats recorded within and immediately adjacent to the application site during the January 2019 survey. Target Notes (TN) on Drawing 1 identify features and habitats of interest, with a description of each TN provided in Table 1. A detailed description of each habitat type is provided below:
Table 1 Descriptions of the habitats present at the site of the proposed Holyoakes Field First School (January 2019)
Target Photo Description Note 1 Species-poor semi-improved grassland Approximately 95% of the habitats on the application site comprise species-poor semi- improved grassland. In 2016 the grassland was recorded as agriculturally improved grassland that was intensively grazed by cattle and had a short sward, approximately 10cm high. Management of the pasture is understood to have ceased approximately three years ago, and the sward has become longer and coarse through the cessation of grazing.
The field is dominated by perennial rye-grass (Lolium perenne) and tussocks of cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerata), which is typical of an agriculturally improved grassland that has been left unmanaged. Broad-leaved plant species were recorded occasionally through the sward with white clover (Trifolium repens), herb Robert (Geranium robertianum) and common mouse- ear (Cerastium fontanum) being noted. Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) was occasional to locally frequent in damper areas.
Target Photo Description Note Creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) and common nettle (Urtica dioica) are locally dominant in patches. In places by the north-western hedgerow, blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) is also encroaching into the field.
2 Species-poor defunct hedgerow
A species-poor defunct hedgerow lies between the agriculturally improved grassland and the arable field to the north and forms the majority of the northern boundary to the application site. The hedgerow is dominated by hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) that was intensively managed by cutting in 2016, with is evidence of historical hedge-laying. Management appears to have reduced since the previous survey, and the hedgerow is starting to grow out.
The ground flora is sparse and predominantly comprises the same species found in the adjacent agriculturally improved grassland, with the addition of occasional cleavers (Galium aparine), brambles (Rubus fruticosus), spear thistle (Cirsium vulgaris) and more frequent common nettle.
The hedgerow is gappy and defunct and has been reinforced with a post and wire fence. Following the hedgerow towards the north-east it becomes sparser and more gappy until it is effectively no longer present from approximately half way along the boundary. A single semi-mature holly (Ilex aquifolium) tree is present in the approximate centre of the hedgerow, and two decaying stumps are present at the south-eastern end.
Target Photo Description Note 3 Mature apple tree (Malus sp.)
A mature apple tree approximately 6m to 8m tall stands at the location of Target Note 3, close to the intersection between the northern hedgerow (TN 2) and the western and central fields. No cracks or crevices that could potentially support roosting bats were observed during a ground-based inspection.
4 Tall ruderal vegetation
The northern corner of the application site includes a section that in 2016 was part of a large arable field. Since 2016 this section of field has not been cultivated and has developed into tall ruderal vegetation. The vegetation assemblage is species-poor and dominated by common nettle, with abundant creeping thistle, and frequent broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius), cleavers and cock’s foot.
5 Mature English oak tree (Quercus robur) Situated at the northern corner of the application site adjacent to the fence line is a mature English oak tree. The oak tree is isolated in the landscape and not connected to any vegetated linear feature such as a hedgerow.
Target Photo Description Note A ground-based inspection of the tree was conducted for features that could potentially be used by roosting bats. Two potential features were identified. The first feature was a crack facing towards the north-east on a branch about 30-50cm wide. The entrance is exposed to the elements with a cluttered approach, lowering its suitability for roosting bats. The second feature comprised multiple entry points at the base of tree, low to the ground. However, whilst bats can potentially utilise low level crevices, they are vulnerable to predation by rodents and other predatory mammals, reducing its suitability for bat roosting. The tree is also isolated in the landscape, with no connection to hedgerows or other linear landscape features favoured by roosting bats, further lowering the likelihood of bats roosting here, particularly in light of other opportunities nearby, such as those present at the Lowan’s Hill Farm buildings. In the unlikely event that bats did roost in this tree it is considered that there is a negligible risk of the roost supported being significant (i.e. a maternity roost, hibernation roost or roost of uncommon species) and would likely be a temporary day roost for a common bat species. The tree is considered to have a low potential to support roosting bats.
Adjacent to the tree are three rabbit burrows, and evidence of rabbits burrowing around the roots of the tree was also recorded.
Bare ground and hardstanding
A short length of road with a turning-head has been made in the southern corner of the site. This appears to be a comparatively new construction and is surrounded by bare ground that has not yet begun to colonise with vegetation. Some small items of construction equipment remain.
Target Photo Description Note Off-site habitats 6 Running water – Red Ditch
Located approximately 75m to the west of the application site boundary is a small stream that forms the upper reaches of the Red Ditch. The stream channel is formed of multiple braids with poorly defined banks.
No aquatic vegetation was recorded, and the emergent vegetation assemblage was species-poor (although the constraints of the season are noted). The majority of vegetation recorded comprised the same species as the agriculturally improved field, with the addition of floating sweet-grass (Glyceria fluitans), and infrequent brooklime (Veronica beccabunga), and soft rush (Juncus effusus).
7 Lowan’s Hill Farm
Lowan’s Hill Farm is a collection of brick-built barns and other agricultural buildings. The buildings were in an advanced state of dilapidation in March 2016 and have deteriorated further since then. Direct access was not possible as the site was outside the application boundary, and the buildings were in an unsafe state.
Immediately outside the southern boundary of the application site, along the Heras fencing surrounding Lowan’s Hill Farm, is a strip of disturbed ground and debris colonised by tall ruderal vegetation. The tall ruderal vegetation assemblage comprises common nettle, with frequent creeping thistle, cock’s-foot and Yorkshire fog, and occasional perennial rye-grass.
A small number of rabbit burrows were present, excavated into a pile of soil and other debris located adjacent to the application site.
Target Photo Description Note 8 Species-poor hedgerow A species-poor hawthorn hedgerow forms the boundary between the largest field of agriculturally improved grassland and the amenity space and residential development to the south. The hedgerow is lightly managed and approximately 4m to 5m high. A small number of rabbit burrows were recorded in the base of the hedgerow. There has been no significant change in this habitat since the 2016 survey.
9 Mature ash tree (Fraxinus excelsior)
A mature ash is located approximately 20m north of the application site boundary. No potential roost features for bats were observed from a ground-based inspection.
4.5 Protected, Rare and Notable Species The following sections consider the protected species/species groups that could potentially occur within the site or zone of indirect impact based on the following data: • The field survey conducted on the 15th January 2019 returning direct evidence or identifying suitable habitat; • The presence of pre-existing biological records being returned by the data search; • A bat survey report by FPCR of the adjacent Lowan’s Hill Farm3; • An ecological appraisal of overlapping land known as ‘Brockhill East’ conducted by FPCR in September 20144, located on the Redditch Borough Council planning portal; and • The general geographic setting of the site meaning the presence of the species is possible. Each section identifies whether field evidence exists, background records exist, or whether (in the absence of existing records a species could potentially occur due to the site being within the range of the species and suitable habitat being present.
______
3 FPCR (September 2014) Lowans Hill Farm, Brockhill, Enfield, Redditch – Bat Survey Report. FPCR, Lockington Hall, Lockington, Derby. 4 FPCR (September 2014) Ecological Assessment and Protected Species Report, Brockhill East, Bat Survey Report. FPCR, Lockington Hall, Lockington, Derby.
4.5.1 Flora and Fauna – Data Search Records This section summarises the records of notable flora and fauna returned during the desk-top data search. This predominantly comprises the data provided by WBRC, (the raw list of which is presented in Appendix 1), but also incorporates other sources, including ecological appraisal reports for nearby developments that were submitted to Redditch Borough Council, and local knowledge. It should be noted that the absence of records should not be interpreted as the absence of a protected or notable species, as the database of records is not exhaustive. Notable Flora The data provided by WBRC returned records of lesser skullcap (Scutellaria marina), reflexed saltmarsh-grass (Pucinella distans), greater spearwort (Ranunculus lingua), lesser sea-spurrey (Spergularia media), and large leaved lime (Tilia platyphyllos) within the 1km search radius. The closest record returned was for lesser skullcap, located approximately 0.58km south-west of the site in 1991, and associated with Brockhill Wood. No habitat suitable for the notable higher plant species listed above was recorded within the application site. The proposed development footprint lies within poor semi-improved grassland with species-poor defunct hedgerows. The remaining habitats within the application site are anthropogenic habitats exhibiting a high degree of disturbance and possessing low intrinsic ecological or biodiversity importance. It is considered that there is a negligible risk of any notable plant species being present within the development footprint or habitats with potential to be directly or indirectly impacted. No invasive plant species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 and amendments) were recorded during the Phase 1 Habitat survey, although the limitations of the season are noted. Notable Fauna The data provided by WBRC returned the following records within 1km of the application site: Mammals: • A number of badger (Meles meles) records were returned within the search radius. The closest and most recent record is approximately 0.57km east-southeast of the site and dated 2010; • A single otter (Lutra lutra) record was returned located 1.04km east-north-east (associated with Bordesley Meadows) and is dated 2003; • A number of hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) records have been returned. The closest is located 0.5km south-east of the site and dated 2002. The most recent record is dated 2005 and is located approximately 0.78 south-west of the site (associated with Brockhill Drive); and • Bats:
o A single Noctule (Nyctalus noctula) record was reported in the WBRC data, located 0.98km south-south-east of the site and was recorded flying high over the former Millfields SEC property in 2010. However, the FPCR bat survey of Lowan’s Hill Farm, adjacent to the site, also recorded the presence of Noctule bat flying high over the farm;
o A single soprano pipistrelle record (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) record was returned, dated and located as per the Noctule record above. Again, FPCR recorded low numbers of soprano pipistrelle foraging at Lowan’s Hill Farm;
o Multiple common pipistrelle records were returned within the search area, the closest and most recent record located and dated as above, and again records of this species foraging at Lowan’s Hill Farm reported in the FPCR bat survey report;
Amphibians: • Multiple common toad (Bufo bufo) records were returned within the search area. The most recent record is dated 2002 and located 0.5km to the south east of the site (associated with the Batchley Brook). This is also the closest record; • There are a number of great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) records within the search radius. The closest record returned by WBRC is located 0.64km south west of the site and is dated 2001 and 2003. The most recent record held by the WBRC is dated 2011 and relates to a series of surveys undertaken around Butlers Hill Wood, the closest record within this survey set appears to be 1.2km to the north-west of the site; and • The MAGIC website returned a record of a granted great crested newt licence approximately 600m north of the application site. The application site supports no suitable permanent or semi-permanent water bodies suitable for breeding amphibians. Reptiles: No reptile records were returned by WBRC for sites within 1km. Birds: WRBC returned the following records for notable birds for the 2km search area: • A single barn owl (Tyto alba) record was returned, dated 2010 and located approximately 0.3km south of the site (associated with Lowan’s Hill Farm; • A single record for kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) was returned dated 1990 and located approximately 2km east of the site (within Bordesley Meadows); and • A single record of reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniculus) was returned, located approximately 1.5km south of the site and dated 2006. Redditch Borough Council Planning Portal A nearby and overlapping development proposal (identified on the planning portal as "Brockhill East") has been supported by a number of phase one and phase two ecological studies. These studies (undertaken by FPCR Environment and Design Ltd on behalf of Persimmon Homes (South Midlands) Ltd) focused on land within and surrounding the red line boundary provided by Jacobs to Worcestershire County Council as the principle focus of this assessment. Please refer to the referenced reports for further details. However, the following observations (interpreted from FPCR's "Ecological Assessment and Protected Species Report, September 2014" and "Strategic Allocation: Brockhill East, Annex 2: Ecological Appraisal", July 2014) are likely to be pertinent for this proposal: • A partially active outlier and an inactive outlier badger sett were discovered within approximately 150m of the site's north-eastern boundary. A main sett has also been identified, located in proximity to the site. • Static and transect bat surveys have identified activity across the wider site by species including common and soprano pipistrelles, Noctule bat and a number of unidentified nyctalus, pipistrellus and myotis species. • Bird surveys of the wider area identified twenty different species of which seven are either protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, appear on the RSPB's Birds of Conservation Concern watchlist (as red or amber listed species) and/or are listed on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 'species of principle importance';
• Great crested newt surveys have been undertaken and while no animals were detected the surveys were hampered by lack of access to a number of ponds in the vicinity. • A number of trees in immediate proximity to the site have been assessed as being suitable to offer potential roosting features capable of being occupied by bats.
An additional report by FPCR located on the Redditch Borough Council planning portal relates to bat surveys undertaken at Lowan’s Hill Farm, immediately to the south of the application site. This survey recorded that common and soprano pipistrelle bats were foraging within and around the buildings, but that no roosts were identified within the buildings. The report also indicates that birds were using the buildings for nesting with collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) and swallow (Hirundae rustica) being recorded nesting here.
4.6 Flora and Fauna – Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey This section describes field evidence of the presence of notable fauna or flora species and notable habitats that were recorded during the extended Phase 1 habitat survey. It also incorporates appraisal of the habitats recorded with regard to their potential to support notable flora or fauna species.
4.6.1 Notable Flora None of the notable flora species listed in the records supplied by WBRC was identified during the site surveys in January 2019 or February 2016. Whilst the constraints of the season are noted, the habitats present within the survey area are unsuitable for lesser skullcap, lesser sea-spurrey and reflexed saltmarsh-grass. Lesser skullcap is associated with damp woodlands and heaths, whilst lesser sea-spurrey and reflexed saltmarsh-grass are associated with coastal or other salt-rich habitats. Some areas of the northern boundary of the application site support damper areas of habitat that could theoretically support greater spearwort. However, such habitat as is present would be considered substantially sub-optimal as the species is typically associated with fens, marshes and fresh water, and the ephemeral damp patches recorded are unlikely to provide suitable permanent conditions for this species. No large-leaved lime trees were identified during the survey, and the season is not considered to be a constraint with regard to the identification of this species. Derogated Plant Species No derogated plant species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 and amendments) were recorded during the habitat survey, although the constraints of the season are noted.
4.6.2 Mammals Badger (Meles meles) During the Phase 1 survey the development site and its immediate surrounding area were inspected for field signs indicative of the presence of badgers including sett entrances, paw prints, hairs, faeces, tracks and signs of foraging. No field signs indicative of the presence of badger were recorded within the survey area. During the survey the ground across much of the site was noted to be surprisingly wet in light of the sloped topography, and a steep embankment just outside the southern boundary of the application site (a seemingly good location for the excavation of mammal burrows) had a number of washouts, suggesting high hydrological flows. No hydrological information has been seen by the surveyor, but it appears that conditions may not be suitable for the excavation
of badger setts or other mammal burrows. The few rabbit burrows that were located were all associated with areas of higher ground. Bats No bat activity surveys were undertaken as part of this EA. However, habitat appraisal of potential roosting sites and foraging areas was undertaken. Only one tree on site is considered to have any potential to support roosting bats, the mature English oak tree (Target Note 5, Drawing 1). A small number of crevices, holes and loose bark were recorded during a ground- based inspection. However, the tree is considered to have low potential to support roosting bats as the majority of these potential features are exposed to the elements, and the tree is isolated within the landscape. The species-poor semi-improved pasture offers potential foraging habitat for bats, although the habitat connectivity is poor, with large fields bordered by weak linear features: gappy hedgerows and post and wire fences. The findings of FPCR’s bat survey of the wider Brockhill East area in 2014 returned records of low numbers of common bat species foraging and commuting within the application site area, associated with the northern hedgerow and common bat species flying around Lowan’s Hill Farm. No roost sites were identified within the Holyoakes Field First School application area, Lowan’s Hill Farm, or the immediately adjacent habitats. Hedgehog (Erinaceous europaeus) No field evidence of hedgehog was recorded during the extended habitat survey, hedgehogs would be in hibernation during January. The species-poor semi-improved grassland present provides potential foraging opportunities for hedgehogs but shelter and cover are exceptionally limited, with no debris piles, deep leaf litter or dense scrub present suitable for hedgehog hibernation. Hedgehogs may forage across the fields from adjacent habitat, but it is considered unlikely that any are permanently resident within the application site. Other mammals A small number of rabbit burrows were recorded during the survey, predominantly located adjacent to the mature oak tree (Target Note 5, Drawing 1), and outside the application site at Lowan’s Hill Farm (Target Note 7) and the southern hawthorn hedgerow (Target Note 8). The site is considered to offer suitable habitat for a range of rodents, including field mouse, brown rat and bank vole, with a number of rodent holes of various sizes being observed during the survey. Birds During the site survey, bird species were recorded on an encounter basis, with woodpigeon (Columba palumbus), and blackbird (Turdus merula) being recorded. During the previous SLR survey in 2016, wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) and a pair of redwing (Turdus illiacus) were also seen. The habitats present within the application site provide limited nesting and foraging habitat. The limited length of hedgerow is sparse, and there are few mature trees. The species-poor semi-improved grassland may provide suitable habitat for ground nesting bird species that favour open habitat, but in light of the recent development of this habitat from closely grazed pasture in 2016, it is considered highly unlikely that local ground nesting bird species are dependent on this resource for maintenance of their local populations. The grazed pasture will provide good foraging habitat for those species of birds that favour this resource, but the structural and habitat diversity of the site is very low, and this will limit the range of birds that can exploit the site. Reptiles The structural diversity of the site habitats is very limited, predominantly comprising a north-west facing slope with species-poor semi-improved grassland. Since grazing has ceased in 2016, the sward is becoming more rank
and tussocky and potentially improving in quality for reptiles such as slow worm. However, whilst the structure of the grassland is becoming more beneficial for reptiles, the potential for the site to have been colonised by this group since 2016 (where there was considered to be a negligible risk of presence) is considered very low. The habitat to the north of the site comprises actively farmed arable land, habitat of negligible quality for reptiles; to the south the site is bounded by new residential development; to the west the site is bounded by the Red Ditch and residential development; and to the east the site is bordered by extensive closely grazed agriculturally improved grassland. These habitats all form sub-optimal habitats for reptiles and effective barriers to reptile dispersal. It is considered highly unlikely that significant populations of reptiles are present within the application area. Amphibians No water bodies considered to be suitable to support breeding amphibians were recorded within the application site. Using maps and published reports, one pond was identified within 500m of the application site, a balancing pond approximately 380m to the south-east, previously associated with an industrial estate and now lying within a new residential development. In 2014 this pond was visited by FPCR as part of their ecological appraisal of the wider Brockhill East Strategic Development Area, and a Habitat Suitability Index assessment was conducted. This indicated that the pond was considered ‘below average’ for great crested newts. However, permission to conduct a full great crested newt survey of this pond was not granted. In light of the development of a new housing estate between this pond and the application site, it is considered unlikely that great crested newts are using this pond, or that they could be utilising the application site for foraging if they did happen to be present as the new estate under construction will form an effective barrier. Other Protected, Rare and Notable Species During the extended habitat survey no rare or notable species not otherwise described above were recorded or considered likely to be present following appraisal of the identified habitats. The site is considered likely to support further populations of common and widespread species not recorded during the survey, including birds and invertebrates, but it is considered unlikely that the populations of any of the common species present would be significant on a regional or national scale, or that any local populations would be dependent on the application site for maintenance of their local populations.
4.7 Predicted Trends In 2016 the application site was dominated by species-poor agriculturally improved grassland. The current field survey on January 2019 indicates that this has developed into species-poor semi-improved grassland, which is as expected following the cessation of farming of the land in 2016. The grass sward is becoming longer, ranker and tussocks of coarser grass species are becoming more prevalent. The patches of broad-leaved weed species recorded in 2016 are spreading further, and scrub is beginning to spread into the fields from the boundary hedgerows. Natural successional processes (the development of one habitat type into another) are evident and if the application site remains unmanaged and undeveloped it would be expected that the application site would eventually develop into dense hawthorn and blackthorn scrub. However, this would take some decades to fully occur.
4.8 Summary of Important Ecological Features Based upon the information available to date, Table 2 provides a summary of the important ecological features for which detailed assessment is required (i.e. all features considered to be of at least local level of importance and/or subject to legal protection), the geographical context within which each is considered to be important and their legal status.
TABLE 2: IDENTIFIED IMPORTANT ECOLOGICAL FEATURES
Feature Reason for importance Presence on site
Breeding Birds The nests of all species of British bird are afforded The site supports potential for protection whilst in use or being built (Wildlife and nesting birds, including ground Countryside Act (1981 and amendments)). nesting species.
Bats All species of UK bat are protected under UK and The application site supports no European legislation. Many species are S41 NERC buildings that could Act priority species. Several species of bats are support potential bat roosting priority species in London features.
One tree with low potential for supporting roosting bats was identified, but is apparently being retained under current development proposals. However, the hedgerows on the site boundary could provide foraging and dispersal routes for bats, and bats are known to forage at Lowan’s Hill Farm immediately to the south of the application site. These could be indirectly negatively impacted by light spill, if the external lighting scheme is not sensitively designed.
Potential Ecological Constraints to Development
5.1.1 Designated Sites The application site supports no statutory or non-statutory wildlife site designation, and no such site is present within 1km. The proposed development is anticipated to have no direct or indirect negative impacts on any designated wildlife site.
5.1.2 Habitats All the habitats within the application site are anthropogenic in origin and ubiquitous in the local area. The application site is dominated by species-poor semi-improved grassland with a defunct species-poor hedgerow along the northern-western boundary. The habitats within the application area are considered to have negligible intrinsic ecological and biodiversity importance. The habitats within the application site are not considered to represent a constraint to development, but in line with best practice, mature trees should be retained wherever possible and protected during the construction works in accordance with British Standard 5837 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction.
5.1.3 Invasive Non-Native Plant Species No invasive non-native plant species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 and amendments) were recorded within the application area or wider survey area, although limitations related to the survey season are noted. It is considered unlikely that invasive species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 and amendments) will be present within the poor semi-improved grassland that forms the dominant site habitat inside the development footprint. This habitat has developed over the past three years from an actively managed agriculturally improved grassland that has been left unmanaged. However, the field margins and other habitats surrounding the development footprint are considered to have potential to support such species. Whilst every care was taken to detect the presence of invasive plant species during the walkover survey, ecological reports can only offer a snapshot of the site on the given date of survey. Early January is considered a sub-optimal time of year for conducting detailed botanical studies, as several plant species enter a state of dormancy, often with little evidence of their presence remaining above ground. Whilst mature stands of many invasive plant species frequently leave field signs such as dead stems or fallen leaves, it remains possible that stands of invasive species may have been overlooked as a consequence of the season, being in an immature developmental stage or due to the recent arrival of propagules. Whilst the risk of presence is considered to be low, as a precaution and in accordance with best practice, it is recommended that prior to the commencement of site stripping or other invasive groundworks a walkover survey is conducted at an appropriate time of year to confirm that invasive species are absent from the site.
5.1.4 Protected and Other Notable Species No species of any type is considered likely to be reliant on the application site for maintenance of its local population. Birds The development footprint supports potential for ground nesting birds such as skylark and lapwing, although the small size of the application site would restrict this to low numbers at best. The application site is not considered critical to the maintenance of any local bird populations.
The hedgerow provides nesting opportunities for a range of common commensal and farmland bird species, and whilst not critical to the maintenance of any local bird population, care must be taken to avoid destroying or damaging any nests if any of this vegetation is cleared. All species of wild bird are afforded protection from killing and injury under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended) and their nests are afforded protection from damage or destruction whilst in use or being built. To avoid contravention of the legislation any suitable nesting habitats that are to be disturbed should be removed outside the breeding season (the breeding season generally taken as being from March to August inclusive). If this cannot be achieved, then the relevant area should be checked beforehand by a qualified ecologist to confirm no active nests are present. If any active nests are found to be present a suitable stand-off should be retained around the nest to minimise the risk of any damage to the nest. Once the young have fledged, or the nesting attempt has failed and the nest is no longer in use, vegetation clearance can continue in the affected area. Bats No bat activity surveys were undertaken due to the time of year that the ecological appraisal being commissioned being when bats are in hibernation. The defunct species-poor hedgerow may potentially provide a feature for foraging and dispersal of bats, and bats are known to forage in low numbers at Lowan’s Hill Farm immediately to the south of the application site. Due to the time of year this study was commissioned, bat activity surveys were not possible, as bats remained in hibernation. Lowan’s Hill Farm to the south-east of the site provides potential roosting features for bats, however bat surveys carried out by FPCR in 2014 observed no bats emerging or entering the buildings to roost. The mature English oak tree at TN 5, located on the northern boundary, has been assessed as having low potential to support bat roosts and it is considered that it may be used occasionally by low numbers of bats. It is unlikely to support a roost of significant conservation value such as a maternity roost. The tree is largely isolated in a field of semi-improved grassland, next to an arable field. The mature English oak tree is located approximately 70m from the nearest hedgerow. The more common species such as pipistrelles are known to forage along hedgerows and in light of the separation of the potential roost feature from the closest hedgerow, the potential for occupation is reduced. The nearest identified potential bat roost site to the application site is at Lowan’s Hill Farm, 160m south of the tree, however no bat roosts have been confirmed at Lowan’s Hill Farm despite survey by other consultancies. Due to the isolation of the tree and nature of the potential roost features, the tree is considered to be of low value for the local bat population. If possible, the tree should be retained and no impacts on the local bat population are anticipated as long as a sensitive external lighting scheme is implemented. This should ensure the oak tree, boundary hedgerows, and Lowan’s Hill Farm buildings are not illuminated by light spill. Sensitive lighting schemes should use soft white L.E.D lighting with the light focussed to maintain a dark corridor along the edge of the site. It is recommended the tree should be retained if possible. However, if the tree requires felling, a sensitive felling protocol should be determined by a licensed bat ecologist. This may entail section felling or an endoscope inspection of potential roost features. No further surveys are considered necessary.
Recommendations for Mitigation and Enhancement In line with current best practice and planning policy the recommendations have been designed using the ‘Mitigation Hierarchy’. This provides a structured approach to minimising negative ecological and nature conservation impacts as a result of development by adopting a hierarchy of design principles: • Avoidance - avoiding adverse effects through good design should be the primary objective of any proposal. This may be achieved through either the selection of alternative designs, alterations to site layout, or by selecting an alternative site where no harm to biodiversity would occur. • Mitigation - adverse effects that cannot be avoided should be adequately mitigated. Mitigation measures minimise the negative impact of a plan or project during or after its completion. Examples of mitigation include translocation of vulnerable animals to safe alternative habitat, dust suppression or the minimisation of light spill. • Compensation - the protection of biodiversity assets should be achieved through avoidance and mitigation wherever possible. Compensation, the next step in the hierarchy, is only proposed for unavoidable impacts, and could comprise items such as recreation of habitats on alternative sites. • Enhancement - the mitigation hierarchy involves a step-by-step approach of avoiding, mitigating or, where necessary, providing compensation for adverse impacts of development. However, almost all development proposals also provide opportunities to enhance or create new benefits for wildlife, which should be explored alongside the application of the hierarchy of measures.
6.1 Recommendations for Avoidance of Impact
6.1.1 Positioning of the Development Footprint Whilst the current development proposals (Drawing 2) appear to involve construction, hard-landscaping or soft landscaping of the entire application site, those features that would result in the permanent loss of vegetated habitat, such as buildings, roads or paved areas, have been sited within areas that are currently species-poor semi-improved grassland, with negligible intrinsic nature conservation importance. The northern boundary of the site, comprising the hedgerow, mature trees and decaying tree stumps, falls within an area currently identified as a Forest Schools area and an area scheduled as soft landscaping associated with a Sustainable Drainage scheme. It may therefore be possible to retain some or all of these features, and this would be desirable. However, should it be necessary to remove any of them, this should not be considered a significant constraint (subject to the resolution of any potential bat issues) as their importance is considered to be of site level at most. All trees and hedgerows that are being retained should be protected in accordance with British Standard BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction. It is considered that the development footprint is already positioned in the optimum location within the application site with regards to the minimisation of potential impact.
6.1.2 Timing of Site Clearance Where possible, clearance of the site should be undertaken outside the bird nesting season, with the nesting season typically being taken as running from March to August, inclusive. However, it is noted that this may not always be possible and in such instances the clearance works should be guided by an Ecological Management Plan that includes such pre-site stripping inspections and mitigation as may be necessary to avoid impacting any nesting birds.
6.2 Recommendations for Mitigation of Potential Impact The following recommendations are made to mitigate identified sources of potential negative impacts: • The external lighting scheme should be designed to be bat friendly. The minimal amount of external lighting required should be used, it should be low level and directional in order to minimise light spill. The light should be equipped with systems to turn it off when it is not required for example at weekends. Cowls and hoods should be used to minimise the amount of lighting shining upwards, and particular care should be taken to avoid increasing the amount of light pollution falling on the mature oak tree (if it is to be retained) and the boundary hedgerows; • Site clearance ought to be carried out to avoid bird nesting season, which is from March to the end of August. If it is not possible to avoid bird nesting season, then the site should be inspected by a suitably qualified ecologist for the presence of birds’ nests that are either in use or being built. If any active nests are found, before the area is cleared, appropriate mitigation should be enacted to allow for successful fledging of the chicks (this will vary by species) and the nest is no longer in use; and • Access points for small mammals, including hedgehogs, should be incorporated within all fencing. Many small mammals, and particularly hedgehogs, are suffering population decline as a result of habitat fragmentation. • It is recommended that an invasive species survey is conducted at an appropriate time of year, prior to site stripping. This will enable confirmation that invasive species are absent or for the development of a mitigation strategy should this be required. •
6.3 Recommendations for Compensation The site habitats, species and ecological functions present within the application site are considered to have site value at most and suitable avoidance or mitigation measures are considered to be feasible in all cases. Therefore compensation for unmitigated impacts is not required.
6.4 Recommendations for Ecological and Biodiversity Enhancement Recommendations are listed below for ecological and biodiversity enhancements that would assist the development to meet local and national planning policy requirements, and to adhere to best practice. The current development proposals incorporate soft landscaping proposals that would have a positive impact on biodiversity, nature conservation value and green infrastructure, as described above. However, these development proposals have not yet been finalised and recommendations have been made which seek to maximise these positive impacts. It is recommended that an Ecological Management Plan is produced and used to guide and monitor the implementation of all avoidance, mitigation, and enhancement measures from pre-commencement and through the construction phase. The document would also provide a management plan for the maintenance of the application site habitats and species during the operational phase.
Opportunities for biodiversity enhancement include: • Native species with proven benefit to wildlife (e.g. with edible seeds, fruits or accessible nectar sources) ought to be used for the Forest School and SuDs area. To create a strong sheltered linear feature along the northern boundary should be reinforced with native species planting. This will have a two-fold impact: increasing the nature conservation value of the hedgerow offering foraging resources and nesting/shelter sites for a range of species and enhancing the green infrastructure. If possible, features
should be retained within the enhanced species-rich hedgerow, including the mature English oak, the mature apple tree, the semi-mature holly tree and the tree stumps. If it is necessary to remove the existing hedgerow completely then a species-rich hedgerow should still be created. • At the southern boundary of the site a dense tree-line or hedgerow that is as wide as possible should be created using native species, and/or ornamental species of proven benefit to wildlife. This will create food resources for a range of fauna species and provide nesting sites for breeding birds. It will create a significant benefit through green infrastructure and making the site more permeable to wildlife. • Establishment of soft landscape planting using at least 80% native species and/or ornamental species of proven benefit to wildlife (e.g. with edible seeds, fruits or accessible nectar sources). This will create food resources for a range of fauna species and provide nesting sites for breeding birds. This will be counted as wildlife planting and have a direct benefit for wildlife. • Consideration should be given to using species-rich cut-tolerant turf for amenity grass areas. This results in a diverse grassland habitat that can support foraging invertebrates, but that can still be regularly cut and function as a normal and attractive amenity lawn. • The Sustainable Drainage system ponds should be designed as a permanent water body, providing this is compatible with drainage function. The ponds should be planted to attract wildlife. If it is not possible than creating a custom-built wildlife pond ought to be considered. Green infrastructure would be enhanced by having a pond within the application site as it would provide a habitat link on the landscape scale. If the pond had a dipping platform it could be a useful learning resource for the forest school. • Installation of ten bird boxes on site in appropriate locations within the soft landscaping and if possible integrated into the fabric of the proposed building. If this is not possible, bird boxes ought to be fixed to the building. Areas which are earmarked for potential future expansion ought to be avoided. A range of box types should be on site including: one robin box, one wren box, two sparrow nesting terraces, three boxes suitable for small passerines and three boxes suitable for large passerines. Guidance for the location should be provided under the direction of an ecologist. • Installation of five general purpose bat boxes is recommended. Until the potential roosting features within the mature English oak have been confirmed, there are few, if any, opportunities for roosting bats within the application site. If the mature English oak is retained, then three boxes should be installed on it. Two boxes should be built into the fabric of the building. Integral bat boxes built into the fabric of the buildings have negligible maintenance requirements, are aesthetically pleasing, and long-lasting. Guidance for the location of the boxes should be provided under the direction of an ecologist. • An invertebrate nesting box suitable for solitary bees should be included within the landscaping under the direction of an ecologist. Additionally, log piles, habitat piles and other micro-habitats should be created in the Forest Schools areas and if possible in quiet but more exposed areas there should similar habitat piles. Creating a range of microhabitats would be beneficial to invertebrates and could also be useful for science classes. • Hedgehogs have been recorded within 500m of the application site, but there is currently little shelter for them on site and they are not considered to be resident. The inclusion of two hedgehog houses on site in the Forest School and/or Sustainable Drainage area would be beneficial. There should be hedgehog highways, where hedgehogs are able to get through the boundary fence. This prevents habitat fragmentation, which has a significant negative impact on hedgehog populations as it deprives them of access to their territories. • The creation of a school allotment area for the pupils/forest schools to grow vegetables, fruit and flowers should be considered. This would not only create benefits for the children, it would create diverse habitats available for a range of ecologists.
Conclusions The application site is dominated by species-poor agriculturally improved grassland, which is considered to be of negligible intrinsic nature conservation value and very low ecological importance. Small areas of tall ruderal vegetation and species-poor defunct hedgerow are also present, but are similarly considered to be of negligible intrinsic nature conservation importance.
There are no statutory or non-statutory wildlife sites on or neighbouring the application site. Provided standard best practice methods of construction and design are implemented, there is no significant risk of negative impact on any statutory or non-statutory wildlife sites. During the survey no legally, protected species were identified on site and there is a negligible risk of protected species being present. However, low potential roost features for bats were identified in the mature English oak tree. If direct impacts to this tree are expected, then a sensitive felling protocol should be determined by a licensed bat ecologist. This may entail section felling or an endoscope inspection of potential roost features. No further surveys are considered necessary. A small number of features were identified as having nature conservation importance at the immediate site scale, including the northern hedgerow and its associated trees and stumps, and the English oak tree. The development footprint is currently located to cause the minimum impact on these features, and to give the maximum possible chance that these can be retained and enhanced (Drawing 2). However, these features are only considered to have importance at the immediate site scale, and should it be necessary to remove them, they should not be considered constraints to development. With the implementation of appropriate ecological mitigation and enhancement, as per the recommendations listed above, the development proposals should represent a minor positive increase in biodiversity and nature conservation importance. Careful selection of species for the landscaping will create greater diversity than the current species-poor agricultural grassland, and a range of niches that can be exploited by invertebrates, birds and other species. The provision of bird nesting boxes, invertebrate boxes and bat roosting boxes also provides potential resources for these groups which are currently absent. Additionally, the new features could provide learning resources for the forest school and the proposed school as a whole.
APPENDIX 01
WBRC Data Search Results
Worcestershire Biological Records Centre
Protected/notable species and designated sites information
Protected/notable species and designated sites information held by WBRC as at 17/01/19 for 2km radius around Central Grid Ref SP032687 Holyoakes School.
Protected/notable species records which are wholly or partially within 2km of site. No Scientific Name Common Name Grid Ref Location Name Date Comments Status 558 Bufo bufo Common Toad SP035685 Batchley Brook 2002 WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP 647 Bufo bufo Common Toad SP04606874 Bordesley Abbey 1996 WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP 550 Bufo bufo Common Toad SP034669 Pitcher Oak Golf May - Oct live sighting WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Course 1993 667 Bufo bufo Common Toad SP047698 Bordesley Abbey 27/05/1996 275 Juvenile WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP 676 Bufo bufo Common Toad SP048685 Forge Mill Pools 05/04/1997 1 Adult; 2 egg/ovum WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP 397 Bufo bufo Common Toad SP019699 Great Shortwood 22/06/2000 2 Adult WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Farm 359 Bufo bufo Common Toad SP018699 Great Shortwood 24/04/2001 1 Adult WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Farmhouse 689 Bufo bufo Common Toad SP051688 Abbey Park golf 06/07/2001 Pond; 29 adults WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP course 460 Bufo bufo Common Toad SP024681 Batchley Brook Apr-01 Breeding pool WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP 397 Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt SP019699 Great Shortwood 22/06/2000 Juveniles WCA Farm 410 Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt SP020699 Great Shortwood 22/05/2000 4 Adult WCA Farm 397 Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt SP019699 Great Shortwood 22/06/2000 Juveniles WCA Farm 410 Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt SP020699 Shortwood Cottage 23/04/2001 3 Adults WCA 175 Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt SP020703 Shortwood Rough 23/04/2001 3 Adults WCA Grounds 676 Rana temporaria Common Frog SP048685 Forge Mill Pools 05/04/1997 12 egg/ovum WCA Worcestershire Biological Records Centre is Registered in England as a Charity and a Company Limited by Guarantee. Charity No. 1096279 • Company No4416182 No Scientific Name Common Name Grid Ref Location Name Date Comments Status 509 Rana temporaria Common Frog SP028671 Pitcher Oak Wood 08/07/2007 WCA 431 Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt SP021699 Shortwood Farm 2003 WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP ECH4 WorcBAP 173 Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt SP020700 Great Shortwood 2003 4 breeding ponds, 3 of WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Farm which created by ECH4 WorcBAP mitigation. 410 Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt SP020699 Great Shortwood 22/05/2000 1 Adult; 7 egg/ovum WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Farm ECH4 WorcBAP 511 Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt SP028684 Brockhill 21/02/2001 1 present WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP ECH4 WorcBAP 410 Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt SP020699 Shortwood Cottage 23/04/2001 47 egg/ovum WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP ECH4 WorcBAP 174 Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt SP020701 Shortwood Rough 23/04/2001 510 egg/ovum WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Grounds ECH4 WorcBAP 175 Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt SP020703 Shortwood Rough 23/04/2001 12 egg/ovum WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Grounds ECH4 WorcBAP 461 Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt SP024698 Pond, Butlers Hill 04/04/2011 Bottle trap; 1 male WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Wood ECH4 WorcBAP 243 Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt SP027702 Nr Butler's Wood 04/04/2011 Pond; 2 adult males WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Cottage ECH4 WorcBAP 461 Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt SP024698 Pond, Butlers Hill 20/04/2011 5 males, 1 female. WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Wood Torching & bottle traps ECH4 WorcBAP 243 Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt SP027702 Nr Butler's Wood 20/04/2011 Pond; 17 males, 9 females WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Cottage ECH4 WorcBAP 218 Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt SP023702 Woods nr 05/05/2011 Pond; 2 adult females WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Shortwood Farm ECH4 WorcBAP 461 Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt SP024698 Pond, Butlers Hill 05/05/2011 2 adult males, 1 adult WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Wood female. Torching & bottle ECH4 WorcBAP traps 461 Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt SP024698 Pond, Butlers Hill 12/05/2011 2 adult males, 2 adult WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Wood females. Torching & ECH4 WorcBAP bottle traps 461 Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt SP024698 Pond, Butlers Hill 17/05/2011 Bottle trap; adult female WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Wood ECH4 WorcBAP 461 Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt SP024698 Pond, Butlers Hill 26/05/2011 Bottle trap; adult male WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Wood ECH4 WorcBAP No Scientific Name Common Name Grid Ref Location Name Date Comments Status 501 Triturus cristatus Great Crested Newt SP027685 Brockhill, Marl Pit May-03 30 eggs. Mitigation site in WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP 1998. ECH4 WorcBAP 657 Alcedo atthis Kingfisher SP046688 Bordesley Abbey 05/06/2015 WCA 645 Emberiza schoeniclus Reed Bunting SP045685 Bordesley Abbey 08/05/2005 Singing - Forge Mill car NERC s.41 UKBAP Meadows park / lane 666 Emberiza schoeniclus Reed Bunting SP047688 Bordesley Meadows 09/06/2006 NERC s.41 UKBAP 657 Emberiza schoeniclus Reed Bunting SP046688 Bordesley Abbey 05/06/2015 NERC s.41 UKBAP 601 Passer domesticus House Sparrow SP041686 11/06/2014 NERC s.41 UKBAP Bird:Red 657 Passer domesticus House Sparrow SP046688 Bordesley Abbey 05/06/2015 NERC s.41 UKBAP Bird:Red 523 Turdus viscivorus Mistle Thrush SP029672 Foxlydiate & 08/05/2004 1 present Bird:Red Pitcheroak Woods 539 Tyto alba Barn Owl SP032686 Lowan's Hill Farm 01/07/2010 Brockhill East WCA development. Hunting in area south/downstream 634 Alchemilla filicaulis a lady's-mantle SP044686 N Redditch 11/07/1994 Grass verge - small patch Locally Nb ssp. vestita 658 Bidens cernua Nodding Bur-marigold SP046698 Bordesley Park 07/09/1998 Field pond - 1 plant Locally Nb Farm 692 Bidens cernua Nodding Bur-marigold SP051693 Abbey Park 24/09/1999 Golf course pond - Locally Nb frequent 692 Butomus umbellatus Flowering Rush SP051693 Abbey Park 24/09/1999 Golf course pond - Locally Nb occasional 614 Campanula latifolia Giant Bellflower SP042690 Tributary to River 07/09/1998 Locally Nb Arrow 615 Campanula latifolia Giant Bellflower SP042691 River Arrow 07/09/1998 Riverbank - c.10 plants Locally Nb 635 Campanula latifolia Giant Bellflower SP044689 River Arrow 07/09/1998 Locally Nb 698 Campanula latifolia Giant Bellflower SP052686 River Arrow 28/08/2004 Bank Locally Nb 689 Campanula latifolia Giant Bellflower SP051688 River Arrow 28/08/2004 Bank below footbridge Locally Nb 700 Campanula latifolia Giant Bellflower SP052688 River Arrow Jul-01 bank before/after Locally Nb confluence with Dagnell Brook 690 Carex nigra Common Sedge SP051691 Dagnell End Mdw 11/08/1998 M27 quadrat (2) 1 x 1 Locally Nb 199 Carex pseudocyperus Cyperus Sedge SP013688 Hewell Lake 27/06/1995 Common Locally Nb 645 Carex pseudocyperus Cyperus Sedge SP045685 Forge Mill Pool 07/09/1998 Occasional Locally Nb No Scientific Name Common Name Grid Ref Location Name Date Comments Status 666 Carex pseudocyperus Cyperus Sedge SP047688 Bordesley Abbey 07/09/1998 Pools - locally frequent Locally Nb 692 Carex pseudocyperus Cyperus Sedge SP051693 Abbey Park golf 24/09/1999 Pond - occasional Locally Nb course 508 Carex strigosa Thin-spiked Wood- SP028670 Pitcheroak Wood 05/08/1996 Several sites; main block Locally Nb sedge 479 Carex strigosa Thin-spiked Wood- SP026668 Pitcheroak Wood 27/05/1997 Damp woodland; locally Locally Nb sedge frequent; detached S section 356 Carex strigosa Thin-spiked Wood- SP018676 Foxlydiate Wood 12/08/1998 Several clumps Locally Nb sedge 185 Carex strigosa Thin-spiked Wood- SP012688 Hewell Lake 17/06/2002 Alder wood below dam Locally Nb sedge 550 Carpinus betulus Hornbeam SP034669 Pitcher Oak Golf May - Oct 428 Locally Nb Course 1993 677 Ceratophyllum Rigid Hornwort SP048687 Bordesley Abbey 28/08/2004 Eastern extremity Locally Nb demersum Fish Ponds 564 Deschampsia flexuosa Wavy Hair-grass SP036672 Plymouth Rd 08/09/1997 Locally Nb Cemetery 242 Dryopteris Narrow Buckler-fern SP027700 Butlers Hill Wood 25/05/1997 Locally frequent Locally Nb carthusiana 499 Epipactis helleborine Broad-leaved SP027670 Pitcheroak Wood 05/08/1996 Widespread Locally Nb Helleborine 521 Epipactis helleborine Broad-leaved SP029669 Pitcheroak Wood 05/08/1996 Widespread Locally Nb Helleborine 509 Epipactis helleborine Broad-leaved SP028671 Pitcher Oak Wood 15/08/2006 Woodland - 1 plant Locally Nb Helleborine 466 Epipactis helleborine Broad-leaved SP025669 Pitcher Oak Wood 15/08/2006 Woodland - 1 plant Locally Nb Helleborine 733 Equisetum fluviatile Water Horsetail SP0569 Dagnell End area 11/07/1994 Locally Nb 691 Equisetum fluviatile Water Horsetail SP051692 Dagnell End Mdw 11/08/1998 W6 community Locally Nb 585 Erigeron acer Blue Fleabane SP039680 Car showroom 08/09/1998 Car park - 2 plants Locally Nb 579 Erigeron acer Blue Fleabane SP038676 Redditch Railway 27/07/2000 Car park - 10 plants Locally Nb Station 522 Euphrasia nemorosa an eyebright SP029671 Pitcher Oak Wood 29/07/2000 Glade; some introgressed Locally Nb with Euphrasia confusa. Colony c.50 plants 2000. No Scientific Name Common Name Grid Ref Location Name Date Comments Status 644 Frangula alnus Alder Buckthorn SP045681 A441 20/08/2000 Embankment - established Locally Nb from introduced stock 550 Hyacinthoides non- Bluebell SP034669 Pitcher Oak Golf May - Oct 687 WCA scripta Course 1993 690 Juncus bulbosus Bulbous Rush SP051691 Dagnell End Mdw 11/08/1998 M27 quadrat (2) 1 x 1 Locally Nb 566 Luzula multiflora Heath Wood-rush SP0367 SP06 tetrad I 1996 Locally Nb 458 Luzula pilosa Hairy Wood-rush SP024669 Pitcheroak Wood 27/05/1997 Wood boundary; detached Locally Nb S section 459 Luzula sylvatica Great Wood-rush SP024671 Pitcheroak Wood 11/04/1996 Locally Nb 480 Luzula sylvatica Great Wood-rush SP026669 Pitcheroak Wood 11/04/1996 Locally Nb 733 Nuphar lutea Yellow Water-lily SP0569 SP06 tetrad P 11/07/1994 Locally Nb 692 Oenanthe fistulosa Tubular Water- SP051693 Abbey Park golf 24/09/1999 Pond - several plants Locally Nb NERC s.41 Dropwort course UKBAP 469 Potamogeton pusillus Lesser Pondweed SP025680 Birchensale 20/08/2000 Pool - frequent - stipules Locally Nb tubular 395 Potentilla anglica Trailing Tormentil SP019672 A448 12/08/1998 Grass verge - locally Locally Nb frequent - fertile 677 Potentilla anglica Trailing Tormentil SP048687 Bordesley Abbey 28/08/2004 Eastern extremity Locally Nb Fish Ponds 395 Puccinellia distans Reflexed Saltmarsh- SP019672 A448 12/08/1998 Roadside - locally Locally Nb Grass frequent 624 Puccinellia distans Reflexed Saltmarsh- SP043686 A441 20/08/2000 Roundabout - roadside - Locally Nb Grass locally frequent 692 Ranunculus lingua Greater Spearwort SP051693 Abbey Park golf 24/09/1999 Pond, 2 or 3 plants - Locally Nb course probably introduced but surviving 397 Ranunculus lingua Greater Spearwort SP019699 Shortwood Farm 23/04/2001 Introduced; 1 Locally Nb Pond 467 Rosa obtusifolia Round-leaved Dog-rose SP025672 Pitcheroak Wood 05/08/1996 Still present Locally Nb 666 Rumex hydrolapathum Water Dock SP047688 Bordesley Abbey 07/09/1998 c.12 plants Locally Nb fish ponds 666 Rumex hydrolapathum Water Dock SP047688 Bordesley Abbey 04/07/2001 Locally Nb Fish Ponds 732 Salix triandra Almond Willow SP0568 Papermill 07/09/1998 Locally Nb 666 Schoenoplectus Common Club-rush SP047688 Bordesley Abbey 07/09/1998 Reed swamp stand Locally Nb lacustris fish ponds No Scientific Name Common Name Grid Ref Location Name Date Comments Status 359 Schoenoplectus Common Club-rush SP018699 Shortwood Farm 23/04/2001 Pond Locally Nb lacustris Cottage 666 Schoenoplectus Common Club-rush SP047688 Bordesley Abbey 04/07/2001 Locally Nb lacustris Fish Ponds 666 Scirpus sylvaticus Wood Club-rush SP047688 Bordesley Abbey 04/07/2001 Locally Nb Fish Ponds 663 Senecio sylvaticus Heath Groundsel SP047674 Redditch Town 19/08/1995 Waste ground Locally Nb Centre 550 Sorbus aria Whitebeam SP034669 Pitcher Oak Golf May - Oct 1957 Locally Nb Course 1993 624 Spergularia marina Lesser Sea-Spurrey SP043686 A441 20/08/2000 Roundabout - roadside - Locally Nb locally abundant 185 Symphytum tuberosum Tuberous Comfrey SP012688 Hewell Park Lake 17/06/2002 DAFOR; LA. Damp Locally Nb woodland below dam 733 Trifolium arvense Hare's-foot Clover SP0569 SP06 tetrad P 11/07/1994 Disturbed verge - 1 plant Locally Nb 692 Typha angustifolia Lesser Bulrush SP051693 Abbey Park golf 24/09/1999 Pond - occasional Locally Nb course 449 Vaccinium myrtillus Bilberry SP023671 Pitcheroak Wood 11/04/1996 Locally frequent Locally Nb 634 Viburnum lantana Wayfaring-tree SP044686 Needle Mill Lane 20/08/2000 Car park - self sown in Locally Nb shrubbery from introduced stock 666 Zannichellia palustris Horned Pondweed SP047688 Bordesley Abbey 04/07/2001 Locally Nb Fish Ponds 222 Amara (Amara) nitida Amara (Amara) nitida SP016675 Foxlydiate Meadow 13/06/2012 Notable A 482 Phytodecta Phytodecta rufipes SP026671 Pitcher Oak Wood 14/06/2005 Notable B decemnotata 522 Boloria selene Small Pearl-bordered SP029671 Pitcher Oak Wood 25/06/1995 1 present NERC s.41 UKBAP Fritillary 440 Coenonympha Small Heath SP022672 Foxlydiate Wood 1997 1 present NERC s.41 UKBAP pamphilus 522 Coenonympha Small Heath SP029671 Pitcher Oak Wood 24/07/1996 1 present NERC s.41 UKBAP pamphilus 470 Cupido minimus Small Blue SP025682 Redditch 17/07/2017 Live sighting; garden WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP 522 Ladoga camilla White Admiral SP029671 Pitcher Oak Wood 1996 1 present NERC s.41 UKBAP 522 Ladoga camilla White Admiral SP029671 Pitcher Oak Wood 17/07/2001 1 present NERC s.41 UKBAP 468 Ladoga camilla White Admiral SP025673 Pitcher Oak Wood 25/06/2006 Adult NERC s.41 UKBAP No Scientific Name Common Name Grid Ref Location Name Date Comments Status 498 Ladoga camilla White Admiral SP027669 Pitcher Oak Wood 08/07/2007 Adult NERC s.41 UKBAP 481 Ladoga camilla White Admiral SP026670 Pitcher Oak Wood 18/07/2010 NERC s.41 UKBAP 538 Papilio machaon Swallowtail SP032674 Terry's Playing Field 09/09/2006 Released in Trench WCA Wood? 211 Thecla betulae Brown Hairstreak SP0158667652 Redditch 07/12/2017 Egg WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP WorcBAP 217 Thecla betulae Brown Hairstreak SP0164867636 Redditch 07/12/2017 Egg WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP WorcBAP 440 Tyria jacobaeae Cinnabar SP022672 Foxlydiate Wood 30/05/1997 1 present NERC s.41 UKBAP 223 Tyria jacobaeae Cinnabar SP016676 Brockhill Plantation 14/08/2006 1 larva NERC s.41 UKBAP 665 Stratiomys potamida Banded General SP047686 Bordesley Abbey 20/07/2009 Female on Hogweed Notable Meadows 529 Volucella inanis Volucella inanis SP030670 Pitcher Oak Wood 29/08/2008 On Devil's-bit scabious. Notable 565 Anguis fragilis Slow-worm SP036673 Redditch Old Apr-03 32 present WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Cemetery WorcBAP 688 Natrix helvetica Grass Snake SP051685 Bordesley Mdws 23/09/2000 WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP 655 Natrix helvetica Grass Snake SP046684 Forgemill Rd, Jun-10 4th year running, living in WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Riverside compost heap at end of garden 429 Chiroptera Bats SP021678 Wooton Close, 06/10/2003 Bats flying out of house WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Brockhill ECH4 WorcBAP 558 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP035685 Batchley Brook 2002 NERC s.41 UKBAP 550 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP034669 Pitcher Oak Golf May - Oct live sighting NERC s.41 UKBAP Course 1993 612 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP042686 Redditch 15/04/2001 NERC s.41 UKBAP 675 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP048678 Alvechurch 07/05/2001 dead on road NERC s.41 UKBAP Highway 623 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP043684 Alvechurch 27/09/2001 dead on road NERC s.41 UKBAP Highway 483 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP026683 B4184, Redditch 20/04/2002 dead on road NERC s.41 UKBAP 590 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP040687 A441 Birmingham 20/04/2002 dead on road NERC s.41 UKBAP Rd, Redditch 430 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP021680 B4184, Batchley 28/08/2004 dead on road NERC s.41 UKBAP 357 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP018677 Brockhill Estate, 30/11/2004 road kill NERC s.41 UKBAP Redditch 471 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP025684 Brockhill Drive 03/05/2005 dead on road NERC s.41 UKBAP No Scientific Name Common Name Grid Ref Location Name Date Comments Status 500 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP027683 Brockhill 03/10/2005 dead on road NERC s.41 UKBAP 469 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP025680 Redditch 25/05/2014 NERC s.41 UKBAP 622 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP043678 Easemore Rd, 24/04/2016 Seen 8pm; 1 NERC s.41 UKBAP Redditch 428 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP021671 Redditch 13/07/2016 NERC s.41 UKBAP 544 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP033673 Ferney Hill Av , 16/09/2016 1 on lawn, 21:38. Not NERC s.41 UKBAP Redditch seen here for a very long time 442 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP022676 Rowan Crescent, 12/10/2016 live sighting; 1 NERC s.41 UKBAP Redditch 532 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP0321567386 Vicarage Crescent 09/11/2016 dead on road NERC s.41 UKBAP 442 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP022676 27/03/2017 live sighting; 1 NERC s.41 UKBAP 544 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP033673 Fearney Hill Ave, 08/05/2017 1 Dead NERC s.41 UKBAP Reddich 557 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP035674 Bromsgrove Rd, 01/06/2017 1 Dead NERC s.41 UKBAP Redditch 512 Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog SP0289368374 Clarenden Close 28/07/2017 Live sighting; 1 NERC s.41 UKBAP 239 Lepus europaeus Brown Hare SP017692 Brockhill 02/07/2017 Leveret crossing road NERC s.41 UKBAP 616 Lutra lutra Otter SP042692 Bordesley Mdws 20/01/2003 1 present WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP ECH4 WorcBAP 510 Lutra lutra Otter SP028678 Batchley Brook, 19/01/2015 1 Adult WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Redditch ECH4 WorcBAP 443 Meles meles Badger SP022682 Wixon Brook, Oct-94 Dung or other signs PBA Astwood 664 Meles meles Badger SP047680 Alvechurch 29/03/2003 dead on road PBA Highway 646 Meles meles Badger SP045695 Dagnell End 11/08/2003 dead on road PBA 444 Meles meles Badger SP022689 Brockhill Lane 28/06/2005 PBA 545 Meles meles Badger SP0338868348 Nr, Lowans Hill 03/03/2010 Sett entrance - looks as if PBA Farm it may have been disturbed in past 546 Meles meles Badger SP0343068383 Nr, Lowans Hill 03/03/2010 A number of sett PBA Farm entrances through fencing by industrial area 656 Myotis Unidentified Bat SP046685 Bordesley Abbey 23/06/2014 <5 probably Daubentons WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP foraging ECH4 WorcBAP No Scientific Name Common Name Grid Ref Location Name Date Comments Status 656 Myotis Unidentified Bat SP046685 Bordesley Abbey 10/09/2014 Small no.s flying over WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP mill pond, likely to be ECH4 WorcBAP Natterers 388 Nyctalus leisleri Lesser Noctule SP0194567768 Non Civil Parish 15/08/2014 auditory record WCA ECH4 WorcBAP 600 Nyctalus noctula Noctule SP041685 Millfields SEC, 17/05/2010 Live sighting & Anabat; WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Bromsgrove foraging on site ECH4 WorcBAP 656 Nyctalus noctula Noctule SP046685 Bordesley Abbey 27/08/2014 WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP ECH4 WorcBAP 441 Pipistrellus Common Pipistrelle SP022673 Foxlydiate Cres, 11/07/2006 Live sighting; 27. First WCA ECH4 WorcBAP pipistrellus Redditch year bats observed 600 Pipistrellus Common Pipistrelle SP041685 Millfields SEC, 17/05/2010 Live sighting & Anabat: 2 WCA ECH4 WorcBAP pipistrellus Bromsgrove foraging simultaneously. 600 Pipistrellus Common Pipistrelle SP041685 Millfields SEC, 03/06/2010 Live sighting & Anabat: 2 WCA ECH4 WorcBAP pipistrellus Bromsgrove foraging simultaneously. 600 Pipistrellus Common Pipistrelle SP041685 Millfields SEC, 23/07/2010 Live sighting & Anabat: 2 WCA ECH4 WorcBAP pipistrellus Bromsgrove foraging simultaneously. 613 Pipistrellus Common Pipistrelle SP042688 Redditch 25/07/2012 WCA ECH4 WorcBAP pipistrellus Crematorium 656 Pipistrellus Common Pipistrelle SP046685 Bordesley Abbey 23/06/2014 1 roosting in building WCA ECH4 WorcBAP pipistrellus 636 Pipistrellus Common Pipistrelle SP0452669558 Non Civil Parish 15/08/2014 auditory record WCA ECH4 WorcBAP pipistrellus 409 Pipistrellus Common Pipistrelle SP0206567941 Non Civil Parish 15/08/2014 auditory record WCA ECH4 WorcBAP pipistrellus 215 Pipistrellus Common Pipistrelle SP0162567708 Non Civil Parish 15/08/2014 auditory record WCA ECH4 WorcBAP pipistrellus 268 Pipistrellus Common Pipistrelle SP0180167684 Non Civil Parish 15/08/2014 auditory record WCA ECH4 WorcBAP pipistrellus 388 Pipistrellus Common Pipistrelle SP0194567768 Non Civil Parish 15/08/2014 auditory record WCA ECH4 WorcBAP pipistrellus 515 Pipistrellus Common Pipistrelle SP0292568323 Non Civil Parish 15/08/2014 auditory record WCA ECH4 WorcBAP pipistrellus 656 Pipistrellus Common Pipistrelle SP046685 Bordesley Abbey 27/08/2014 lower numbers WCA ECH4 WorcBAP pipistrellus commuting & foraging 656 Pipistrellus Common Pipistrelle SP046685 Bordesley Abbey 10/09/2014 lower numbers WCA ECH4 WorcBAP pipistrellus commuting & foraging No Scientific Name Common Name Grid Ref Location Name Date Comments Status 600 Pipistrellus pygmaeus Soprano Pipistrelle SP041685 Millfields SEC, 17/05/2010 Live sighting & Anabat; WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Bromsgrove foraging on site ECH4 WorcBAP 656 Pipistrellus pygmaeus Soprano Pipistrelle SP046685 Bordesley Abbey 23/06/2014 WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP ECH4 WorcBAP 586 Pipistrellus pygmaeus Soprano Pipistrelle SP0400269282 Tutnall and Cobley 15/08/2014 auditory record WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP ECH4 WorcBAP 656 Pipistrellus pygmaeus Soprano Pipistrelle SP046685 Bordesley Abbey 27/08/2014 lower numbers WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP commuting & foraging ECH4 WorcBAP 656 Pipistrellus pygmaeus Soprano Pipistrelle SP046685 Bordesley Abbey 10/09/2014 lower numbers WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP commuting & foraging ECH4 WorcBAP 657 Pipistrellus pygmaeus Soprano Pipistrelle SP046688 Bordesley Abbey 08/07/2017 1 adult, ID using em3+ WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP during bat walk ECH4 WorcBAP 224 Plecotus auritus Brown Long-Eared Bat SP016693 Brockhill Lane, Nr 11/07/2004 Long term roost, visited WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Redditch by Worcs Bat Group ECH4 WorcBAP 14yrs earlier 396 Plecotus auritus Brown Long-Eared Bat SP019692 Ivy Cottage, 21/07/2004 Roost; fresh droppings & WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP Brockhill Lane butterfly/moth wings ECH4 WorcBAP 656 Plecotus auritus Brown Long-Eared Bat SP046685 Bordesley Abbey 23/06/2014 WCA NERC s.41 UKBAP ECH4 WorcBAP
Special Areas of Conservation records which are wholly or partially within 2km of site. No records found.
SSSI records which are wholly or partially within 2km of site. Site Name Easting Northing Dagnell End Meadow 405149.88 269237.13 Hewell Park Lake 401034.19 268900.69
Local Wildlife Sites records which are wholly or partially within 2km of site. Site Ref Site Name Grid Ref SP 06/18 River Arrow SP037695 SP 06/26 Abbey Forge and Mill Pond SP047686 SP 06/17 Pitcher Oak Golf Course SP034668 SP 06/14 Butler's Hill Wood SP025696 SP 06/12 Brockhill Wood SP023687 SP 06/11 Foxlydiate and Pitcher Oak Woods SP024671 SP 07/06 Shortwood Rough Grounds SP018705 Worcestershire Grassland Inventory Sites records which are wholly or partially within 2km of site. No records found.
Local Nature Reserves records which are wholly or partially within 2km of site. No records found.
WWT Reserves records which are wholly or partially within 2km of site. No records found.
Ancient Trees records which are wholly or partially within 2km of site. Species Grid Ref Site Name Date Girth (m) Comments Pedunculate oak SP02056923 BROCKHILL 02/01/2006 4.32 Bow lost on East side. Pedunculate oak SP02176911 BROCKHILL 07/08/2005 4.6 Deadwood and fungus in crown. Major limb loss on one side stands next to a pool. Possible root damage when making pool. Pedunculate oak SP01956915 BROCKHILL 02/01/2006 4.05 Oak in field - lots of dead wood on ground epicormic growth on trunk. Pieces of wood nailed to trunk and rope to branches. Pedunculate oak SP02476936 BROCKHILL 02/01/2006 4.35 Oak on hedge containing Field Maple, Ash, Blackthorn. Bracket at base of tree. Healthy tree 2 dead branches in crown. Pedunculate oak SP02566805 SALTERS LANE 28/02/2006 5.27 Not much deadwood on tree. A lot of nails in trunk, little bark loss in the trunk. Pedunculate oak SP02836746 BATCHLEY 20/10/2007 4 Pedunculate oak SP03726730 PLYMOUTH RD 24/03/2006 4.9 Crown lifted and deadwood removed in 2005. CEMETARY
DRAWING 01
Ecological Survey Plan
NOTES NOTES LEGEND
1. DRAWING IS BASED ON MAPPING SUPPLIED BY THE CLIENT: JACOBS SITE APPLICATION SITE N SURVEY AS EXISTING DRAWING, REF: BOUNDARY BW10099L A-DG-SK06, DATED: FEB 2016.
A SURVEY BOUNDARY
RUNNING WATER
9 132.5
130.0 DEFUNCT SPECIES POOR
135.0 HEDGEROW
127.5 130.0 LEGEND
127.5 INTACT SPECIES POOR 130.0 SI HEDGEROW 5 135.0 A 135.0
132.5 BROAD LEAVED TREE
127.5
A 130.0
130.0 4 125.0 SCATTERED SCRUB
130.0 1 127.5 132.5 SI
127.5
PWF 1.3h PWF 1.3h FENCE
130.0 132.5 132.5
127.5
0mScale 1:500 40m 125.0
125.0 POOR SEMI-IMPROVED 130.0 SI GRASSLAND
127.5 A SI
127.5 A ARABLE Hawthorn 2h 132.5 127.5 125.0
122.5
Hawthorn 3h TALL RUDERAL 125.0
125.0 1 122.5
125.0 130.0
Hawthorn 3h
Hawthorn 3h 122.5 SI SEMI-IMPROVED GRASSLAND 122.5 2
127.5 130.0
PWF 1.2h SI SI 122.5 PWF 1.2h
120.0 130.0 127.5 HARD STANDING / TARMAC
120.0 130.0
120.0 125.0 130.0
A 122.5 HARD STANDING SI 125.0 127.5
125.04 3
124.96 127.5 120.0 9 TARGET NOTE 117.5 1 122.5
117.5
PWF 1.4h
Conc 125.0
130.0
Spoil 127.5
130.0
122.5
Hawthorn 2h SI
RL 125.0
2 122.5 PWF 1.2h 8 RL Conc Hardstanding Hawthorn 1.8h Hawthorn 2h SI FL FL
EL RL SI RL 115.0 EP Conc
117.5 SI
FL 127.5 +44 (0)1786 239900 2DZT: NO. 68 STIRLING BUSINESS CENTREWELLGREENSTIRLINGFK8
PWF 1.2h ILIL PWF 1.4h + 33 4 76 70 93 41 BUROCLUB157/155 COURS BERRIAT38028 GRENOBLE CEDEX 1FRANCET: 7 120.0 JACOBS UK LTD BELFASTBT6 8DNNORTHERN IRELAND 8DNNORTHERN 0HW WATERHOUSE BUSINESS CENTREUNIT 77, 2 CROMAR WAYCHELMSFORDESSEX CM1 2QET: 01245 392170F: 01245 392171SLR CONSULTING IRELAND7 DUNDRUM BUSINESS PARKWINDY ARBOURDUBLIN 14T: +353-1-2964667F: +353-1-2964676 8 PARKER COURTSTAFFORDSHIRE TECHNOLOGYPARK, BEACONSIDE,STAFFORD ST18 OWPT: 01785 241755F: 01785 241780SUITE 1 POTTERS QUAY5 RAVENHILL ROADBELFASTBT6 T: +44 (0)28 9073 24932 LINCOLN STREETLANE COVENEW SOUTH WALES 2066AUSTRALIAT: 61 2 9427 8100F: 61 2 9427 820083 VICTORIA STREETLONDONSW1H T: 44 (0)203 691 58102 IL SI UNIT 2, NEWTON BUSINESS CENTRETHORNCLIFFE PARK ESTATENEWTON CHAMBERS ROADCHAPELTOWNSHEFFIELD, S35 2PWT:+44 (0)114 2455153 FL EXETERDEVONEX1 2NFT: +44 (0)1392 490152 2NFT: 69 POLSLOE ROADEXETERDEVONEX1 F: +44(0)1392 495572 Lowan's BW 2.5h LOWAN'S HILL 117.5
130.0 120.0 RL Hill FARM 8TH FLOOR, QUAY WESTMEDIACITYUKTRAFFORD WHARF ROADMANCHESTERM17 1HH, UKT:+44 (0)161 872 7564 Hardstanding 130.0 FL Grass 125.0 2ND FLOORHERMES HOUSEHOLSWORTH PARKOXON BUSINESS PARKSHREWSBURY, SY3 5HJT: 01743 239250
127.5 Farm FL Conc FL EL
Ditch 122.5 Ditch 115.0 RL 7 WORNAL PARK MENMARSH ROADWORMINGHALL, AYLESBURYBUCKS. HP18 9PHT: 01844 337380F: 01844 337381 FL 112.5 125.0
ASPECT HOUSE ASPECT BUSINESS PARKBENNERLEY ROADNOTTINGHAM. NG6 8WRT: 01159 647280F: 01159 751576 RL
122.5
MT1 SAILORS BETHEL HORATIO STREETNEWCASTLE UPON TYNETYNE AND WEAR. NE1 2PET: 0191 261 1966F: 0191 230 2346
IC PWF 1.4h SUITE 5, BRINDLEY COURT
19 HOLLINGWORTH COURT TURKEY MILLMAIDSTONEKENT. ME14 5PPT: 01622 609242F: 01622 695872 IC
124.68 1 GRESLEY ROAD SUITE 1,JASON HOUSEKERRY HILLHORSFORTHLEEDS. LS18 4JRT: 0113 2580650F: 0113 2818832 127.5 Conc PUBLIC OPEN SHIRE BUSINESS PARK (0)1483 889800 4RDT:+44 65 WOODBRIDGE ROADGUILDFORDSURREYGU1
117.5 FL SPACE 8 STOW COURT STOW-CUM-QUYCAMBRIDGECAMBRIDGESHIRE. CB25 9AST: 01223 813805F: 01223 813783 124.78
WORCESTER WR4 9FD +44 (0)1224 517405 214 UNION STREETABERDEENAB10 1TLT: BW 2.2h EL 117.5 MT3MT3 RL SI T: +44 (0)1905 751310 +44 (0)131 335 6830 4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEWEDINBURGH PARKEDINBURGHEH12 9DHT: 115.0
4 WOODSIDE PLACE 0141 353 5037 CHARING CROSSGLASGOWG3 7QFT: F: 0141 353 5038 6 120.0 F: +44 (0)1905 751311
FULMAR HOUSE BEIGNON CLOSEOCEAN WAYCARDIFF. CF24 5PBT: 0292 049 1010F: 029 2048 7903
www.slrconsulting.com LANGFORD LODGE 01179 064280 109 PEMBROKE ROADCLIFTON, BRISTOLBS8 3EUT: F: 01173 179535
TREENWOOD HOUSE ROWDEN LANEBRADFORD-ON-AVONWILTS. BA15 2AUT: 01225 309400F: 01225 309401 127.5 120.0 ST 125.0
112.5 112.5 PRF 1.5h 115.0 125.0 EP HOLYOAKES FIELD FIRST SCHOOL 122.5 ST RW 43M FV
122.5 CBF 1.2h REPLACEMENT SITE, REDDITCH 127.5 Hawthorn 4h Holly & Hawthorn 5h Ditch Ditch
127.5 PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL 117.5 TP PWF 1.3h APPRAISAL SURVEY SI 125.0 120.0 EP 103
PROJECT_TITLE_3
En- suite - 1464ft² - suite En-
2St 4Bed Det 4Bed 2St Lu Type - (P1464) - Type 120.0 78 112.5 (H) 106 PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL 125.0 103
115.0 Lu
Type - (P1464) - Type
2St 4Bed Det 4Bed 2St 107 EP 1464ft² - suite En- 127.76
En- suite 2St 4Bed Det EP Type - (P 1250) ACCESS TO 78 112.5 APPRAISAL SURVEY PLAN 127.60 122.5 LOWAN'S FARM
ST (H)
ST 112.5
DRAWING_TITLE_3 122.5 102 0 10 20 30Ex 40m 60 80 100 (H) (H) MHMH 79 102 Yo Fa Type - (P 1205) 2.5 St 4Bed Semi/Terr En- suite - 1274ft² 117.5 2St 4Bed Det DWG No. 1 Type - (P1274) En- suite 117.5 108 79 Metres 1:1250 Scale Date 1:1250 @ A3 JANUARY 2019 04946.00016.27.001.3_PEA_SURVEY_PLAN.dwg
Contains ©2015 Crown copyright OSpublic data sector [and © Crown databaseinformation copyright rights] licensed [and database under 0100031673 Open rights] government (2015) Expires 0100031673. Licence v3.0 [DD/MM/YY]
© This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR EnvironmentalConsulting France Consulting SAS and (Ireland) may not Ltd be and reproduced may not beor amendedreproduced except or amended by prior exceptwritten bypermission. prior written SLR permission. Consulting SLR France Environmental SAS accepts Consulting no liability (Ireland) for any Ltdamendments accepts no made liability by forother any persons. amendments made by other persons. © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons.
DRAWING 02
Development Proposals Plan
Drawing Number / Rev BW10099L A-DG-SK20
130.96 Community Playing fields Car Park 130.11 (future)
127.90 128.21 128.02
128.16 128.44
Forest Schools 128.33 Area 127.82 127.91
130.40
130.36 129.82 128.24128.28
129.25 127.83 127.73 129.19
127.89127.98 125.35 129.01 125.35 128.14 128.17
129.19 130.13
125.50
130.08 Key Stage 2 129.00 Hard Play 129.13128.96 125.42
128.99
128.89
122.64 128.80 Key Stage 1 125.26 Hard Play 128.75
129.75
128.61
128.53 125.50
122.89
125.48
125.50 Reception play
123.00
125.40 126.62 Rev Date Description Drawn Issued Rev'd Aprv'd
122.87 Nursery Play Revision Schedule 120.87 125.21 123.49 120.51 121.00 Lowan's Hill 124.84 Farm 124.16 120.71 124.55
121.67 122.60 122.85 123.68 124.35 124.41
121.16 121.59
124.16 Client 117.49 121.47 122.32 122.69 123.57 123.76 Worcestershire County Council 124.25 124.24
Original entrance Project 124.48 proposal Grey tone=Future New Holyoakes Field First School at Brockhill East Development, Drawing title concept design only Revised Brief - Proposed Site Plan shown
Drawing Status PRELIMINARY
Scale 1 : 500 DO NOT SCALE Jacobs No. JPI No. BW10099L A-DG-SK20 Drawing Number Sheet No. Rev 2FE Revised Design - Site Plan BW10099L A-DG-SK20 1 1 : 500 This drawing is not to be used in whole or part other than for the intended purpose and project as defined on this drawing. Refer to the contract for full terms and conditions. 22/02/2016 09:02:05
EUROPEAN OFFICES
United Kingdom .
AYLESBURY LEEDS T: +44 (0)1844 337380 T: +44 (0)113 258 0650
BELFAST LONDON T: +44 (0)28 9073 2493 T: +44 (0)203 805 6418
BRADFORD-ON-AVON MAIDSTONE T: +44 (0)1225 309400 T: +44 (0)1622 609242
BRISTOL MANCHESTER T: +44 (0)117 906 4280 T: +44 (0)161 872 7564
CAMBRIDGE NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE T: + 44 (0)1223 813805 T: +44 (0)191 261 1966
CARDIFF NOTTINGHAM T: +44 (0)29 2049 1010 T: +44 (0)115 964 7280
CHELMSFORD SHEFFIELD T: +44 (0)1245 392170 T: +44 (0)114 245 5153
EDINBURGH SHREWSBURY T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 T: +44 (0)1743 23 9250
EXETER STIRLING T: + 44 (0)1392 490152 T: +44 (0)1786 239900
GLASGOW WORCESTER T: +44 (0)141 353 5037 T: +44 (0)1905 751310
GUILDFORD WORCESTER T: +44 (0)1483 889800 T: +44 (0)1905 751310
Ireland France
DUBLIN GRENOBLE T: + 353 (0)1 296 4667 T: +33 (0)6 23 37 14 14