Site: 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, -cum-Thorpe Work Ecological Assessment Item: Client: Mr S Maggs

Author: Dr GW Hopkins FRES CEnv MCIEEM Date: 18 September 2018

Hopkins Ecology Ltd, St George’s Works, 51 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1DD T. 01603 435598 M: 07481 477103 E: [email protected] W: www.hopkinsecology.co.uk

CONTENTS Summary 1 1. Introduction 2 Background 2 Site Context and Status 2 Legislation and Planning Policy 2 2. Methods 3 Desk Study 3 Personnel 3 Walkover Survey 3 Bats 3 Reptiles 3 Constraints 4 3. Data Search 5 4. Site Description 6 Overview 6 Habitats 6 5. Bat Surveys 7 Data Search 7 Bat Preliminary Roost Assessment 7 Activity Surveys 8 6. Reptiles and Other Species of Conservation Concern 11 Reptiles 11 Other Species 11 7. Discussion 12 Evaluation 12 Habitats of Principal Importance 12 Species of Conservation Concern 12 Mitigation: Bats 12 Mitigation: Other Species 13 Enhancements and Opportunities 13 8. Conclusions 14 9. Appendix 1: Site Photographs 15 10. Appendix 2: Legislation 21

Summary Hopkins Ecology Ltd was appointed by Brown & Co on behalf of Mr Maggs to prepare an ecological assessment for a semi-derelict cottage and its grounds in a rural location near Aldringham-cum-Thorpe, which is roughly 2.2km inland from . It is proposed that the cottage will be demolished and two new dwellings built. Key components of the work are bat surveys of the cottage and any other relevant structures, and reptile surveys. The grounds of the cottage are ‘overgrown’, mainly with bracken and scrub of bramble and young sycamore. There are a few taller sycamore along the south boundary. Bat surveys comprised two dusk surveys and a dawn survey, each with multiple surveyors. The key findings are: • A single Natterer’s was seen to emerge through a missing window on 2 July 2018; a brown long-eared was suspected to have emerged from a hole in the roof on the same date. • No bats were seen to return during the dawn survey of 20 July 2018. • A brown long-eared was strongly suspected to have emerged on 14 August 2019. It is concluded that the cottage is used as a casual roost by singletons of Natterer’s and brown long-eared bats. Notwithstanding legal protection of the roost it is thought that a small roost of two widespread species would be of value only at the local scale. It is considered that the scheme is appropriate for low impact licensing, and it is suggested at this stage that the mitigation should comprise: • Bat boxes erected on trees within the Site, probably close to the south boundary, prior to demolition. These would provide alternate roost sites during demolition and other works. • The completed cottage should include bat boxes within the structure as either integral or external boxes. These would provide long-term roosting areas following completion of the scheme. Following planning consent a suitably licensed ecologist should be appointed to oversee the mitigation works. Reptiles were not recorded by direct surveys, and specific mitigation is not required. However, during site clearance vigilance should be maintained and material removed by hand where possible. Other species of conservation concern scoped-in are nesting birds, hedgehogs and widespread but declining moths. These would be minor components of larger local populations. Site clearance should avoid the nesting bird season or otherwise be under a watching brief. Additional measures of value to wildlife within the completed should include landscaping with native plant species, bird boxes, and fences or hedging that allow hedgehogs access to the gardens within the completed scheme.

Page | 1 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

1. Introduction BACKGROUND 1.1 Hopkins Ecology Ltd was appointed by Brown & Co on behalf of Mr Maggs to prepare an ecological assessment for a semi-derelict cottage and its grounds. It is proposed that the cottage will be demolished and two new dwellings built. Key components of the surveys are bat surveys of the cottage and any other relevant structures, and reptile surveys. SITE CONTEXT AND STATUS 1.2 The Site is ~0.2ha in area and comprises a semi-derelict cottage and its grounds to the east of Church Lane, a quiet country lane. The location is rural, near Aldringham-cum-Thorpe, which is roughly 2.2km inland from Thorpeness. There is forestry to the east of Church Lane and a band of deciduous woodland to the west. It is in a rural location. LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY 1.1 The following key pieces of nature conservation legislation are relevant to legally protected species (with a more detailed description in Appendix 5): • The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations); and • The Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended). 1.2 Also, the National Planning Policy Framework (DfCLG, 20181) requires local authorities to avoid and minimise impacts on biodiversity and, where possible, to provide net gains in biodiversity when making planning decisions. A substantial number of species are of conservation concern in the UK. A small number of these species are fully protected under the legislation listed above, but others in are recognised as Species of Principal Importance under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and reinforced by the National Planning Policy Framework. For these species local planning authorities are required to promote the “protection and recovery” via planning and development control. Examples include the widespread reptiles, skylarks and soprano pipistrelle and, brown long- eared bats. 1.3 Although the NPPF has an overarching aim of minimise impacts to biodiversity, the majority of species of conservation concern are not specifically recognised by legislation or planning policy. The level of protection afforded to these is undefined and should be considered within the overall aim of minimising impacts on biodiversity.

1 DCLG (2018) National Planning Policy Framework. Department for Communities and Local Government, London.

Page | 2 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

2. Methods DESK STUDY 2.1 The desk study comprised a formal data search from the local records centre and review of relevant data and information from other sources (Table 1). Table 1. Overview of desk study data sources. Source Information Biodiversity Information 2km data search for designated sites and protected / Service priority species MAGIC Additional information on statutory sites, habitats of (https://magic.defra.gov.uk/) principal importance and wider countryside information PERSONNEL 2.2 The survey work was led by Dr Graham Hopkins CEnv MCIEEM, who holds full survey licences for bats and great crested newts. Present on all surveys were two other licenced bat ecologists with field assistants as necessary. WALKOVER SURVEY 2.3 A Site walkover was undertaken on 27 June 2018, when habitats were described according to the methods of JNCC (2010)2. BATS 2.4 The potential presence of bat roosts followed the methods of the Bat Conservation Trust (Collins, 20163). Trees were surveyed from ground level for their potential suitability for roosting bats, looking for gaps, cracks and other potential roost features. Buildings were assessed visually and in conjunction with a short ladder and endoscope: first, to determine the potential presence of any roost features; and second, for any direct evidence such as droppings. 2.5 Activity surveys were undertaken following Collins (loc. cit.) as described in the Results. REPTILES 2.6 Twenty artificial refugia were placed along the inside of the boundaries of the Site, by trampling bracken to ensure the refugia were at ground level. The refugia consisted of sections of bitumen roofing felt ~1m2 and were put in situ on 16 July 2018. The felts were left in place for approximately a month before the first survey visit was undertaken. A total of nine survey visits were made in suitable weather conditions (between 9 and 18°C with little or no wind or rain) to check the felts for basking or sheltering reptiles (Table 2). The methods are in accordance with current survey guidance (Froglife,19994).

2 JNCC (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Surveys. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. 3 Collins, J. (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists. Bat Conservation Trust, London. 4 Froglife (1999) Reptile Survey. Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Froglife, Halesworth.

Page | 3 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

Table 2. Summary of reptile survey conditions. Date (all 2018) Time Weather 16 July - Placed in-situ 05 August 06.30 Overcast, light wind, 14°C 06 August 07.00 Overcast, light wind, 15°C 15 August 07.00 Overcast, light wind, 13°C 03 September 08.00 Light cloud, light wind, 15°C 06 September 07.30 Light cloud, light wind, 14°C 07 September 08.30 Moderate cloud, light wind, 11°C 10 September 07.00 Light cloud, light wind, 12°C 15 September 08.00 Hazy sunshine, calm, 15°C 17 September 08.00 Hazy sunshine, calm, 15°C CONSTRAINTS 2.7 Due to the tall bracken vegetation surrounding the buildings it was not possible to fully access the outbuildings or the entire extent of the cottage externally; access to the small brick outbuilding at the east of the site was not possible due to dense vegetation. The collapsed sheds to the south of the building made it unsafe to access or closely view the southern elevation of the cottage; access inside the cottage was not possible due to dense vegetation and the building being deemed unsafe to enter.

Page | 4 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

3. Data Search DESIGNATED SITES 3.1 Heathland located165m to the east is designated at European and national levels, and there are three non-statutory County Wildlife Sites within 2km (Figure 1 and Table 3).

Figure 1. Designated sites within 2km.

Table 3. Nearby sites within 2km designated for ecological interest. Site designation Site Distance from Reasons for designation survey area (closest points) Special Protection Sandlings SPA 165m east Designated for nightjar and Area (SPA) woodlark Site of Special - SSSI 165m east Heathland habitat with Scientific Interest associated plants, birds (SSSI) and invertebrates CWS Disused Railway Line 0.84km east Disused railway line with (Aldringham-Aldeburgh) species-diverse flora (Suffolk Coastal 3) Great Wood (Suffolk 1.9km south-west Ancient woodland Coastal 75) Common 1.95km west A mosaic of lowland (Suffolk Coastal 103) heathland habitats

Page | 5 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

4. Site Description OVERVIEW 4.1 The Site is a semi-derelict cottage and its associated ‘overgrown’ grounds, located east of Church Lane (Figure 2). The soil type is a ‘freely draining slightly acid sandy soil’. Figure 2. Ecology plan.

HABITATS 4.2 The buildings are described in Section 5, and the habitats are described below: • Bracken Pteridium aquilinum. The central part of the Site is a stand of tall bracken, with a moderately dense layer of thatch at ground level and without associated ground flora. • Scrub. Along the peripheral areas is sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus and sparse bramble Rubus fruticosus agg scrub. The sycamore canopy is typically 3+m and in places taller with some young trees; the ground flora is restricted to sparse bracken and nettles Urtica dioica. Along the verge to Church Lane the ground flora also includes lords and ladies Aurum maculatum, nettle and Russian comfrey Symphytum x uplandicum.

Page | 6 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

5. Bat Surveys DATA SEARCH 5.1 Relatively few bat records were returned by the data search, no doubt reflecting the limited amount of recording locally. The records are for four species: noctule, serotine, common pipistrelle and brown long-eared. Two roost records were returned, one each of common pipistrelle and brown long-eared and both >1km distant. BAT PRELIMINARY ROOST ASSESSMENT Overview 5.2 The site comprises a large clearing within woodland and contained cottage a disused cottage and several small outbuildings; two small brick sheds, a metal shed and two collapsed wooden sheds. The majority of the clearing supports dense bracken, which was up to 8 feet high in places. 5.3 Much of the cottage is obscured by trees and overgrown vegetation preventing full access to the site. 5.4 No evidence indicating use of the buildings by bats was recorded during the building inspection, although full access to the exterior of the cottage and interior of the cottage was not possible. However, a number of roosting opportunities were evident externally. The cottage is assessed as having high potential to support roosting bats and further surveys are recommended. 5.5 The metal and wooden collapsed sheds are considered to have negligible potential to support roosting bats. 5.6 The two brick sheds are considered to have negligible potential to support roosting bats. One of the sheds was within dense bracken and the other was between bracken and the immature woodland in the west of the site. 5.7 None of the trees have bat roost potential and they are not considered further. Outbuildings 5.8 A small brick and pantile shed is located to the east of the site. Access to the shed was not possible due to the dense vegetation surrounding. However, there are missing tiles along the western elevation. A second single skin brick shed with a pantile roof is located at the edge of the woodland at the south-west of the site. Both sheds are approximately 8 feet high and it is considered roosting bats would be obstructed from taking flight by the surrounding vegetation. 5.9 A small metal shed, and two collapsed wooden sheds were located to the south-west of the site. No signs of nesting birds were observed within the metal shed. 5.10 No evidence of roosting bats was observed. Cottage 5.11 The cottage is of brick construction with a pantile roof. Several of the tiles along the roof are missing or loose with gaps present beneath many of the tiles and along the roof ridge. A section of roof has collapsed in the north-east corner of the building. 5.12 Gaps are present in the wooden fascia along the western elevation of the building and on the lean-tos. Small brick lean-tos with mono-pitched pantile roofs adjoin the northern and southern elevations of the building. Several tiles are missing, and holes are present within the brickwork.

Page | 7 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

5.13 A small timber porch is present along the eastern elevation. A roof panel is missing, and the front door is open. 5.14 Gaps are present under the lead flashing surrounding the base of the chimney at the south of the building. 5.15 The majority of the windows across the building are boarded except for a timber framed window along the eastern elevation in which the glass panes are missing. 5.16 A large climbing rose covers an extensive area at the northern end of the eastern elevation. 5.17 Internal access was not possible due to safety concerns regarding building stability. 5.18 No evidence of roosting bats was found. A summary of potential roost features identified is provided in Table 4. Table 4. Summary of observed potential roost features. Potential roost Location feature Access point Gaps beneath tiles, loose and missing tiles, collapsed section of roof, gaps beneath lead flashing, missing window along eastern elevation, open entrance on wooden porch along eastern elevation Crevices Behind timber fascias, beneath tiles, beneath lead flashing suitable for roosting

ACTIVITY SURVEYS 5.19 The activity surveys are summarised below (Table 5). The key findings are: • A single Natterer’s was seen to emerge through a missing window on 2 July 2018; a brown long-eared was suspected to have emerged from a hole in the roof on the same date. • No bats were seen to return during the dawn survey of 20 July 2018. • A brown long-eared was strongly suspected to have emerged on 14 August 2019. 5.20 It is concluded that the cottage is used as a casual roost by singletons of Natterer’s and brown long-eared bats.

Table 5. Summary of observed potential roost features. Type Date / conditions and surveyor details Observations Dusk Date: 2 July 2018 Bat activity was recorded along the east of the Timings: 21:02 and continued until 22:47. site, with four species recorded; common Sunset was at 21:17. pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, brown long- Weather: eared bat and Myotis species, thought to be • 17oC, light wind (force 2-3 Beaufort Natterer’s bat. scale), 80% cloud cover. o The first call recorded was a Natterer’s bat • Weather at end: 14 C, light wind (force observed foraging within the clearing to the 2 Beaufort scale), 95% cloud cover. east of the building at 21:46 (30 minutes after Surveyors: Three surveyors were sunset). positioned around the cottage; a surveyor to the east, a second surveyor to the west A Myotis species, thought to be a Natterer’s and a third surveyor to the south-west of bat, was observed to emerge through a missing the cottage. window pane on the eastern elevation of the building at 21:55. Myotis species were also recorded foraging for short periods within the clearing to the east of the building.

Page | 8 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

Type Date / conditions and surveyor details Observations A brown long-eared bat was thought to emerge from a hole in the roof at the north-eastern corner of the building at 21:57. This bat was not echolocating and therefore not detected on the static bat detector. However, flight characteristics and emergence time were consistent with those of brown long-eared bat. A second brown long-eared bat was thought to emerge from the same location at 22:15. This was also not detected on the static bat detector. A low amount of foraging activity by common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle was recorded to the east of the building. No bats were observed to the west or south of the building. The last call recorded was a foraging common pipistrelle recorded at 22:37 to the east of the building. Dawn Date: 20 July 2018 An Anabat Express automated detector was Timings: The survey commenced at deployed inside the window on the eastern 03:26 and continued until 04:56. Sunrise elevation of the building at the start of the was at 04:56. survey and remained in place throughout the Weather: survey. No bat calls were detected from inside • Weather at start: 13oC, still (force 0 the building. Beaufort scale), 10% cloud cover, no The first call recorded was a common rain. pipistrelle at 02:48. The last call recorded was • Weather at end: 13oC, still (force 0 a common pipistrelle at 03:54 (37 minutes Beaufort scale), 30% cloud cover, no before sunrise). rain. Surveyors: Two surveyors were Foraging by two common pipistrelles was positioned to the east and north-east of the recorded at the start of the survey. Low cottage, where access allowed. Immature numbers of common pipistrelle and soprano woodland to the west of the building pipistrelle were observed to forage frequently restricted surveyor visibility of the cottage over the clearing throughout the majority of the and prevented bats from flying in close survey. proximity to the building on its western An individual brown long-eared bat was elevation. observed flying north-east from the northern end of the building at 03:34. This bat was not seen to enter or emerge from the building. A noctule was recorded flying over the site at 03:57. Two Myotis species were observed flying north to south-west across the site at 04:11. These were thought to be Natterer’s bat and were the last calls recorded, 45 minutes before sunrise. No bats were recorded emerging from, or flying into, the building during the survey.

Page | 9 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

Type Date / conditions and surveyor details Observations Dusk Date: 14 August 2018 An Anabat Express automated detector was Timings: The survey commenced at deployed inside the window on the eastern 20:06 and continued until 21:51. Sunset elevation of the building at the start of the was at 20:21. survey and remained in place throughout the Weather: survey. No bat calls were detected from inside • Weather at start: 25oC, still (force 0 the building. Beaufort scale), 100% cloud cover. o Three bat species were recorded across the • Weather at end: 20 C, light wind (force site; common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle 1-2 Beaufort scale), 100% cloud cover. and Myotis species. Surveyors: Two surveyors were positioned at the east and north-east of the A low level of foraging by common pipistrelle cottage, where access allowed. Immature and soprano pipistrelle was recorded to the woodland to the west of the building east and north-east of the site. restricted surveyor visibility of the cottage The first call recorded was a soprano pipistrelle and prevented bats from flying in close observed flying west over the cottage at 20:26. proximity to the building on its western The last call recorded was a Myotis species elevation. recorded at 21:32.

At 21:17, 56 minutes after sunset, a bat was observed to emerge from the north-eastern corner of the roof where the tiles were missing. No calls were detected although flight patterns and time of emergence were consistent with those of brown long-eared bat.

Page | 10 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

6. Reptiles and Other Species of Conservation Concern REPTILES 6.1 All four widespread reptiles are known within 2km, which is not unexpected given the extensive areas of heathland and coastal habitats: • Common lizards are known from 19 records, the nearest ~400m south-west along a forestry track. • Slow worms are known nine records, the nearest >1km distant towards the coast • Grass snakes are known from 17 records, the nearest ~200m south. • Adders are known from over 30 records, the earnest ~200m east along a forestry track. 6.2 No reptiles were recorded during the direct surveys on the Site. OTHER SPECIES 6.3 The scoping for other species and species-groups is provided below (Table 6). Table 6. Scoping for species of conservation concern. Species / Habitat quality Site conditions Assessment species – group Scoped-in Nesting birds Many records of a range of Site suitable for scrub Likely to be present species species, but probably in scrub and too overgrown for possibly buildings heathland specialists Hedgehogs Records from numerous sites Ample cover for shelter Potentially present within 2km and foraging Invertebrates Records of 78 species, with Site does not offer high Possibly small specialists of heathland and open specialist microhabitats assemblage of grassland (open short sward, of relevance widespread bare sand and chalk), wetlands declining priority and veteran trees with heartwood moths decay. 34 species of widespread but declining moths with priority status5 Scoped-out Great crested No records returned No ponds within 250m, Considered absent newts and not thought to be present locally Badgers Closest record from ~400m No evidence on-Site or Considered absent distant visible areas nearby

5 Butterfly Conservation (2007) Biodiversity Action Plan – Moths. Available from: http://butterfly- conservation.org/files/uk-bap-species-moths-research-only.pdf

Page | 11 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

7. Discussion EVALUATION Habitats of Principal Importance 7.1 It is not considered that any priority habitats or Habitats of Principal Importance (Maddock, 20116) are present. Species of Conservation Concern Bats 7.2 It is concluded that the cottage is used as a roost by singletons of Natterer’s and brown long- eared. It is not thought that a maternity roost of any species is present. 7.3 Notwithstanding legal protection of the roost it is thought that a small roost of two widespread species would be of value only at the local scale. Other Species 7.4 Based on the survey results it is concluded that reptiles are absent from the Site, given its overgrown vegetation of bracken and sycamore scrub and subsequently shaded and relatively cool ground-level conditions 7.5 Other species of conservation concern scoped-in are nesting birds, hedgehogs and widespread declining moths. These would be minor components of larger local populations. MITIGATION: BATS 7.6 The cottage supports a roost and as such it requires European Protected Species licensing. Given that the roost comprises singletons of two widespread species it is considered that an appropriate approach would be via ‘low impact licensing’7. The criteria for such an approach include schemes that result in the requirement: • To damage or destroy up to 3 ‘low conservation status roosts’ (these are: feeding, day, night and transitional roosts) 7.7 At this stage it is suggested that with this low impact licensing approach the mitigation should comprise • Bat boxes erected on trees within the Site, probably close to the south boundary, prior to demolition. These would provide alternate roost sites during demolition dn other works. • The completed cottage should include bat boxes within the structure as either integral or external boxes. These would provide long-term roosting areas following completion of the scheme. 7.8 Following planning consent a suitably licensed ecologist should be appointed to oversee the mitigation works.

6 Maddock, A. (2011) UK BAP Priority Habitat Descriptions. Available from: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/UKBAP_PriorityHabitatDesc-Rev2010.pdf 7 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bats-licence-to-interfere-with-bat-roosts-cl21/guide-to- using-the-bat-mitigation-class-licence-cl21-registration-criteria-and-how-to-apply

Page | 12 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

MITIGATION: OTHER SPECIES 7.9 Generic guidance to mitigate construction impacts are: • General clearance works should avoid the nesting bird season, including the removal of woody vegetation and also demolition of buildings. • Although is not considered that specific mitigation during Site clearance is required for reptiles, vigilance should nevertheless be maintained for their possible presence and material such as wooden boards and bricks should be removed by hand. If reptiles are found then advice should be sought. The risk of reptiles being present is considered very low. ENHANCEMENTS AND OPPORTUNITIES Generic Soft Landscaping 7.10 In addition to the specific mitigation requirements for bats, soft landscaping is the most appropriate Site-wide enhancement, using appropriate native species and species of known wildlife value. As well as providing blossom for pollinators, key points for many species groups is the need for insect prey, for bats and also for the chicks and fledgling birds of many species. Thus, a range of native plant types should be planted to provide a range of resources across the seasons from spring to autumn (insects and their predators), and also fruit and berry producing species in autumn and winter (birds). 7.11 Appropriate species include many native trees and shrubs, with further advice and recommendations available from Royal Horticultural Society guidance8. Additional Measures 7.12 Additional measures could include: • Bird boxes should be erected for locally relevant species, potentially including swifts with building-mounted boxes and boxes for other species on retained trees.

• The scheme should allow for the continued movements of hedgehogs, either with boundary hedging or with garden gates raised to allow them to pass under and holes within gravel boards to allow them to pass through9.

8 https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/wildlife-garden/wildlife 9 https://www.jacksons-fencing.co.uk/News/outdoor-living/new-hedgehog-friendly-gravel-boards- winter-news-topical-treats-and-more-6511.aspx

Page | 13 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

8. Conclusions 8.1 The cottage is used by singletons of two widespread species of bat, but a maternity roost is not present. It is recommended that the demolition uses a low impact licensing approach, with mitigation likely to comprise the erection of bat boxes on trees prior to demolition and bat boxes on the completed cottage. The mitigation works would need to be overseen by a suitably licensed ecologist following the award of planning consent. 8.2 Reptiles are not considered to be present, and specific mitigation is not required. However, during site clearance vigilance should be maintained and material removed by hand where possible. 8.3 Other species of conservation concern scoped-in are nesting birds, hedgehogs and widespread declining moths. These would be minor components of larger local populations. 8.4 Site clearance should avoid the nesting bird season or otherwise be under a watching brief. 8.5 Additional measures of value to wildlife within the completed should include landscaping including native plant species, bird boxes and fences or hedging that allow hedgehogs access to the gardens within the completed scheme.

Page | 14 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

9. Appendix 1: Site Photographs

Figure 3. Western elevation of the cottage. Photo looking east.

Figure 4. Eastern elevation of the cottage. Photo looking south-west.

Page | 15 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

Figure 5. Northern gable of the cottage. Photo looking west.

Figure 6. Small brick and pantile outbuilding located in the east of the site.

Page | 16 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

Figure 7. Collapsed shed lying the south of the cottage.

Figure 8. Lean-to adjoining the southern gable of the cottage.

Page | 17 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

Figure 9. Metal shed located in the south-west of the site.

Figure 10. Collapsed outbuildings located south of the cottage.

Page | 18 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

Figure 11. Scrub surrounding the site.

Figure 12. Dense bracken and scrub vegetation in the south-east of the site.

Page | 19 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

Figure 13. Verge to Church Lane.

Page | 20 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

10. Appendix 2: Legislation

Non-technical account of relevant legislation and policies. Species Legislation Offence Licensing Bats: Conservation of Deliberately capture, injure or kill a A Natural England (NE) European Habitats and bat; deliberate disturbance of bats; licence in respect of protected Species or damage or destroy a breeding development is required. species Regulations site or resting place used by a bat. 2017 Reg 41 [The protection of bat roosts is considered to apply regardless of whether bats are present.] Bats: Wildlife and Intentionally or recklessly obstruct Licence from NE is required National Countryside Act access to any structure or place for surveys (scientific protection 1981 (as used for shelter or protection or purposes) that would involve amended) S.9 disturb a bat in such a place. disturbance of bats or entering a known or suspected roost site. Birds Wildlife and Intentionally kill, injure or take any No licences are available to Countryside Act wild bird; intentionally take, disturb any birds in regard to 1981 (as damage or destroy the nest of any development. amended) S.1 wild bird while that nest is in use or being built. Intentionally or recklessly disturb a Schedule 1 species while it is building a nest or is in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young; intentionally or recklessly disturb dependent young of such a species [e.g. kingfisher]. Great Conservation of Deliberately capture, injure or kill a Licences issued for crested Habitats and great crested newt; deliberate development by Natural newt: Species disturbance of a great crested England. European Regulations newt; deliberately take or destroy protected 2017 Reg 41 its eggs; or damage or destroy a species breeding site or resting place used by a great crested newt. Great Wildlife and Intentionally or recklessly obstruct A licence is required from crested Countryside Act access to any structure or place Natural England for newt: 1981 (as used for shelter or protection or surveying and handling. National amended) S.9 disturb it in such a place. protection Adder, Wildlife and Intentionally kill or injure any No licence is required. common Countryside Act common reptile species. However, an assessment for lizard, grass 1981 S.9(1) and the potential of a site to snake slow S.9(5) support reptiles should be worm undertaken. Scientific Wildlife and To carry out or permit to be Owners, occupiers, public Interest Countryside Act carried out any potentially bodies and statutory (SSSI) 1981 (as damaging operation. SSSIs are undertakers must give It is an amended) given protection through policies notice and obtain the offence in the Local Development Plan. appropriate consent under S.28 before undertaking operations likely to damage a SSSI. All public bodies to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs.

Page | 21 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal

Species Legislation Offence Licensing County There is no Local sites are given protection Development proposals that Wildlife statutory through policies in the Local would potentially affect a Sites designation for Development Plan. local site would need to local sites. provide a detailed justification for the work, an assessment of likely impacts, together with proposals for mitigation and restoration of habitats lost or damaged.

Page | 22 1-2 Church Lane Cottages, Aldringham-cum-Thorpe: Ecology Appraisal