Chapter Ten : Ecology XI XII I
X II
IIIIII
IX
IIII
Introduction IIII regenerating woodland is found in the east of the site immediately bordering
amenity gardens which forms part of the grounds of the old cottages and Mill VIII
10.1VIII This chapter examines the ecological impacts of the development house. The majority of the site is buildings and hardstanding. A mill pond V V VII VII VI proposals during constructionVI and operation. It includes a description of the borders the site to the north east and mature broadleaved woodland to the study area, an outline of the methodology used an assessment of potential north and east. The B3400 runs along the southern boundary . impacts, followed by details of mitigation measures and an assessment of the significance of any residual impacts. The baseline data collected by Jaquelin Methodology Fisher Associates (JFA) is provided as a technical appendix. 10.5 The overall approach to the collection of baseline data is based upon Study Area “Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment” (IEA, 1995). The methodology used to assess impacts is based on methods recommended in standard EIA 10.2 The study area includes the site and surrounding land. The exact guidance, particularly “Nature Conservation in Environmental Assessment” extent of the survey area for each survey are provided in figures 10.1 – 10.3 (English Nature, 1994) and EC DGXI publications including the “Guidance on and methodologies in Appendix 4. Scoping” (DGXI, 1996). Consideration has also been given to the ‘Guidance for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom’ produced by the 10.3 The River Test, a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), is Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM, 2006). a shallow-bottomed chalk stream which flows through Laverstoke Mill from east to west. There are two branches of the river that flow across the central and northern parts of the site. The river and its banks have been modified as 10.6 Desk studies were undertaken in 2007 and updated in 2009. part of the old mill works where sluices, concrete channels and culverts have Biological records for statutory and non-statutory designated wildlife sites, been constructed. These features affect the physical character and ecology of ancient woodland, specially protected species, and species of conservation the river and its banks. concern (only records held since 1999 are included) at the site and surrounding 1km (2km for Badgers and Bats) were requested from the following: 10.4 The majority of the site consists of buildings and hardstanding with some amenity grassland and ornamental planting. An area of secondary
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 141 Chapter Ten : Ecology
• Hampshire Biological Records Centre (HBRC) – data sets are provided by the The Level of Importance of the Receptor Hampshire Wildlife Trust (HWT) which obtain information from; Hampshire Amphibian and Reptile Group (HARG), Hampshire Invertebrate Network 10.9 The receptor is defined as the feature affected by an impact. This (HNIC), the Hampshire Mammal Group and the Hampshire Ornithological receptor may be of negligible nature conservation value, or it may have a value at Society. Data sets are also provided by the Butterfly Conservation’s butterfly the local, county, national or international level. and moth database. 10.10 Features of international importance are those protected by international • Hampshire Ornithological Society treaties, legislation, agreements and designations. Examples include World • Hampshire Bat Group Heritage Sites, Ramsar sites, Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of • East Hants Badger Group Conservation. Certain species are also protected under international law, such as • Environment Agency those listed in the Habitats Directive (1992).
More detailed methodologies and full species lists for the surveys are provided in 10.11 Features of importance at the national level include those with statutory Appendix 4. protection, such as National Nature Reserves (NNRs), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and species with legal protection, and those affected by national 10.7 Ecological impacts from development are identified by relating the policy, such as national Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority species and baseline study to the master plan and information contained in the proposals and habitats. In addition to being listed in the national Biodiversity Action Plan as construction chapter of this ES. The impacts on ecology are assessed by (a) priority species, rare or threatened species may be listed in Red Data Books determining the level of importance/sensitivity of the receptor, for example (RDB) as categories 1 – 4; critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable and national, county, or local; (b) determining the type, magnitude and timescale of extinct. the impact; and then (c) using this information on the receptor and impact to determine the level, or weight, of the impact: described as very high, high, 10.12 Features that are important at County or District level may be protected moderate, low or negligible. The impact level is then described for each affected by Structure Plan or Local Plan policies. Sites can also have local statutory ecological resource (receptor). Finally, an assessment is made of the significance designations as Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) or local non-statutory designations of the impact. For example, a moderate or low impact on an internationally such as the County Wildlife Sites (CWSs) in Hampshire. Local and UK Biodiversity important feature is likely to be significant, while a similar impact on a feature of Action Plan priority habitats and species have also been identified for the area. local value is less likely to be significant. This is illustrated graphically in Table 10.1. 10.13 Features that are important at a local level may be of particular value in the context of the site itself. Local non-designated sites may also be of 10.8 Development on the site would occur in three phases: site clearance, importance to local people. construction, and operation. Impacts are described for these different phases of the development. Habitat creation is considered as part of the later stage of the 10.14 Habitats that are not included in protected sites or listed in Biodiversity construction phase. Action Plans may still be of value for nature conservation. This value may rest in the biological diversity of species or the potential of the habitat to support
142 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
protected species or species of nature conservation concern. Where a habitat 1996]). Habitats can be affected directly through loss or physical damage or has value for nature conservation, an impact resulting in a permanent reduction in creation of new habitat, or indirectly through pollution or effects of management. the habitat area for which no compensation is possible, or resulting in permanent Similarly, direct impacts on species could include killing or injury, and indirect damage to the site, could be significant. impacts could include pollution or physical disturbance of their habitat which reduces the value of an area to them without effectively excluding them from it 10.15 Species that are not protected by legislation or listed as priorities in altogether. Biodiversity Action Plans are likely to be common and widespread. Impacts on the populations of these species are unlikely to be significant. However, individual 10.19 When assessing impacts on species the following premise is used: cases should be considered, particularly birds, some species of which are still although individuals of some species have legal protection, in general, it is the common but have undergone a significant decline in the last few years. A effect on a population rather than the effects on the individual organism that is common bird species listed in the National Biodiversity Action Plan as a ‘Species likely to be significant in nature conservation terms. of Conservation Concern’ may be given more consideration than one not on the list. Magnitude of Impact
10.16 Where features have been assigned values at more than one level, their 10.20 The magnitude of an impact may be an obvious measurement of, for importance should be taken at the highest level. For example, a site designated example, the area of a habitat to be lost. Even such obvious measurements must as an SAC and SSSI would be valued in any assessment as being of international be considered in context. The loss of 1 ha of an important habitat totalling 2 ha importance, reflecting its SAC designation, and any impacts assessed (i.e. 50%) is generally of greater concern than the loss of 1 ha out of 200 ha of accordingly. important habitat (i.e. 0.5%), even though the quantum of loss is the same. For Type of Impact species, unless more detailed information is available, magnitudes of impacts would be estimated based on the proportion of their habitat affected (English 10.17 Potential impacts of any development proposal on receptors fall into a Nature, 1994). variety of categories (DGXI, 1996). These may be: Determining the Level of Impacts • Positive or negative impacts; • Direct or indirect impacts; 10.21 Once the importance of the receptor and the type and magnitude of the • Permanent or temporary impacts (for this study, long term = over 25 years, predicted impact have been identified, the relative level of the impact can be medium term = 5 to 25 years, or short term = less than 5 years); determined. When assessing whether an impact could be significant, it is • Reversible or irreversible impacts; important to establish testable criteria for that assessment. An established set of • Certain or possible impacts. criteria has been used for the selection of SSSIs by the Nature Conservancy Council and its successors (Ratcliffe, 1977), based on measures of size, extent, 10.18 Impacts may be direct or indirect (i.e. not a direct result of the project, diversity, naturalness, rarity and fragility. The factors chosen here are related to often produced away from the site or as a result of a complex pathway [DGXI, those listed above but are more appropriate for the consideration of particular
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 143 Chapter Ten : Ecology
species as well as habitats. Impacts are more likely to be significant where one or Recoverability some of the following criteria apply: 10.24 As described above, some impacts have longer-lasting effects than • Size (discussed above under ‘magnitude’). others. If, for example, an area of long-established unimproved chalk grassland is • Rarity - naturalness and diversity, summarized through the level of importance lost from a SSSI, it could take at least 100 years to restore an equivalent area of the receptor. supporting a stable chalk grassland community; therefore this would be more • Sensitivity - the degree of disturbance caused to habitats or species and the likely to be a significant impact. way this disturbance affects these factors, and the degree to which the feature can return to its previous state without human intervention. 10.25 An area of a more transient habitat can be easily re-created or restored • Recoverability - the ability to restore a habitat or species after an impact, within a small number of years. An impact on such a habitat is less likely to be significant. Examples of transient habitats include communities dominated by either in situ or by translocation or re-creation. ruderal species, young scrub, grassland that has developed after recent • Cumulative effects - the results of disturbance on habitats and species that disturbance and recent man-made habitat such as garden ponds. accumulate over space and time.
10.26 A similar measure is applied to populations of species. Most species can Sensitivity recover from small decreases in population as most populations fluctuate as a result of natural processes, independent of human activity. Rare species may 10.22 Some habitats and species are more sensitive to disturbance than sometimes be made more vulnerable by such fluctuations, particularly if they others. This can be due to the type of processes that maintain habitats. For cause species numbers to drop close to levels at which the local population is example, unimproved grasslands may be subject to constant minor disturbance considered not to be self sustaining and therefore local extinction is predicted. through grazing or mowing regimes but much less frequently affected by major Impacts on species known to recover poorly from loss are more likely to be events such as fires. The extent of isolation of habitat can also affect its sensitivity. significant. The cases for species are judged on the best available data. For example, as species can recolonise a disturbed area from adjacent undisturbed parts of a large or a nearby site; whereas small, isolated sites are Cumulative effects less likely to be recolonsied and are therefore more vulnerable. An impact on a more sensitive habitat is more likely to be significant than an impact affecting one 10.27 Cumulative effects upon a habitat or species result from the combined which is less sensitive to disturbance. impacts of many, varied sources or repeated impacts from a single source that collectively result in environmental change. These impacts can be additive, 10.23 Sensitivity for individual species is evaluated slightly differently. Some incremental, aggregated or associated. Such impacts manifest when individual species are more sensitive to disturbance than others. Some species, including projects form part of a wider programme of development, or large individual some rare species, will tolerate far more disturbance than others without it projects are deliberately segmented for assessment (Treweek, 1999). affecting the population’s viability. Impacts on species that are sensitive to disturbance are more likely to be significant than those unaffected by disturbance. 10.28 For example, a development project on land adjacent to a SSSI may result in some small scale, insignificant effects on that habitat, such as raised
144 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
visitor numbers and the associated increased disturbance. Where this Table 10.1 Predicted level (i.e. weight) of impacts of different type and development forms part of a wider regional development programme, which magnitudes upon receptors of different degrees of importance results in the entire area surrounding the SSSI being incrementally lost to development, the protected habitat suffers a combination of small scale effects Importance of Receptor resulting from each individual development project. The effects of this could include large increases in visitor numbers and associated disturbances, greater Impact type and International National County Local Negligible isolation from surrounding undeveloped areas, and increased edge effects. Taken magnitude together, these impacts could significantly affect both the quality and diversity of High (e.g. large Very High High High Moderate Negligible habitats and species within the SSSI. scale, long-term, or Low irreversible) Weighting of Impacts Medium High High Moderate Low Negligible
10.29 Using the above set of factors, impacts are weighted accordingly, as set out below in Table 10.1. Low (e.g. small Moderate Moderate Low Negligible Negligible scale, short term, or Low 10.30 During the impacts assessment phase, the actual impacts of the recoverable proposals are reviewed against the criteria described above. Those which score impact) highly (e.g. towards the upper and left hand side of Table 10.1) are likely to be Very Low (e.g. Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible significant. Each such impact has to be evaluated individually because small impact on significance is not an absolute measure but a relative one, as Table 10.1 makes the prey or clear. habitat unlikely to affect the local Residual Impacts and Compensatory Measures population of the receptor) 10.31 Ideally, during the design process, potential impacts should have been identified and the proposals altered to reduce negative impacts and to increase positive ones. However, it is not always possible to avoid residual impacts. In some cases compensatory measures are suggested; in other cases, no compensatory measures are possible. The function of the Environmental Statement is to ensure that there is a clear understanding of what impacts will arise if the proposals are approved.
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 145 Chapter Ten : Ecology
Consultation Implications of the Policy Guidance
10.32 As part of the consultation process the following organisations were 10.36 Ecological legislation and planning policy of relevance to the survey area contacted and provided with a draft copy of the Ecological Baseline in 2007: are summarised in the following paragraphs. Legislation and policies are described at the international, national, regional and local levels. • Tom Lord - Natural England • James Humphreys - Environment Agency International Legislation • Laura Grimwood - Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council • David Rumble - Hampshire Wildlife Trust 10.37 The Birds Directive (1979) requires European States to afford special protection to species listed under Annex 1 of the Directive. Similarly, the habitats 10.33 Each of the consultees was asked for their opinion on the scope of the and species listed under Annexes 1 and 2 of the Habitats Directive (1992) afford survey work provided in the baseline report. Natural England and the Environment these features special protection. Protection of the features listed under both Agency both responded with comments on the baseline. The Council also Directives is achieved, in part, through the designation of internationally protected responded with comments after seeking advice from Natural England and the areas. In the UK, the provisions of these Directives are implemented through the Environment Agency. The Hampshire Wildlife Trust informed the council that they Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and the Conservation Regulations (1994). had no comments to make. 10.38 Where development could affect such habitats or species, authorities 10.34 The comments provided as feedback for the baseline were considered must be satisfied that the development will not compromise the feature’s and addressed with additional surveys undertaken where necessary. After “favourable conservation status” or that any negative impact is justified by the incorporation of comments from outside organisations a 2nd draft of the baseline importance of the project and lack of alternatives (Article 16 of the Habitats was produced and disseminated for any further comments. Further comments Directive, 1992). were received from Natural England and the Environment Agency. The Hampshire Wildlife Trust stated that they lacked the time to respond in detail. In addition a Hedgerows site visit with Environment Agency and Natural England was undertaken. Further consultation and site visits were made with the Environment Agency to consult 10.39 Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 1160 “The Hedgerows Regulations” over the river restoration scheme. provides protection for important hedgerows. To qualify as ‘important’, hedges must be over 30 years old and meet ecological or historical criteria. The 10.35 A planning application for the redevelopment of the site for 78 dwellings Hedgerows Regulations require that landowners consult the local authority before was submitted to the Council in October 2008. The comments received from removing hedges, unless, for example, specific hedge removal is already statutory consultees including Natural England and the Environment Agency and permitted under extant planning permission. There is an ecologically ‘important’ comments from Hampshire County Council’s Ecologist, on this application have yew hedge bordering the site. been taken into account in the formulation of the revised proposals and the preparation of this ES.
146 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
Statutory Designated Sites 10.45 Environmental directives relating to protected species supported by river and floodplain habitats include the EC Habitats Directive, the EC Water Nationally designated sites Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the EC Environmental Assessment Directive (SEA). Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMP) are required under 10.40 SSSIs are notified under the Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside the EU Water Framework Directive and SEA is an integral part of the CFMP Act (1981, as amended). Additional provisions for the protection and process. The aims of the CFMP for the Test and Itchen in relation to this proposal management of these sites is set out under Schedule 9 of the Countryside and are to: Rights of Way Act (2000). As discussed above, these Acts are supplemented by the Conservation Regulations (1994). 1) Reduce flood risk and minimize the resulting harmful impacts on people and on the natural, historic and built environment. 10.41 The site falls with an Environmentally Sensitive Area. This is one of the 2) Support environmental legislation and targets, Government flood reduction agri-environmental schemes operating under the England Rural Development targets, the Environment agency’s vision, the implementation of EU directives Programme. and other stakeholder targets. 3) Provide information to planners to help shape future development in Legally Protected Species Test and Itchen catchments, so that it does not compromise the natural function of the river and floodplain. 10.42 The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended) and Countryside 4) Support the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (EA 2006). and Rights of Way Act (2000) form the main national legislative framework for protection of wild animals and plants in the UK. Schedule 1 Part 1 of the Wildlife 10.46 The River Test is a designated salmonid fishery under the EC Freshwater and Countryside Act lists birds afforded special protection; Schedule 5 covers Fish Directive (78/659/EEC). This directive sets imperative and guideline figures other animals; and Schedule 8 covers plants. Again, the provisions of these Acts for a number of water quality parameters. Certain species associated with chalk are supplemented by the Conservation Regulations. streams have protection under legislation: for example Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and Bullhead (Cottus gobio) are listed in Annex II of the EC Habitats 10.43 Different species have different levels of legal protection. For example, Directive. Annex V provides the opportunity to regulate exploitation of species bats and their roosting sites are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside such as grayling (Thymallus thymallus) at a level compatible with their being Act and the Conservation Regulations. Species such as native reptiles have lesser maintained at a favourable conservation status. degrees of protection. Badgers are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Certain activities affecting protected species must only be conducted National policy with statutory backing – Biodiversity Action Plan under license from the relevant statutory nature conservation organization. 10.47 In 1994 the United Kingdom produced the UK Biodiversity Action Plan 10.44 Development proposals must be able to show that all reasonable (BAP). This sets out the national approach pursuant to the Convention on measures have been taken to ensure that protected species are not subject to Biological Diversity signed by this country and 150 others in Rio de Janeiro in deliberate or reckless harm. The habitats of some specially protected species are 1992. In the United Kingdom, the approach has been to identify Priority Species also protected from disturbance and destruction. and Habitats. Action plans have been prepared for these species and habitats. These plans include targets for each priority species and habitat. In addition to
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 147 Chapter Ten : Ecology
Priority Species, the BAP included a list of ‘Species of Conservation Concern’. Local Planning Policy Action plans have not been written for these species but they are still considered to be at risk, and the government is committed to their conservation. The 10.52 Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan refers to nature/ avoidance of harm to such species is the key objective, rather than any aim to biodiversity conservation. It confirms that development will be permitted where it meet specific targets. will not have an adverse effect on protected species, harm the nature conservation interest of a statutory or non-statutory wildlife nature conservation 10.48 Under the CROW Act (2000) it is now the duty of every Government site or lead to the loss or deterioration of a key habitat type or harm the integrity department in carrying out its functions “to have regard, so far as it is consistent of linkages between such sites and habitats. with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biological diversity in accordance with the Convention”. Local Non-statutory Designations
National Planning Policy 10.53 Local non-statutory sites are designated by Hampshire County Council and are known as Sites of Importance for Nature conservation (SINCs). Neither 10.49 National policy guidance is provided by Planning Policy Statement 9, the survey area nor the land immediately adjacent to it are designated SINCs. Biological and Geological Conservation (PPS 9, ODPM 08/2005), with the However, there are five SINCs within 1.5 km of the survey area. The policies legislative provisions of these policies provided in the accompanying Circular affecting these sites are discussed in more detail below. (ODPM 06/2005, DEFRA 01/2005). Together these documents address the issue of development planning with respect to biodiversity conservation. Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan
10.50 PPS 9, Paragraph 1(vi) advises local authorities on how to manage 10.54 For Hampshire, a list of priority species and habitats has been prepared planning applications which may affect biodiversity interests. If significant harm and action plans have been written. These plans set out targets for the cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against, or compensated for, then conservation, enhancement and expansion of species and habitats, and what planning permission should be refused. Paragraph 14 refers to the opportunities action should take place to achieve them. It defines local priorities for delivering for building-in beneficial biodiversity features as part of development proposals. the UK BAP. A priority habitat list includes Chalk Rivers and locally targeted habitats include standing water, which are found passing through and 10.51 Paragraph 64 of the Circular requires local authorities to be mindful of immediately bordering the site respectively. Priority species for Hampshire indirect impacts of developments on SSSIs. Paragraph 84 of the Circular include: the Freshwater White-clawed Crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes), Water confirms that the potential effects of a development on habitats or species listed Vole (Arvicola terrestris), Otter (Lutra lutra), bats such as the Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus as priorities in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), and by Local Biodiversity sp.) and Dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius). Partnerships, together with policies in the England Biodiversity Strategy, are capable of being a material consideration in planning decisions.
148 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
Existing Environment River Test SSSI
Nature Conservation Designations 10.57 The River Test has a total catchment area of 1269 km2 which represents the whole area of land that is drained by the river and its tributaries. This chalk Statutory and non-statutory sites river together with its tributaries is an important habitat in a national and international context. Chalk rivers are a key habitat in the UK Biodiversity Action 10.55 One statutory designated site, the River Test (SSSI), runs through the Plan. They have characteristic plant communities, often dominated by River Water centre of the development. In addition one other statutory designated site, Bere Crowfoot (Ranunculus penicillatus var pseudofluitans) with Watercress (Rorippa Mill Meadows SSSI is located 1.7km to the south west. Five Sites of Importance nasturtium-aquaticum) and Lesser Water Parsnip (Berula erecta). The rivers for Nature conservation (SINCs) were found within 1.5 km of the site. These sites support an abundant and diverse invertebrate community, which contains many are detailed in Table 10.2. specialised and rare species such as the Fine-lined Pea Mussel (Pisidium tenuilineatum), and the Mayfly (Paraletophlebia werneri). The rivers are also 10.56 Rotten Hill Copse, Boxham’s Close, Clapper Copse and Overton Green notable for their important fisheries, generally game species such as Brown Trout Lanes SINCs are categorised as Semi-Natural Ancient Woodland under the (Salmo trutta) and Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). Other important fish species Criteria for selecting Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation in Hampshire. include Bullhead (Cottus gobio) and Brook Lamprey (Lampetra planeri). Additional key species found in chalk rivers include Water Vole (Arvicola terrestris), Otter Table 10.2: Statutory designated site identification and distance from the (Lutra lutra) and the White Clawed Crayfish (Austropotomobius pallipes) – all survey area identified as priority species in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (HBP 2000). Designated SINC Criteria Distance Central Site Species/habitat site from Site Grid ref. supported Bere Mill Meadows SSSI River Test SSSI 0.0 km SU49204860 Otters, invertebrates Bere Mill 1.5 km SU475477 Unimproved neutral 10.58 Located downstream of Laverstoke Mill adjacent to the River Test SSSI is Meadows SSSI grassland Bere Mill Meadows SSSI. The citation for this SSSI indicates that this site is herb- Boxhams Close 0.6 km SU49304790 Ancient Woodland 1A/1B rich unimproved neutral grassland located on the flood plain. Species found here SINC include grass species such as Sweet Vernal Grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), Rotten Hill 0.5 km SU49904870 Ancient Woodland 1A Red Fescue (Festuca rubra) and Purple Moor Grass (Molinia caerulea) and wet Copse SINC meadow herbs such as Ragged Robin (Lychnis flos-cuculi), Marsh Avens (Geum Clapper Copse 1.0 km SU48204790 Ancient Woodland 1A/1B rivale) and Southern Marsh Orchid (Dactylorhiza praetermissa). Ditches at the site SINC which are purportedly from the water meadow drainage system contain a variety Watch Lane 6C 1.5 km SU48405000 Orchids/ Helleborines of species which have produced a fen-type habitat including Lesser and Greater Road Verge (RV:176) SINC Pond Sedge (Carex acutiformis & C.riparia), Yellow Flag Iris (Iris pseudacorus) and Floating Sweet Grass (Glyceria fluitans). Overton Green 1A 1.5 km SU50914918 Ancient Woodland Lanes SINC
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 149 Chapter Ten : Ecology
The Habitats of the Survey Area Figure 10.1 : Habitat Survey
10.59 A series of field surveys were undertaken by Jaquelin Fisher Assocates (JFA) at the site and its immediate surroundings between February and May 2007 Building and an update survey was completed between August and September 2009. An extended Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken at the site in order to gather Hardstanding preliminary ecological data. This followed the standard Phase 1 auditing method developed by the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC, 1990). The site was Secondary woodland surveyed on foot and the existing habitats and land uses were recorded on an appropriately scaled map. Habitats were classified using the standard criteria. In Amenity Grassland and addition, the dominant species within each habitat were recorded. Although the ornamental Planting initial survey was undertaken partly outside the recommended survey season (May – October), the relative simplicity of the habitats meant that it is highly 1 Target note 1 - Secondary woodland unlikely any features were overlooked. The update survey was conducted in Target note 2 - Yew Hedge optimal survey conditions. 2 3 Target note 3 - Mammal hole 10.60 The results of the habitat surveys are detailed below and on Figure 10.1. (2007 survey only) The different habitats present within the survey area are described, followed by notes on directly adjacent land. River Test - direction of flow
River Test
Marginal Vegetation
10.61 Areas alongside waterways, which are found in the form of sluices, concrete channels and culverts, display marginal species such as: Hartstongue (Phyllitis scolopendrium), Maidenhair Spleenwort (Asplenium trichomanes) and mosses.. Additional marginal species recorded in 2009 include Gipsywort (Lycopus europaeus), Broad-leaved Willow Herb (Epilobium montanum), Orange Balsam (Impatiens capensis), Square-stalked St. John’s-wort (Hypericum tetrapterum) Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus), Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Angelica (Angelica sylvestris) and Bittersweet (Solanum dulcamara).
The majority of the margins of the main river channel have been modified by the Source. Jaquelin Fisher Associates construction and works of Laverstoke Mill. This has resulted in a steep sided
150 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
Mature Woodland
3 Mill Pond
Mature Woodland River Test
River Test
1
B3400 2
Laverstoke
Scale metres
0 20 40 60 80 100
Based upon the Ordnance Survey scale map with the permission of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. O.S. Licence No. AL 50068A
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 151 Chapter Ten : Ecology
canalised channel with limited marginal or emergent vegetation apart from the Hard-standing species above which can colonise the steep sided channels. 10.65 The majority of the site comprised of hard-standing. Several ruderal Emergent and Aquatic Vegetation species were found overgrowing this in places including: Dandelion (Taraxacum 10.62 In the stream beds, patches of Starworts (Callitriche sp.), Fools’ officinale agg.), Broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius), Nettle (Urtica dioica), watercress (Apium nodiflorum), Stream Water Crowfoot (Ranunculus penicillatus) Cleavers (Galium aparine), Spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Rosebay Willowherb and Greater Water Moss (Fontinalis antipyretica) were present. These formed (Chamerion angustifolium), Daisy (Bellis perennis), Bittercress (Cardamine sp.), patches in both the main channel and the bypass channel. The bypass channel Butterfly Bush (Buddleja davidii), Yellow Corydalis (Pseudofumaria lutea) and was heavily shaded in parts by trees on the northern bank which has resulted in dense areas of Ivy-leaved Toadflax (Cymbalaria muralis).Additional ruderal species reduced light to this river channel which in turn has lead to reduced macrophytes. recorded in 2009 include Hemp Agrimony (Eupatorium cannabinum) Mexican In the bypass channel where flow was reduced and less turbulent, Water Mint fleabane (Erigeron karvinskianus), Common Bistort (Persicaria bistorta), (Mentha aquatica), Water Speedwell (Veronica anagallis-aquatica) and Nipplewort (Lapsana communis), Willow (Salix sp.), Virginia Creeper Waterforget-me-not (Myosotis scorpiodes) are also locally abundant emergent (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), Prickly Sow-thistle (Sonchus asper), Creeping vegetation. Thistle (Cirsium arvense) and Prickly Lettuce (Lactuca serriola).
Adjacent Areas up and downstream Secondary regenerating woodland and scrub with scattered trees 10.63 The margins of the river upstream and downstream of the mill complex had more natural margins grading into river edge fen habitats with emergent beds 10.66 In the eastern part of the site is an enclosed area of woodland /scrub of Lesser Pond Sedge (Carex acutiformis) and Reed Sweet Grass (Glyceria (Target note 1) with a mixture of native and ornamental species. At the time of maxima). Water Mint (Mentha aquatica), Water Speedwell (Veronica anagallis- the survey the herbaceous layer was comprised of Ivy (Hedera helix), Lords and aquatica) and Water Forget-me-not (Myosotis scorpioides) were also locally Ladies (Arum maculatum) Hartstongue (Phyllitis scolopendrium), Cow Parsley abundant in quieter waters. Other species recorded include Yellow Iris (Iris (Anthriscus sylvestris), Snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis) and Daffodil (Narcissus sp.). pseudacorus), Meadow Sweet (Filipendula ulmaria), Water Avens (Geum rivale) Additional herbaceous species recorded in 2009 include herb Robert (Geranium and Angelica (Angelica sylvestris). robertianum), dog’s mercury (Mercurialis perennis), enchanters nightshade (Circaea lutetiana), ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea) dock (Rumex sp.) Ivy Buildings (Hedera helix), and Virginia creeper. The shrub layer was comprised of: Bramble (Rubus fruticosus), Nettle (Urtica dioica), Elder (Sambucus nigra), Ash (Fraxinus 10.64 The buildings on site which date from pre-1954 have been categorised excelsior), Dog rose (Rosa canina), Dogwood (Cornus sanguinea). into 8 phases of construction by English Heritage (Figure 8.1). The Cottages and Mill house were built pre-1854 and are made from red brick/flint, with tiled roofs 10.67 Tree species were both coniferous and deciduous including: Spruce (phase 1). Buildings categorised as Phase 2-6 are red brick with tiled roofs. (Picea sp.), Cypressus/Chamaecyparis sp.), Beech (Fagus sylvatica), Yew (Taxus Buildings categorised as Phase 7-8 are primarily storage buildings made from baccata), Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and ornamental fruit trees. The Beech brick/breeze blocks with corrugated iron roofs. These building have the potential trees appear to be a remnant of a former beech hedge. To the south of this the to support roosting bats and birds. The results of bird and bat surveys of these habitat grades from more mature trees with a few open glades to a more open buildings are provided in the protected species section below.
152 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
structure with scattered immature trees such as Spruce and Sycamore (Acer Adjacent areas pseudoplatanus,). The scrub present in this section is predominantly Bramble. This small copse is of a relatively low ecological value being predominantly a mix 10.70 Bordering the site to the north is an area of copse, bordering wetlands, of non-native species with only the mature beech being of any particular containing some very mature trees, including: Plane (Platanus sp.), Ash, Sweet ecological value. Chestnut (Castanea sativa), Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), English Elm (Ulmus procera), Goat willow (Salix caprea), Box (Buxus sempervirens) and Yew (Taxus Amenity grassland and ornamental shrubs baccata). Yew saplings have recently been planted in the understorey. Many of the Sweet Chestnut trees are dying. Other species found included: Ivy, Bramble, 10.68 To the south and east of the Cottages and Mill house there are areas of Bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), Marsh Thistle (Cirsium palustre), Pendulous sedge amenity grassland/ornamental planting and mature trees. Species present include (Carex pendula), Burdock (Arctium sp.), Common Polypody (Polypodium Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne), Creeping Buttercup (Ranunculus bulbosus), vulgare), Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata), Butterbur (Petasites hybridus), Lords Heather (Erica spp.), Hebe sp., Spindle (Euonymus fortunei), Redcurrant (Ribes and Ladies, Snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis), Wild Daffodil (Narcissus rubrum), Rosemary (Rosemarinus officinalis), Cotoneaster sp., Rhododendron sp., pseudonarcissus) and Holly (Ilex aquifolium). Viburnum sp. and various additional ornamental shrub and several tree species including hornbeam (Carpinus betulus). During the 2009 survey the grassland 10.71 There is a large Mill pond situated on the north eastern side of the site. was found unkept and overgrown; additional species recorded included Cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata), Yorkshire Fog (Holcus lanatus), Creeping bent This pond supports various waterfowl such as Canada Goose (Branta (Agrostis stolonifera), Yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Ribwort Plantain (Plantago Canadensis), Gadwall (Anas strepera) and Tufted duck (Aythya fuligula) and fish lanceolata), Perforate St. John’s-wort (Hypericum perforatum), Foxglove (Digitalis stocks which consist predominately of Roach (Rutilus rutilus). The pond fringes purpurea), Hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium), Bramble and Virginia Creeper. also have the potential to support invertebrates such as dragonflies. This pond is There are several mature trees found to the front of the Cottages and Mill House, fed by the River Test upstream of Laverstoke Mill. Water drains into the river from these include: False Acacia (Robinia pseudoacacia), Lime (Tilia sp.) and Yew. the pond into the western and northern end of the bypass channel. Holly (Ilex aquifolium), Ivy (Hedera helix) and Hazel (Corylus avellana) are also present. 10.72 The river immediately upstream of Laverstoke Mill has been modified in the past presumably in part to accommodate the large mill pond located to the Hedgerows north east of the site. These modifications have resulted in a narrower and deeper main channel than would be expected in a natural chalk river. In addition the 10.69 The southern boundary of the site is delineated by a well kept Yew hedge banks of the river appear to have been artificially raised. This along with the (Target note 2) which is approximately 40 metres long. Several large trees are also regrading of the main channel has resulted in significant silting of the margins of found along the line of the hedgerow including, a large Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) the channel. and Sycamore (Acer pseudoplanatus) and Cypressus/Chamaecyparis sp. Lords and ladies (Arum maculatum), Primrose (Primula vulgaris), Lesser Celendine 10.73 The river immediately downstream of the site appears less modified with (Ranunculus ficaria), Ivy (Hedera helix) were recorded on the associated bank in a more naturally graded river bed and natural looking margins which grade gently 2007.
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 153 Chapter Ten : Ecology
into the river. In sections there are areas of siltation but the majority of the river 10.77 The Yew hedgerow recorded on site meets criterion 8 set out in the bed appears graded with coarse gravel and shingle. Hedgerow Regulations as follows: The hedgerow runs alongside a byway open to all traffic and includes at least 4 woody species, on average, in a 30m length and Discussion of habitat results has associated features including (i) A bank supporting the hedgerow; (ii) Less than 10% gaps; (iii) On average, at least one tree per 50m; (iv) At least 3 species 10.74 Overall, with the exception of the River Test, the habitats on this site have from a list of 57 woodland plants; (vi) A number of connections with other limited ecological value. The site supports unexceptional habitats with common hedgerows, ponds or woodland. This hedge is therefore of significance within the and widespread species. surrounding environment and should be appropriately protected and managed throughout the course of construction/operation of the site. 10.75 The presence of the River Test SSSI running through the site is of ecological importance and therefore appropriate mitigation will need to be 10.78 The waterways, secondary woodland and hedgerows have the potential administered around this sensitive habitat during the construction and operation to develop naturally into more ecologically valuable habitat. The secondary phases of the development. The watercourses that run through the site have woodland is currently unmanaged and consists primarily of non-native species been greatly modified as part of the Mill works. The channels and associated with large areas of ruderal scrub. sluices are made of concrete and therefore the growth of vegetation along the banks is limited. River Water Crowfoot (Ranunculus penicillatus var Species within the Survey Area pseudofluitans) can grow in the main channels very quickly in the spring/summer and unless managed can block the portals under the Mill. 10.79 Comprehensive surveys were undertaken by JFA between February and October 2007 and August and September 2009. This consisted of a desk study 10.76 The main channel of the River Test as it passes through Laverstoke Mill and field surveys, the results of which are summarised below. Detailed has been modified over the last 150 years to accommodate the workings of the methodologies and the full results of each species survey are provided in mill. This has resulted in a number of structures which impede water flow such as Appendix 4. weirs and gates as well as the realignment of the main channel through a series of concrete sluices. In addition a number of structures including buildings have Bats been constructed over the river reducing light to certain sections. The combination of these modifications has led to some ecologically adverse 10.80 The Hampshire Bat Group and HBRC held six records of foraging or changes. The flow through the site has been altered in the main channel with the roosting within a 2 km area around the site. Species recorded include Whiskered deeper channel slowing flow in parts and causing heavy siltation. The variation of Bat (Myotis mystacinus), Pipistrelle bat (Pipistrellus sp.) and Brown Long-Eared flow with riffles and pooling which would be present in a natural river are not Bat (Plecotus auritus). All species are European Protected Species and the latter present within the main river channel as a result of these modifications. In addition two are UK BAP species. the infrastructure which spans the river blocks lights and reduces the macrophyte community. It should be possible to enhance the River Test by reducing the 10.81 A total of eight bat surveys were undertaken at the site; four in 2007 and impact of these modifications and to some extent removing some of the four in 2009 . These surveys included one daytime survey for each survey year modifications. The buildings on site were assessed externally and where possible internally to
154 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
look for evidence of bats and determine their potential to support roosting bats. were recorded in building 28 (tower) and these were identified as long brown- Six evening emergent surveys were undertaken in good weather conditions. eared. It would appear that these buildings are being used for foraging and These emergent surveys focused on buildings that had been highlighted during occasional roosting. the daytime inspections. The aim of these surveys was to determine the value of the site to bats. The methodology for carrying out these surveys and the data 10.85 The trees on site were assessed for their potential to support roosting collected is set out in Appendix 4.1 bats. No evidence of usage by bats was found for any of the trees on site. All trees were assessed as having a low potential to support bats. Directly bordering Daytime survey the site to the north are several very mature trees including Plane (Plantanus sp.) which have a high potential to support bats. 10.82 All the buildings on site were surveyed for evidence of bats and to determine their potential to support bats. The results of the survey are included in 10.86 Where it was safe the culverts and bridges on site were surveyed for Appendix 4.1. Building numbers 1, 4, 5 (small), 7, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28 evidence of bat usage. No evidence of roosting bats was found in any of the (tower), 38, cottages, mill house and garage were thought to have a moderate culverts or bridges, which were surveyed. Not all sections could be surveyed for potential due to the presence of soffits and/or hanging tiles or buildings that were health and safety reasons. known to be artificially warm due to machinery or chemical storage (38, 25 and 24). The remaining buildings were categorised as having a low potential to Evening emergent survey support bats. 10.87 Evening activity and emergence surveys recorded four species in the 10.83 Pipistrelles were visibly recorded in 2007 and 2009 roosting under metal survey area including: Common Pipistrelle, Soprano Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus flashing on building 38 (the lab). In 2009 pipistrelle droppings were also observed pygmaeus), Daubenton’s (Myotis daubentonii) and Noctule (Nyctalus noctula) in moderate numbers on the walls and floor inside this building. A dead pipistrelle bats. Roosting sites for Pipistrelle bats were confirmed. All species were recorded (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) was found on a window sill on the first floor of Building 1. foraging across the site. See Figure 10.2 for roost locations and flight paths. In 2007 and 2009 large numbers of Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus sp) droppings and smaller numbers of droppings from a larger unidentified bat species were 10.88 Soprano Pipistrelles were recorded emerging from wooden soffits on the recorded externally under the soffits of building 21. The piles of pipistrelle eastern end of building 21 in 2007 and 2009. In 2009 99 individuals were droppings were significantly larger during the 2009 survey and concentrated at counted indicating a large maternity roost. Pipistrelles were also recorded the right hand end of the roof. Small numbers of other droppings were recorded emerging from building 38. Only one individual was recorded in 2009 compared under the apex and towards to left hand end. to up to four individuals in 2007. These bats were recorded foraging along the passageway running east west between buildings 27/26 and 5/4/21/22, around 10.84 In 2009 an old large internal roost was recorded in the vast roof space of buildings 8 and 38 and on the southern end of building 19. building 9. A large pile of droppings were found under the apex and identified as pipistrelle. This was most likely a maternity roost. In the roof voids of buildings 17, 10.89 In 2009 three unidentified individual bats, were recorded emerging from 10, 28, the mill house and garage, very small numbers of pipistrelle and long- buildings 8, 9 and possibly 10. Soprano pipistrelles were recorded foraging in the brown eared (Plecotus auritus) droppings were recorded. The freshest droppings area between these buildings and the surrounding woodland.
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 155 Chapter Ten : Ecology
38 13 32 8 Mill Pond 9 29 27 26 11 10 25 28 24 22 7 21 23 River Test 12 4 River Test 5 20 35 5 33 49 2 1
14 33a 30 15 18 35 40 17 16 31 41 B3400
Laverstoke
Scale metres
0 20 40 60 80 100
Based upon the Ordnance Survey scale map with the permission of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. O.S. Licence No. AL 50068A
156 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
Figure 10.2 : Bat Survey 10.90 In 2007 and 2009 Soprano Pipistrelle bats were recorded foraging around building 20, the courtyard behind the cottages and around the bridge to Existing buildings retained the west of the site and within the secondary woodland.
Buildings to be demolished 10.91 In 2007 and 2009 Daubenton’s were recorded foraging along the main river channel and around bridges running through the site and appeared to be Active Bat Roost (Large - emerging from underneath building 25 where it crosses the stream. approx. 100 individuals)
Active Bat Roost (Small 10.92 In 2007 and 2009 Noctule and/or possibly serotine bats were detected < 10 individuals) foraging within the open space, including gardens and secondary woodland, on site and in the mature woodland to the north of the site. Possible Bat Roost (Small < 10 individuals) 10.93 No brown long-eared bats were detected, however, this may be due to there very quiet ecolocation calls and there presence cannot be ruled out. Inactive Bat Roost (Large) Previous bat surveys Positive evidence of Bat Roost 2004 Survey 10.94 A bat survey was conducted in 2004 by Ecology Consultancy. This Flight Paths survey identified bat roosts in building 21, 38, 28 and 23. No evidence of bat roosts in 28 and 23 were found in the most recent 2007 or 2009 surveys. Bat emergence and activity surveys also indicated Daubenton, Soprano Pipistrelles and Common Pipipistrelles.
Discussion and conclusion
10.95 Roosting sites of Pipstrelle are confirmed for the site along with an additional possible roost of Daubenton’s bats. Roosts include active roosts on the exterior of several buildings (21, 38, 8 and possibly 10), under soffits and one large inactive roost interior to building 9 (see Figure 10.2 and Appendix 4.1). These roosting sites are likely to be a combination of gathering, dispersal and maternity roosts. Common and Soprano pipstrelles and Daubenton’s commonly use the site as a foraging ground, feeding around buildings and bridges. Further field evidence suggests a limited presence of Brown Long-eared and Noctule Source. Jaquelin Fisher Associates bats.
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 157 Chapter Ten : Ecology
10.96 Several present and past roost locations were found in buildings typical 10.102 No holts or couches were recorded within 300m of the site. for roosting bats due to warm temperatures created by working machinery. These would have been maternity roosts. With the exception of the roost in building 21, Discussion and conclusion which has grown in size, bat numbers have declined and/or disappeared from previously known roosts (38, 28 and 23) and this is likely to be due to an 10.103 Given the large territories that Otters can occupy, up to 40km on river abandonment of the site and therefore a lack of heating or working machinery. systems, the river both up and downstream of proposed development should be considered to at least support Otters occasionally. However, recent field data 10.97 Daubenton’s bats are known to be foraging along the waterways running suggests a significant presence of this species on and up and down stream from through the site; however, although roosting sites were not located, it is possible the site. Large trout and European eel present on site and in the neighbouring Mill that this species is roosting under bridges located on site. pond are the favoured food of the otter.
10.98 A Natural England licence will be required if any known roosts will be 10.104 The Otters appear to pass through the site using all channels, however, disturbed. Mitigation measures will also need to be put in place. A separate the presence of structures within the main and bypass channel may restrict Otter mitigation plan is being produced for consultation with NE. access to some extent. The removal of the main obstructions would ease access for Otters. Otters 10.105 If Otter resting or breeding sites are likely to be disturbed by the 10.99 The HBRC held three records of otters (Lutra lutra) within a 2 km area of redevelopment of Laverstoke Mill then a Natural England Licence will be required. the proposed site. The otter is a UK and Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan Species, a European Protected Species and its status is regarded by local Water voles specialist groups as sensitive. The River Test SSSI citation states that otters have been recorded on parts of the Test but that it no longer has an established 10.106 The HBRC held seven records of Water Voles (Arvicola terrestris) within a population. 2 km area of the proposed site. The Water vole is a UK and Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan Species. 10.100 An Otter survey was carried out up and down stream of the proposed development site. The methodology for carrying out this survey and the data 10.107 A Water Vole survey was carried out up and down stream of the collected is set out in Appendix 4. proposed development site in 2007 and again in 2009. The methodology for carrying out this survey and the data collected is set out in Appendix 4.3. No 10.101 Positive evidence of Otters passing through the site was found. evidence of Water Vole was found on site, however, positive evidence in the form Numerous fresh Otter spraint sites were found along with fresh footprints. of holes, scat and runways, was recorded 100 m upstream from the site in 2009. Surveys carried out in 2009 recorded a higher level of activity than in 2007. Evidence found was in the bypass channels of the River Test within the site and in Discussion and conclusion two other locations, one up and one downstream (Figure 10.4). Otter have also been sighted in the Mill pond (David Mills pers. Com 2009) where there is 10.108 The habitat found on site is generally unsuitable habitat for Water Voles believed to be a good supply of European Eel, the Otters favoured food. with either heavily modified channels or wooded river bank edges which do not
158 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
provide suitable foraging or burrowing habitat. In 2007 no evidence of water vole isolated from other potential areas of suitable Dormouse habitat. Dormice are was found up or downstream from the site, although the northern bank along the therefore highly unlikely to be using the site or immediate surrounding area. section of the River Test to the west of the site was thought ideal habitat for Water Vole. At this time Mink scat was recorded along the river bank and from Other mammals local knowledge Mink were known to be in the area. This presence of Mink was thought the most likely cause of Water Vole absence for this section of the River 10.115 No existing records of Badgers (Meles meles), Badger setts, or road Test. However, in 2009 no signs of mink we recorded and local knowledge traffic accidents were documented by HBRC or the East Hants Badger group, suggested that there had been a cull of Mink over the past few years. Survey either at the site or within a 2 km radius. Other protected mammal species listed results show that the water vole population has returned. include Polecat (Mustela putorius) a UKBAP species, and Brown Hare (Lepus europaeus) a UK BAP and Hampshire BAP species. 10.109 The presence of Otters on the River Test will aid to suppress the Mink population by competition and as such allow water voles to extend their range in 10.116 A survey for evidence of Badger activity was made during the site visits. the Laverstoke area. Incidental records of other mammal species were noted. The methodology used 10.110 Mitigation is not required as the Water Voles are not present on site. The during this survey is presented in Appendix 4. site would however benefit from enhancement to accommodate this species. 10.117 No evidence of Badgers using the site was found and no setts were Dormice found. No mammal paths or field signs, such as hair or dung, which could identify the species, were found. A mammal hole was found in 2007 along the bank of 10.111 Two records of Dormice (Muscardinus avellanarius) within 2km were held the River Test, however, it was not thought that this was occupied by Badgers by HBRC, however the closest record was a historical record from 1993. (Target note 3 – Figure 10.1).
10.112 A search for Dormice nests/gnawed hazel nuts was not undertaken 10.118 Local knowledge also suggests that Mink and Polecat are present in the within the site due to a lack of suitable Dormouse habitat. However, casual local area. There have been records of ducks, Coots and Moorhens being taken. observations of gnawed hazel nuts and potential nesting areas were made. Slides were recorded along the northern bank of the river which also indicates their presence. 10.113 No evidence of Dormice was found at the site. The habitats found within the survey areas are generally unsuitable for Dormice. The habitats on site are Discussion and conclusion unconnected to the wider woodland habitats which could potentially support Dormice. 10.119 The site provides limited opportunities for Badgers and other mammal species given that the area is predominately covered in buildings and hard Discussion and conclusion standing. No evidence of Badger activity was found anywhere else within the vicinity. No signs of Polecat or Brown Hare were recorded on site. 10.114 A large majority of the site is unsuitable to Dormice. The hedgerows and secondary woodland which provide the only theoretically potential habitat, are
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 159 Chapter Ten : Ecology
Birds Figure 10.3 : Owl and Otter Survey
10.120 Fifty four bird species given protected status have been recorded within 2 Existing buildings retained km of the site (See table 10.5 below). 16 species are listed as UKBAP species, including Bittern (Botaurus stellaris), Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus), Lapwing Buildings to be demolished (Vanellus vanellus), Lesser Redpoll (Carduelis flammea), lesser spotted woodpecker (Dendrocopus minor), Reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus), Skylark Barn Owl Perch (Alauda arvensis), Stone Curlew (Burhinus oedicnemus) Yellowhammer (Emberiza Otter spraint 2009 citrinella), Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava flavissima), Song Thrush (Turdus philomelos), Wryneck (Jynx torquilla), Linnet (Carduelis cannabina), Dunnock Otter footprint 2009 (Prunella modularis), House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) and Marsh Tit (Parus palustris); seven listed on Annex 1 of the EC Birds directive; 15 on Schedule 1 of Otter spraint 2007 the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981); thirteen are RSPB Red listed and 36 are RSPB Amber listed. See Appendix 4 for full results. Otter footprint 2007
10.121 Incidental records of bird species using the site were recorded during the field visits. Methodologies are given in Appendix 4. A breeding bird survey was not conducted due to the timing of the EIA and the limited habitat potential, other than buildings, found on site. A full breeding bird survey was not considered necessary due to the limited habitat suitable for breeding birds. However, species which commonly use buildings such as swallows, swifts and owls were targeted under the survey.
10.122 A total of 38 birds species were recorded within and immediately surrounding the survey area. These are listed in Appendix 4 along with any assigned protection status. Species identification was deduced through direct sightings and calls and songs. Anecdotal evidence taken from Dave Baker (Mill caretaker), of species present within the survey area are also included. Out of the species recorded, the Marsh tit (Parus palustris) and Willow tit (Parus montanus) are RSPB Red listed. Eight other species including the Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis), Swallow (Hirundo rustica), House Martin (Delichon urbica) and Red Kite (Milvus milvus) are RSPB Amber listed species. In 2007 swallows, house martins and swifts were recorded nesting under the hollow window ledges of buildings 1 and 9. No swallows were found nesting in 2009 however swifts were present (Mills, Source. Jaquelin Fisher Associates
160 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
38 13 32 8 Mill Pond 9 29 27 26 11 10 25 28 24 22 7 21 23 River Test 12 4 River Test 5 20 35 5 33 49 2 1
14 33a 30 15 18 35 40 17 16 31 41 B3400
Laverstoke
Scale metres
0 20 40 60 80 100
Based upon the Ordnance Survey scale map with the permission of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. O.S. Licence No. AL 50068A
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 161 Chapter Ten : Ecology
pers com). The Kingfisher is protected under Annex 1 of the EC Bird Directive. habitat is ideal habitat for Swallows, Swifts and House Martins. All species are See Appendix 4 for full species list and conservation status. No UK BAP species known to nest within the site and therefore appropriate mitigation will be required were recorded with in the survey area. for any works on buildings known to favour these species.
10.123 In addition owl pellets were found under the joists of a covered section 10.127 The Red Kite is known to nest in an area of woodland but uses the river between buildings 9 and 7 and buildings 9 and 29 (Figure 10.3) and within banks around the site as a hunting ground. building 9 itself. In 2007 a total of six pellets were found scattered under the joists between buildings 9 and 7. During the update surveys in 2009 large numbers 10.128 The RSPB Red listed Marsh Tit and Willow Tit are vulnerable to habitat (>40) of fresh pellets and droppings were recorded under joists between buildings degradation and recent declines in these species are testament to this. The 9 and 7 but also in between buildings 9 and 29 and two locations within building Marsh tit is primarily found in deciduous woodland, whilst the willow tit is found in 9. Following pellet analysis the species is identified as a Barn Owl (Tyto alba). damp woodlands. Both species nest in tree holes. Habitat suitable for both of Pellets were large, approximately 2 inches in length, smooth and rounded, these species is found in the immediate area. characteristically black in appearance and fresher pellets with a glossy sheen. The pellets were solid with very compressed but intact material e.g., rodent skull, jaw 10.129 The combination of open areas and some woodland in the surrounding bones etc. The number of pellets and age range suggests this is a currently area provides good habitat for both the barn owl and the tawny owl. active roost and is potentially used as a breeding site. 10.130 Although a breeding bird survey was not undertaken, some of the Discussion and conclusion species recorded to date are likely to breed at the site. Hedgerows and mature trees found within the survey area do provide suitable habitats for breeding birds. 10.124 Species of particular note recorded within the site boundary include However through enhancement of the hedgerows and the development of the Kingfisher, Swallow, House Martin and Red Kite which are RSPB Amber listed open space to be retained on site birds will benefit from increased food sources species. and better ground cover.
10.125 The Kingfisher is vulnerable to disturbance due to habitat degradation 10.131 Any work likely to disturb a barn owl roost with require a license from through pollution or unsympathetic management of watercourses. It is protected Natural England and associated mitigation measures. under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive. The canalisation of the majority of the channels through the Herpetofauna site has resulted in no suitable nesting habitat for Kingfishers on site. 10.132 No existing records were held by the HBRC for reptiles or amphibians, 10.126 Swallows and House Martins are also vulnerable due to a loss of nesting including great crested newts (Triturus vulgaris), within the proposed site or a 2 sites throughout their range. Swallows are found in areas where there is a ready km perimeter. and accessible supply of small insects and favour open pasture with access to water. Large reedbeds in late summer and early autumn can be good places to 10.133 The site was considered to have a very low potential to support common look for pre-migration roosts (RSPB 2007). Laverstoke Mill and its surrounding reptile species, such as Slow Worm (Anguis fragilis) and Grass Snake (Natrix
162 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
natrix) due to the predominance of hard-standing on site. Suitable habitat is 10.138 The presence of water bodies on and bordering the site will provide limited and any habitat with even low potential to support reptiles is highly habitat for common amphibian species such as Common Toad (Bufo bufo) and fragmented due to layout of buildings and hard-standing across the site. The Common Frog (Rana temporaria). The presence of fish in the water bodies makes fragmentation and suboptimal habitats for reptiles makes it highly unlikely for the the presence of Great Crested Newts unlikely. site to support a viable reptile population. For the above reasons a reptile survey was not conducted although during each site visit in 2007 refugia was overturned Invertebrates (Aquatic and terrestrial) in order to search for herpitiles. The site was also assessed for its potential to support Great Crested Newts. 10.139 For terrestrial invertebrates the HBRC hold records of 41 UK BAP priority species, the majority of these species being moths. Records are shown in Appendix 4.6. 10.134 In 2009 the site was flagged up by the Council as having potential to support reptiles. To rule out their presence 15 tins were placed in areas of habitat 10.140 During survey work in August 2009, eight species of butterfly were that had the theoretical potential to support reptiles and checked 5 times over a recorded on buddleia that has colonised the hard-standing of the site. Results are period of 1 month in optimal conditions. shown in Appendix 4.6d.
10.135 No evidence of reptiles or amphibians using the site was found during 10.141 Out of the 47 species recorded during the terrestrial survey, of note is site visits or through presence/absence tinning surveys. Our results concur with Longitarsis dorsalis (Chrysomelidae). This is a small distinctive flea beetle found the original ecological assessment of the site which stated that it was unlikely to on Ragwort in summer but can occur in woodland ground flora in winter, as was support common reptiles. The areas of woodland and scrub are sub-optimal the case in this instance. One adult was found in the wood north of the mill. This being heavily shaded in parts and lacking connections to surrounding optimal species is Nationally Scarce B. Results are shown in Appendix 4.6d. habitat (e.g. by roads and hardstanding). 10.142 No records of white-clawed crayfish were found through the desk study. 10.136 Due to the presence of water bodies on and immediately bordering the A specific survey for this species was not thought necessary, however, casual site the presence of amphibians is probable. The water bodies found in the observations were made for this species through out the macro-invertebrate survey area contain populations of fish such as Roach and Trout and a survey. No individuals were recorded. discernable flow. Great Crested Newts require still water, free from fish which can 10.143 The previous aquatic macro-invertebrate survey carried out on 26th predate on their eggs and efts making their presence unlikely. August 2004 (Forster et al, 2004), relied on standard methods of triplicated, 1- minute kick-net samples collected ‘in the middle of the watercourse and at Discussion and conclusion nearshore (“edge”) sites (i.e. 6 faunal samples were collected per sampling station)’. The timing of the survey was far from ideal for important groups such as 10.137 No reptiles were observed on site although the scrub and woodland has water beetles, which are in between broods in high summer, and in pupation. the theoretical potential to support reptiles. However, as discussed, the habitat is suboptimal and lacks connectivity to the wider landscape which may contain 10.144 The sample sites were resurveyed in March 2007 and September 2009 suitable reptile habitat. In combination with the small size of the habitat this with additional stations further up and downstream and in smaller feeder reduces the likelihood of reptiles being present.
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 163 Chapter Ten : Ecology
streams/ditches in the wooded area to the north of the mill. More targeted Oreodytes sanmarki (Dytiscidae) Local sampling methods were used to record species of conservation importance such as the Odonatae, water beetle and water bug faunas, which were poorly represented in the 2004 survey. Appendix 4 gives the details of the survey methodology. Casual observations were also made for terrestrial habitats.
10.145 In all, 68 species of aquatic invertebrates were named to species level, plus five fish species. A full species list is given in Annex 7a. Nationally Scarce and locally important taxa are summarised below, along with figures 10.6-10.9 which give distribution maps (River Test left-hand most) and photographs for each species:
Sigara venusta (Corixidae) 10.146 Despite being a widespread species in Britain (Huxley, 2003), this species Figure 10.5 - Distribution of O.sanmarki in North Hampshire (VC12) is very localised and rare in South-East England. In Hampshire it is characteristic of the chalk rivers (Denton, 2001), despite most previous records relating to acidic Gyrinus urinator (Gyrinidae) The Artist Nationally Scarce B streams. 10.148 This distinctive whirlygig is local but under-recorded. It is widespread but local across England. This record is the first for the Test Catchment. The previous Brychius elevatus (Haliplidae) Local North Hampshire Records come from the Wey and Whitewater (Denton, in prep). 10.147 A very local but somewhat overlooked halipld. It occurs in flowing water usually amongst floating vegetation.
Figure 10.6 - Distribution of G.urinator in North Hampshire (VC12)
Figure 10.4 - Distribution of Brychius elevatus in North Hampshire (VC12)
164 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
Hydraena testacea (Hydraenidae) Nationally Scarce B 10.149 This is a local but widespread species found most often in leaf litter in small stagnant pools and ditches in wooded areas, but also occasionally in streams. At Laverstoke it was found in a ditch in the woodland to the north of the north channel of the Test.
Figure 10. 7 - Distribution of H.testacea in North Hampshire (VC12) Photograph 10.1 – Photo of the River Test Invertebrate sample site 7 (downstream of site). BMWP Scores
10.150 The families present, total number of scoring taxa, BMWP (Biological 10.152 In 2009 the BMWP values were higher for both sample sites. Sample site Monitoring Working Party System) scores and Average Score Per Taxon (ASPT) 1 had a BMWP of 171 whilst sample site 7 had a value of 148. The ASPT for scores for the sample sites 1 and 7 (upstream and immediately downstream of sample site 1 was 5.7 and 5.4 for sample site 7. the mill complex) are shown in Appendix 4. Scores under 50 indicate streams of poor quality, those over 100 are usually categorized as having moderate quality. Discussion and conclusion Sites with scores well in excess of 100 are amongst the highest rated in the Country. 10.153 For terrestrial invertebrates, overall species recorded were common. Through habitat enhancement notable local species such as the White Letter 10.151 In 2007 upstream from the site (Site 1) the BMWP was 156 and down Hairstreak Butterfly and High Brown Fritillary may begin to inhabit the site and from the site it was 138 (Site 7). Both values indicate very clean water. The ASPT overall species diversity will increase. for sample site 1 in the open section of Laverstoke Park was 5.2. Encouragingly the ASPT at the outflow point (Sample site 7, Photo 10.1) where the two major 10.154 The timing of the 2004 aquatic invertebrate survey (Forster, 2004) was far channels meet was 5.3. from ideal for important groups such as water beetles, which are in between
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 165 Chapter Ten : Ecology
broods in high summer, and in pupation, and this may explain the absence of 10.158 This aquatic invertebrate survey and the survey conducted in 2004 adult Haliplids, Dytiscids and Gyrinids from the samples. Also the use of standard (Forster et al, 2004, Annex 8) indicate that the invertebrates found generally kick sampling method may also be responsible for the absence of many of the represented chalk stream/hard water communities. The species diversity was more cryptic species such as Brychius elevatus and Oreodytes sanmarki which reduced in the sample sites within Laverstoke Mill when compared with that were only found adjacent to the mill beneath somewhat inaccessible overhangs found up and downstream possibly as a result of the modifications to the channel near the sluice outfalls, a typical habitat for the locally scarce Brychius. resulting in less microhabitats. The lack of macrophytes as a result of shading of the Test as it flows through the site may also have had a negative impact on the 10.155 The absence of any records of Isoperla grammatica, Calopteryx number of species found on site. splendens and Elodes larvae, in the previous survey is surprising as both were very common in the samples taken by JFA. The later two being present in every 10.159 On consultation with the Environment Agency it was agreed that the weed and root tangle sampled. Two species which were not found by either proposed work at Laverstoke Mill is highly unlikely to impact on native white- survey were the nationally scarce Elmids Riolus cupreus and R.subviolaceus both clawed crayfish for the following reasons. Extensive survey work for this species of which occur in similar conditions in the Test, which is a national stronghold. was undertaken and reported in a 1996 interim report, and subsequently the crayfish audit (1998) drafted for relevant BAP species. This survey work 10.156 The number of species found at each of the sample locations varied acknowledged historical anecdotal native crayfish records in the Laverstoke Area, across the site. The most species rich sample site was located upstream of but these were unconfirmed, and following survey work covering substantive Laverstoke Mill with 48 recorded species. This sample site also had a BMWP areas of the River Test and Tributaries, known, confirmed distribution was score of 156 and an ASPT score of 5.2. The scores for immediately downstream restricted to two River Test locations, neither of which were anywhere near of the site were BMWP – 138 and ASPT 5.3. This indicates that the water quality Laverstoke. Given the dramatic decline across Hampshire Rivers, including the does not deteriorate having passed through the site. Test, the prospects of this species surviving at Laverstoke are remote. In addition, the habitat conditions have not been ideal in recent years due to siltation in much 10.157 The number of species found at the sample sites within the site boundary of the channel (where water was impounded by structures). Whilst conditions was lower than for samples up and down stream. This is most probably as a immediately adjacent to the mill development area have improved since control result of the reduced diversity of micro-ecosystems within the main channel which structures have been managed differently, I doubt native crayfish would have has a fairly homogenous flow and lacks riffles and pools and other variations in colonised in this short time (Tim Holzer pers com, EA 2009). flow which are important for a number of aquatic invertebrates. In addition the Fish main channel modifications have lead to increased siltation of the river bed. This results in a decrease in species requiring open gravel as habitat such as mayflies 10.160 Data from the Environment Agency shows the presence of Brown Trout and some molluscs. Similar results to this survey were found in the 2004 survey (Salmo trutta), Grayling (Thymallus thymallus) and European Eel (Anguilla anguilla) of Aquatic Invertebrates (Forster et al, 2004, Annex 8) which found that the open 0.5 km upstream from the site and similar numbers of Brown Trout and European areas particularly up and downstream had communities which were Eel 1 km downstream from the site. representative of chalk, hard water streams. The samples which were found on site towards the margins contained silt and leaf litter, which had species more 10.161 There are two channels that flow through the site. The main flow is adapted to survive in more acidic and reduced oxygen. through the central channel which is heavily engineered. This channel forms the
166 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
deeper of the two channels. The bypass channel which runs along the northern recently been listed as a new UK BAP species and conservation efforts will be edge of the site is faster flowing and shallower. targeted through this. The salmonids form the most dominant fish community in this section of the river with management of the river up and downstream 10.162 These two channels were assessed and it was thought that the central targeting their population. channel served as the main channel for the passage of fish, as it was more direct, with fewer sluices and sections passing under the Mill buildings. Large Trout were 10.165 This section of the River Test supports a number of species including seen within the main channel both on site and down site. However a few large migratory species such as the Brook Lamprey and Salmon. Therefore, access through the site is an important consideration for these species. The main individual Trout were noted in the deeper sections of the bypass channel. This channel appears to be the most likely route for fish through the site due to the survey was carried out as part of the aquatic invertebrate survey (see Appendix 4). lack of obstructions which could prevent fish movement compared with the bypass channel which has a large sluice. The river, as it passes through the site, 10.163 Five species were recorded up and down stream of the site during the has been modified historically for the purposes of the mill. This has resulted in survey (see Table 10.3). The Bullhead (Cottus gobio) is a local fish species and some modifications which may hinder fish passage such as sluices, grates and was generally abundant in the swift flowing channels. The European Eel is a new weirs. UK Biodiversity Action Plan Species as of 2007. In addition to these five species Brown Trout and potentially Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and Brook Lamprey 10.166 A number of these fish species including the European Eel provide an which are all known to use the River Test. important food source for predators such as the Otter which has been shown to Table 10.3 : Fish species found within the survey area be present. Consideration of the whole fish assemblage is required during the mitigation and enhancement proposals for the site. Family Species Common name Status Pisces Anguillidae Anguilla anguilla European Eel UK BAP Overall ecological value of the site Species Pisces Cottidae Cottus gobio Bullhead Local 10.167 The River Test SSSI runs through the proposed development site and this Pisces Cyprinidae, Leuciscus leuciscus Dace Common is of high ecological value, supporting a high diversity of aquatic invertebrates. Pisces Gasterosteidae Gasterosteus aculeatus Three Spined The River Test (Chalk River) is a UK BAP priority habitat. Priority species for Chalk Stickleback Common Streams as laid out in the Biodiversity Action Plan for Hamphire include: Southern Pisces Salmonidae Salmo qairdnerii Rainbow Trout Naturalized Damselfly (Coenagrion mercuriale), Water Vole (Microtus richardsoni), Pipistrelle Bat (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), Otter (Lutra lutra) and White-clawed Crayfish (Austropotanobius pallipes). Out of these species the Pipistrelle and Otter have Discussion and conclusion been recorded on site and water vole just off site. In addition the European Eel, a UK Priority BAP species has been recorded on site. 10.164 The Bullhead is found in fast flowing gravel bottomed streams such as the River Test. This species was seen in almost all the sample sites including 10.168 Protected species recorded include up to five species of bat (Pipistrellus within the main channel as it passes through the site. This species along with the Brook Lamprey and Atlantic Salmon are Annex II species of the EC Habitats pipistrellus, Pipistrellus pygmaeus, Myotis daubentonii, Plecotus auritus and Directive. In addition the European Eel was found on site. This species has Nyctalus noctula) which were recorded roosting in several buildings and/or
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 167 Chapter Ten : Ecology
foraging throughout the site; especially along the river corridor and within open 10.173 The area of secondary woodland to the east of the site would mature, spaces such as the secondary woodland and gardens. Evidence of Otters however, without management the species diversity of this area would not passing through the proposed development site was also found. No other increase. The areas of amenity grassland have potential as reptile habitat if left protected species such as Badgers, Dormice or Water Voles were recorded unmown and connected to suitable reptile habitat. Ornamental planting found within the site boundary. around this area has limited ecological value and therefore the encroachment of these species further throughout the site will not increase its ecological value. 10.169 The River Test which runs through the site supports a variety of aquatic invertebrates including some Red Data Book species as well as a number of fish 10.174 The likely presence of roosting bats declines after buildings become species including migratory species and important game species such as the abandoned. Bats roost in warm enclosed buildings and therefore once buildings Brown Trout. are no longer used they become less favourable for summer roosting. In addition the longer the buildings remain empty the more likely the chance of vandalism 10.170 The majority of the site consists of hard-standing, which is of low and fires within the buildings resulting in a permanent loss of roosting sites. The ecological value and highly unlikely to develop naturally into a more diverse and encroachment of Ivy on buildings is likely to encourage roosting. valuable habitat over time. Some ecological value is attached to the hedgerow and secondary woodland at the site, although both in a local context. The 10.175 The nesting potential for birds is likely to increase if buildings remain abandoned. The House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), hedgerow is categorised as ’important’ under the Hedgerows Regulations (1997) House Martin (Delichon urbica), Swifts (Apus apus) and Swallow (Hirundo rustica) and the open space found within the site provides potential habitat for birds and regularly use buildings as nesting sites. With building renovations, there maybe a small mammals. As linear landscape features, hedges are likely to function as loss of potential nesting sites for these bird species. wildlife corridors and foraging habitats. The overall limited value of the existing site provides opportunities for ecological enhancement. 10.176 There is currently restricted management occurring on the parts of the River Test that flow through the site, however, if this is not continued then there is Do Nothing Scenario potential for the channels to weed up. This would result in problems with water flow, decomposition leading to unpleasant odour and potentially, as a worst case 10.171 If the site was not developed then from an ecological perspective the scenario, lead to flooding. Reduced flow rates and greater organic debris may value of the site would not change significantly. Plant and animal communities reduce the aquatic invertebrate diversity within this section of the River Test. would colonise the buildings, however, the species diversity is not likely to increase appreciably beyond what is presently on site due to the large proportion Impact Identification of buildings and hard standing on site. 10.177 The development proposals for the Laverstoke Mill Site are described in 10.172 The areas of hard-standing would become increasingly colonised by detail in Chapter 4 of this Environmental Statement. The outcomes from the ruderal species, which would in time give way to scrub and eventually trees, such scoping exercise and the baseline studies have been used to inform the as Elder and Sycamore. This increase in ruderal vegetation would in turn increase development proposals. This has meant that impact avoidance as well as the number of invertebrates on site. opportunities for mitigation and enhancement have been taken into account as part of the design of the proposals.
168 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
10.178 Some specific working practices are necessary to safeguard specially 10.182 The development proposals have been, where possible, designed to protected species during development. The legal necessity of these measures avoid the loss of existing features which were identified as having ecological value makes them part of the basic development proposals, rather than part of later by the baseline studies i.e. hedgerows and bat roosts. The proposals will retain mitigation. If not followed the developer would be breaking the law. No illegal the existing habitat and include enhancement measures to improve species activity is thus considered as a potential impact of development, such as diversity and connectivity through additional planting. disturbing breeding birds. 10.183 Sections of the river channel that are currently covered are planned to be Ecological aspects of site design and management opened up. These areas have the potential to increase the biodiversity of the site as habitats and species re-colonise. Changes to the flow patterns within this 10.179 The River Test is the most important feature in ecological terms that section of the river may help to diversify the microhabitats found within the river could be subject to adverse impacts as a result of development. The following and produce a more natural flow regime. impacts need to be considered: • Inappropriate bank management due to drainage and building development 10.184 Additional open spaces within the development will receive similar resulting in habitat loss or damage and changes in species assemblages. planting. Trees interspersed with smaller shrubby plants, will provide green breaks • Introduction of invasive plant and animal species (including alien fish) leading and foraging habitats within the built up area. Fruiting trees, such as cherry and to a loss of species diversity and habitat damage. apple trees, would provide good habitat. • Pollution resulting from demolition/construction works and then during the operation of the site, that may enter the river and cause damage to species 10.185 Along each of the boundaries of the red line development site, the assemblages. existing hedgerows will be maintained and enhanced. The existing Yew hedgerow will be retained and additional hedgerows will be planted up with some native 10.180 The majority of habitat to be lost as a result of this proposed species such as beech (Fagus sylvatica). Hedgerows will enhance the development is hard-standing. This habitat has been shown to be species poor connectivity of the landscape and provide suitable habitat for BAP species. and of low ecological value. The amenity gardens are set to be retained. Measures to include and improve the existing habitats and associated species are 10.186 Residential gardens will also provide additional habitat for many species. set out below. The majority of the secondary regenerated woodland will be lost Native species should be planted where possible to encourage local wildlife. through this development. General Ecological Management 10.181 Although particular consideration has been given to BAP priorities in the design and proposed management of this development, other species have also 10.187 All retained and created habitats will be managed to ensure their integrity been taken into account. Consideration has also been given for opportunities on during the construction and operational phases of development. Although some site for small mammals and invertebrates. The overall aim of these ecological temporary disruption will occur during construction works, this will be necessary aspects is to improve the biodiversity value of the site and, in doing so, improve for the enhancements to be realised. Any temporary disruption will be minimised the ecological value of the local landscape. through an Ecological Construction Management Plan (ECMP).
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 169 Chapter Ten : Ecology
10.188 The sections of the River Test that run through the site are particularly some mill modifications from the main channel will help remove some of the sensitive areas especially during construction and demolition. Pollution Prevention historical obstructions and aid in fish migratory passage. Guidelines (PPGs) as set out by the EA would be strictly adhered to. Best practice guidelines from the PPG will be incorporated into the ECMP. 10.193 Enhancements planned for the River Test should increase invertebrate numbers which will in turn help improve fish populations. The increased flow rates 10.189 Additional site enhancements have been included within the proposals for will help remove silt deposits within the channel and provide areas of clean gravel nesting birds. These opportunities will be created though the erection of bird which are important for fish breeding and invertebrates. boxes on some of the new buildings. A variety of bird boxes would be used in order to benefit a range of species, including those of conservation interest. 10.194 Planting of native trees and shrubs, and the creation of green spaces Swallows and House Martins are known to nest under window sills and eves of including residential gardens, will also benefit invertebrates and in turn common the abandoned Mill buildings and therefore it would be appropriate to provide bird species. The addition and enhancement of green spaces provides habitat similar nesting potential within the new development. Nest boxes specific to connectivity which will allow for species to move more freely across the site. Swallows and House Martins can be incorporated into the development along with brick boxes for species such as Swifts, Tits and Flycatchers. In addition the 10.195 Management proposals will be drawn up at a later stage, guided by provision of a Barn Owl nest box will increase nesting opportunities for this consultation with stakeholders. The management of the river, open spaces and species which is known to use the site as an occasional roost. Any barn owl nest hedgerows should be ensured through the use of planning obligations and boxes would conform to the Barn Owl Trust specification. conditions. The key objectives of management will be guided by the UK and Hampshire BAPs and species of conservation concern. The objectives are listed 10.190 Bat species such as Pipistrelle are known to use the site and the presence of this species could be enhanced by installing bat boxes/bricks on in Table 10.4. buildings and trees. There will also be an increase in foraging habitat available as a result of enhancement of the open spaces retained on site, as well as the 10.196 The requirement for people to be allowed to interact positively with the creation of residential gardens. natural environment will also require consideration. This will take place through the creation of the development generally and retained habitat. 10.191 The opening up of the main and bypass channel of the River Test by removing buildings which currently span the river will, along with the removal of Ecological working practices grate systems, help to enhance the river for Otters by allowing easier access through the site. Any improvement in the river habitat will help the local Otter 10.197 The site includes habitat that supports nesting bird species and roosting population by increasing fish stocks as a consequence of better habitat for bats. All occupied bird nests and bat roosts are protected from damage and aquatic invertebrates. destruction under UK law. Standard working practices would be employed to avoid damage or disturbance to occupied bird nests or bat roosts. These 10.192 This section of the River Test supports a number of fish species including practices will be set out in an Ecological Construction Management Plan (ECMP). migratory species such as the Brook Lamprey and Salmon. Therefore, access The ECMP would cover key areas such as: through the site is an important consideration for these species. The removal of
170 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
Table 10.4 BAP species/habitats and species of conservation concern: Working Practices- priorities for habitat enhancement, creation and management • Prior to site works, all areas of retained habitat adjacent to and within the development area will be enclosed by protective fencing following British Habitat / species Objective Management proposals Standard Guidance (BS 5837). Chalk River Increase Opening up the river channels which • An ecologist will be present during all works within any retained habitats. biodiversity on are currently covered. Allow • Works will stop if a specially protected species is found at the site which was river banks and colonisation of species, however, otherwise not known to be present. Works will only continue following an margins. management will be required. assessment of the species activity at the site. • Seasonal constraints for site works and timings of works Pipistrelle Bat To increase the Bat boxes will be erected on buildings • Ecological mitigation methods roosting potential and trees around the site for bats on site. Potential Impacts Otter Increase Open up part of the river channels accessibility through the site and remove some 10.198 The baseline studies identified a series of ecological receptors that could through the site covered areas. be affected by development of the site. These are described in the following bullet points. The order of receptors does not represent ecological value. Nesting birds To increase To install appropriate nest boxes for • Designated wildlife sites (including River Test SSSI) (Swallow, House potential nesting targeted bird species and ensure the • Secondary Woodland and associated scrub Martin, Swift and sites on site. sensitive restoration of external fittings • Hedgerow and mature trees Barn Owl ) on converted buildings. • Bats • Otters • Birds • Herpetofauna • Invertebrates and fish
10.199 The impact of development upon each receptor will vary with time. For simplicity, the impacts are divided into those that will occur during site clearance Communication- and building works (‘construction phase impacts’) and those that will take place • Clear lines of communication and responsibility would be established at the in the long term as a result of the change of the land’s use (‘operational phase start of site works. • Site contractors will be informed of protected areas of habitat, such as impacts’). mature trees and hedgerows. Contractors will also be informed of legal obligations for nesting birds and bat roosts that may occur on the site. 10.200 The theoretical potential for either the direct or indirect impacts on each receptor will be considered for each phase of development. Where impacts are predicted, the weight of each impact is identified. The discussion of impacts
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 171 Chapter Ten : Ecology
considers the development proposals in the light of the site’s features and its Indirect impacts current physical context. Each impact is then assessed for significance in terms of EIA. The theoretical impacts are summarised in Table 10.5. 10.204 No indirect impacts are predicted for the SINCs given their distance from the development (>0.5 km), or for the River Test SSSI. Construction Phase Impacts Secondary woodland and ruderal scrub with scattered 10.201 It is predicted that there will be impacts of negligible magnitude on most trees of the receptors located outside of the proposed site boundary, namely the SINCs and Bere Mill Meadows SSSI. However, given the proximity of the River Test to Direct impacts the site and the sensitivity of this habitat at local and county level, impacts are predicted to be potentially medium in magnitude and of high significance if 10.205 The majority of the woodland will be lost with the exception of the largest appropriate mitigation is not administered. There will be negligible impacts on the trees in the north western corner. This will have a permanent and moderate existing habitats within the site, and negligible-low impacts on some of the negative impact on this habitat. The majority of trees were non-native conifers species recorded in the area. and regenerating sycamore which are of relatively low ecological value. Retained trees and scrub can still be harmed during development. For example, tree roots Designated wildlife sites can be damaged by storage of material in the root zone. The ECMP will require protective fencing to be erected to prevent accidental damage during Direct impacts construction.
10.202 Due to the distance (>0.5 km) of the development site from the Indirect impacts designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) described in Table 10.2, no direct impacts are predicted. 10.206 Indirect impacts on retained vegetation could occur through changes in local hydrology. It is predicted that the amount of hard standing will decrease as a 10.203 The River Test SSSI, running through and bordering the site and its result of the inclusion of gardens into the development. Any potential impacts are associated aquifer may be directly impacted from pollution related to runoff, thought to be neutral. infiltration and dumping, as a result of construction works. Sections of the river channel that are currently covered are planned to be opened up. This may result Hedgerows & mature trees in the input of significant quantities of soil and sediment into the watercourse. These impacts have the potential to create moderate negative impacts of high significance on site and further downstream. Potential effects include the covering Direct impacts of beds of macro-invertebrates and the silting of gravels used by salmonid and other species for spawning and the accidental input of construction materials 10.207 The development proposals will retain the existing hedgerows at the site such as concrete could alter the physico-chemistry of the river. Work carried out boundaries and throughout the site. A number of mature trees will be lost to in or near watercourses must be regarded as high risk with significant potential to accommodate the development including all hedgerow trees along the southern cause pollution. boundary. Other mature trees and hedgerows will be retained within the
172 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
development scheme. This impact is a low negative impact. Retained hedgerows Otters and trees can still be harmed during development. For example, tree roots can be damaged by storage of material in the root zone. The ECMP will require Direct impacts protective fencing to be erected to prevent accidental damage during construction. 10.211 Otters are considered to use the River Test as it passes through the proposed redevelopment. No evidence of holts were found within 300m and no Indirect impacts direct impacts are predicted for otters using resting areas on site. Removal of spraint sites under buildings will result in disturbance. The opening up of the 10.208 Indirect impacts on retained vegetation could occur through changes in channels will have a minor positive impact on otter by allowing easier aquatic local hydrology. It is predicted that the amount of hard standing will decrease as a access through the site. result of the inclusion of gardens into the development. Any potential impacts are thought to be neutral. 10.212 During construction there may be some noise and light disturbance to otters passing through the site although as the majority of otter activity will occur Bats at dusk or night time when construction will not be occurring, Therefore a negligible-low negative impact is predicted. Direct impacts Indirect impacts 10.209 Bat roosts were found on site and therefore the renovation and demolition of buildings and bridges may have a moderate direct negative impact 10.213 Any pollution events as a result of development could result in decreased of potentially high significance. A license will be required from Natural England to fish stocks downstream of the proposed development which could reduce the carry out any works that are likely to disturb roosts. The loss of trees and otter food sources. . An overall negligible-low negative direct impact is predicted secondary woodland during the construction phase will have a negative impact of limited significance. on foraging bats. The retention of mature trees, planting of hedgerows and additional trees helps maintain flightlines which reduces the impact. Birds
Indirect impacts Direct impacts
10.210 Locally roosting bats could be disrupted by noise during development 10.214 Swallows, Swifts and House Martins are known to nest in the buildings from construction operations. This is a temporary effect which would only occur found on site and therefore the renovation of buildings may have a moderate during normal site working hours. It is unlikely to be sufficient to disrupt roosting direct negative impact of potentially high significance. Barn Owls are known to bats or their foraging behaviour, particularly as site activity will be limited at perch and roost on site. Works on site may have a moderate-high direct negative dawn/dusk in the spring and summer when bats’ foraging is at its peak. An impact of potentially high significance. Any works required on buildings where overall negligible-low negative direct impact is predicted of limited significance. nesting birds are found will have to be conducted outside of the bird breeding season or following a survey by an ecologist to ensure no nests are disturbed.
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 173 Chapter Ten : Ecology
The loss of some secondary woodland, scrub and trees on site will have a Invertebrates and fish moderate negative impact on nesting and breeding birds through the loss of habitat. Direct impacts
Indirect impacts 10.218 A rich assemblage of aquatic invertebrates were recorded in the River Test which flows through the site. The main cause for concern is the potential of 10.215 Local bird activity can be disrupted by noise, either because birds are pollution reaching the water course, through runoff, infiltration and dumping as a startled by sudden noise or because more constant noise affects territorial result of activities carried out throughout the construction phase. A low-moderate behaviour. During development, there will be increased noise on site from negative impact is predicted of high significance. construction operations. This is a temporary effect which would only occur during normal site working hours. It is unlikely to be sufficient to disrupt bird Indirect impacts behaviour, particularly as site activity will be limited at dawn / dusk in the spring and summer when birds’ territorial singing activity is typically intense. Therefore 10.219 There are no indirect impacts predicted. any negative effect on birds in neighbouring areas would be temporary and very low. This would not be sufficient to affect the breeding success of the species Operational Phase Impacts present. The impact would be neutral, and not significant. 10.220 It is predicted that there will be overall neutral impacts on all of the Herpetofauna receptors located outside of the proposed site boundary, namely the designated wildlife sites. As development could result in increased human pressures on the Direct impacts retained habitats there is a theoretical potential for a negative impact to occur, although any prediction here is uncertain. These negative impacts could be 10.216 No reptiles and amphibians were recorded on site. The habitats on site moderately significant to the local environment. have limited potential to support reptiles. The area of secondary woodland has some open scrub areas which could theoretically support a small population of Designated wildlife sites common reptiles. The loss of this woodland and scrub may therefore have a low negative impact on reptiles and amphibians of low significance through the loss of Direct impacts potential habitat. The provision of garden habitat post development will compensate for the loss of this habitat and therefore the overall impact is 10.221 Once the development is operational there will be no further direct or predicted to be neutral. indirect impacts of the surrounding SINC sites. The increased human pressure in the area arising from the development may result in small scale pollution to the Indirect impacts River Test SSSI and associated aquifer through runoff, infiltration and dumping. A low negative impact on the associated section of the River Test SSSI is predicted 10.217 There are no indirect impacts predicted. of moderate significance.
174 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
Indirect impacts Bats
10.222 The increase in local population may result in increased visitors using the Direct impacts designated wildlife sites in the local area. Although this may take place as a result of the development, the size of disturbance is likely to be minimal and is 10.226 Roosting bats were recorded foraging/roosting on site and within the unlikely to affect the integrity of any of the designated sites. There will be a woodland directly bordering the site. Therefore lighting schemes proposed as part negligible impact which is not significant. of the development may have a low negative impact on the foraging habits for bats; however, this is of low significance. The lighting close to the river channels 10.223 The Bere Mill Meadows SSSI is located approximately 1.5 km may have a small impact on foraging bats. The lighting scheme will result in some downstream of the proposed redevelopment site. Any pollution event upstream light spillage onto river channels, mature trees and some buildings although not has the potential to cause a negative impact on this SSSI, for example any the retained bat roost building. Low level lighting has been designed into the release of nutrients could result in improvement of this floodplain meadow. scheme to reduce the ecological impact. Alteration of drainage at the Bere Mill Meadows SSSI as an indirect result of changes in drainage upstream as a result of the development could have a Indirect impacts negative impact on this SSSI, which is immediately adjacent to the River Test. The use of SUDs will seek to minimise the impact of drainage at the site. More details 10.227 No indirect impacts are predicted. on the proposed drainage systems are provided in Chapter 13. Otters Retained/ enhanced habitats (trees/ hedgerows) Direct impacts Direct impacts 10.228 There is a risk of pollution incidents during the operational phases. There 10.224 There will be no direct impacts of significance on the retained vegetation will be increased traffic on site which could increase the risk of road accidents, and habitat areas after construction works have been completed. Existing and although the use of traffic calming measures means this will only be a very low to newly planted vegetation located throughout the site will be managed neutral impact. sympathetically in the long term. Indirect impacts Indirect impacts 10.229 There could be increased human disturbance around this short section of 10.225 There is a potential for unpredicted impacts to arise through human the River Test which could potentially have a low negative impact on otters in the activity. For example, recreational use could lead to localised damage if use is surrounding area. not monitored. This is a theoretical but uncertain negative impact, which would be of minor significance to the site. Measures should be put in place to ensure that mitigation can be provided if necessary.
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 175 Chapter Ten : Ecology
Birds Table 10.5 : Table of theoretical impacts
Direct impacts Receptor Summary of construction and Significance operational phase impacts 10.230 The development proposal would result in an increased potential risk Designated Pollution entering watercourse/ Low-moderate construction from predation by domestic cats. This will potentially have a moderate negative wildlife sites opening up of water channels impacts. Potential to be of high impact of low significance. (River Test SSSI). significance. Mitigation recommended Indirect impacts Neutral operational impacts. 10.231 No indirect impacts are predicted during the operational phase. No impacts for SINCs in area. Not significant.
Herpetofauna Potential for increase visitor Negligible impact. numbers to sites. Direct impacts Site habitats Loss of secondary woodland Loss of habitat in construction (i) Secondary habitat from site. This will have a phase will have a moderate 10.232 The impact to herptiles has been discussed as part of the construction woodland moderate negative impact. A few impact. phase impacts. Therefore there are no further impacts predicted. mature trees remaining and risk of accidental root damage. Protection Indirect impacts will be managed through the ECMP. 10.233 No indirect impacts are predicted during the operational phase. Neutral impact Indirect impatcs include changes in Invertebrates and fish local hydrology. Site habitats No operational impacts are Long term neutral construction (ii) Hedgerow & predicted. impact. Not significant. Direct impacts mature trees Loss of some mature trees from the site which will have a low 10.234 There is risk of pollution from runoff and infiltration reaching the water negative impact. For retained trees course as a result of activities carried out during the operational phase of the there is a risk of accidental root Neutral impact development. Therefore, a low negative impact on invertebrates is predicted of damage. Protection will be moderate significance. managed through the ECMP. Indirect impacts include changes in Theoretically uncertain negative Indirect impacts local hydrology. impact during operation phase- Operational impacts. Mitigation potentially of low significance. recommended as precaution. Mitigation recommended. 10.235 No indirect impacts are predicted during the operational phase.
176 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
Receptor Summary of construction and Significance Receptor Summary of construction and Significance operational phase impacts operational phase impacts Bats Disturbance of roosts under soffits Moderate negative impact of Birds Renovation of buildings where Moderate direct negative impact on buildings and bridges high significance. Mitigation Swallows, Swifts and House of moderate-high significance. recommended. Martins roost. Mitigation recommended. Noise pollution during construction Negligible-low negative impact Moderate direct negative impact Light pollution during operation. or minor significance. Renovation of buildings where of high significance. Mitigation Barn Owls roost. recommended. Negligible-low negative impact of minor significance. Lighting will be directed away from the Clearance works managed under buildings with bat roosts. the ECMP to avoid harm to ground Mitigation recommended to nesting birds. ensure there are no significant impacts Theoretically uncertain negative Otters Disturbance of Otter activity during Low- negative impact of minor Effect of noise pollution on nesting impact during operation phase- construction phase. significance. Mitigation birds and increased predation from potentially of moderate recommended. resident’s cats. significance.
Increased risk of traffic accidents Low negative impact of low Herptiles Loss of secondary woodland and A neutral impact is predicted during operational phase. moderate significance. ruderal scrub which has potential Mitigation recommended to support a very small population Low negative impact of low of common reptiles. Provision of Risk of pollution during moderate significance. garden habitat post-development. construction and operational Mitigation recommended. phases effecting fish stocks. Invertebrates & Pollution entering water course A low-moderate negative Low negative impact of low Fish during construction and impact is predicted of moderate significance. operational phases; accidental moderate-high significance. Increase in human activity and Mitigation recommended. introduction of non-native species. dogs during operational phase.
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 177 Chapter Ten : Ecology
Mitigation Measures pollution control at construction sites along water courses. Documents most relevant to this site would include PPG 1 – General guide to the prevention of 10.236 Potential negative impacts have been identified that could affect retained pollution, PPG 5 – Works in, near or liable to affect watercourses; PPG 6 – habitats around the development site as well as bats, otters, birds, fish and Working at Construction and demolition sites; PPG 13- Vehicle washing and aquatic invertebrates. Overall, long-term moderate beneficial impacts are cleaning PPG18 - Managing Fire, Water and Major spillages; PPG 21 – Pollution predicted for breeding birds and bats, however, this is of limited significance in Response Planning; PPG 23 – Maintenance of Structures over water. PPG 21 is a terms of EIA. guidance note drawn up to assist site-specific pollution incident response plans to prevent and mitigate damage to the environment caused by accidents such as Mitigation for uncertain impacts on retained and created spillages and fires (EA 2007) and PPG26 - Storage and handling of drums and habitats intermediate bulk containers (IBCs). PPGs would be strictly followed to reduce any negative impact on wildlife within the survey area. 10.237 Potential has been identified for increase in human activity to result in unpredictable localised problems in the area around the development site. It is 10.240 The site drainage network should be closed off whilst demolition and recommended that the management plan is designed to maintain the integrity of construction works are being carried out. Methods to reduce the risk of the wildlife/open space areas and intrinsic value of the site in the long term. The accidental spillages of toxic materials from entering the river have been included management regime should include monitoring of the habitats and species in the in Chapter 4. area covered by the plan. The management of the River Test within and immediately surrounding the site should be included within a planning condition. Trees /hedgerows 10.238 Provision should be made for a regular review of the management plan, 10.241 All areas of retained habitat adjacent to and within the development area at least once every five years. This would allow the managers to determine will be enclosed by protective fencing following British Standard Guidance (BS whether objectives are being achieved or if the plan needs modifying to account 5837). An ecologist will be present during all works within any retained habitats. for unforeseen circumstances. Overall, this approach provides mitigation for the Works will stop if a specially protected species is found at the site which was theoretical risks, and potentially allows for impacts to be avoided. Further otherwise not known to be present. mitigation is not required. 10.242 To compensate for the loss of secondary woodland on site a number of River Test native trees will be planted around the development. Planting is proposed along the southern boundary of the site to the east of Mill house with a further 10.239 Any work carried out on watercourses during construction must be staggered strip of trees following the current western edge of the secondary regarded as high risk with significant potential to cause pollution and great care woodland (see Figure 9.8). This will provide habitat for invertebrates, birds and should be taken with all proposed demolition and construction works. Potential bats and maintain connectivity. pollutants of concern include silt, cement, concrete, fuel, lubricating and shutter release oils, petrol, sewage, bridge cleaning debris and other waste materials. The Environment Agency provides Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs) for
178 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
Bats 10.247 There will be a watching brief, conducted by a suitably qualified ecologist, on all demolition and renovation works relating to roofs and bridges. This will 10.243 A Natural England license will need to be obtained for any works that are include buildings and bridges with known roosts but also buildings where likely to disturb bat roosts. The following guidelines outline mitigation measures emergent bats were not recorded, but were identified as having the potential to that will be conducted onsite to safeguard bat populations within the proposed support bats. Given the size of the site it is possible that some dispersal/resting development site and in the surrounding area. Full details of the mitigation roosts were overlooked and therefore this watching brief is an important package for roosting bats will be provided in a Method Statement to accompany precautionary measure. the Natural England Licence application. These details will be finalised before the commencement of any works within the development site. 10.248 Repair and restoration of old or derelict buildings often requires remedial timber treatment against infestations of wood-boring insects. Although most Pre-construction phase treatment chemicals now in general use are safe once dry, the application of products must be avoided when bats are present. In most cases, this is a matter Immediately pre-development re-survey of timing the work to avoid the summer months (between 1st October – 31st March). 10.244 Surveys will be carried out immediately prior to any demolition or renovation of affected buildings to confirm known roosting sites and check for 10.249 As best practice, any felling or tree surgery of any mature tree would be new roosts that may have been formed since the last survey. Update surveys are undertaken by a tree surgeon who is familiar with the requirements for protecting necessary to ensure that appropriate action is taken. bats.
Construction phase 10.250 If bats are found when an ecologist is not onsite works will stop immediately and the consultant ecologist contacted. A Natural England Bat Watching brief and mitigation to reduce disturbance Licence would be required for any new roosts.
10.245 All reasonable steps will be taken to ensure works do not harm Compensation for the disturbance of large bat roosts individuals (avoidance of deliberate killing, injury or disturbance) by altering (maternity/hibernation roosts) working methods or timing to avoid bats. 10.251 Any bat roosts which cannot be accommodated within the masterplan 10.246 Any significant work planned to be conducted on buildings/bridges that (e.g., buildings 8 and 10 and 38) will be compensated for with a roost which is a have been identified as roosts or have the potential to support bats should only like for like replacement based on species requirements. For large hibernation and be carried out between 1st October – 31st March to cause least disturbance. If in maternity roosts no destruction of former roosts will be permitted until a a worst case scenario roof works continue through the summer then works to the replacement is completed and usage demonstrated. Roost restoration may also main roosting area will be completed and secured before the bats return to be appropriate for known roosts (e.g., large roost in building 9) that have recently breed. been abandoned.
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 179 Chapter Ten : Ecology
10.252 There is one large maternity roost found on site with over 100 individuals 10.256 Bat boxes erected will be appropriate for maternity and hibernation (soprano pipistrelles), found under the soffits of the western end of building 21. roosts. For example the Schwegler 1WQ Summer and Winter Bat Roost (Figure Present plans are to renovate this building and therefore disturbance should be 10.8) is designed for the safe hibernation of bats in winter as well as for roosting, limited. However, timing restrictions and watching briefs will apply. There should forming colonies and raising their young during summer. The integrated insulation be no need to provide a permanent alternative roost. in combination with the well-known advantages of Schwegler Woodcrete are ideal for the year-round needs of bat species which inhabit buildings. The insulation 10.253 There is evidence of a large roost at the northern end of building 9. protects the bats in winter but also prevents overheating during summer. This box This roost, however, is not currently active. Droppings were identified as those is self-cleaning and therefore completely maintenance-free and it is easy to install from pipistrelle bats although the roost type is also suitable for brown long-eared on the exterior walls of a buildings. bats given the large open roof space. To maintain and enhance the bat populations found within the site, this roosting area would be retained and 10.257 Daubenton’s bats are commonly recorded foraging within the site, incorporated into the new design of the building so bats are encouraged to feeding around buildings and bridges. Although roosting sites were not located, it return. The retention of this roost may also act as an alternative roost for bats is probable that this species is roosting under bridges and other holes/crevices disturbed by renovation work carried out on building 21. For this reason located on site. Any disturbance incurred through works carried out under renovation works on building 9 would precede those carried out on building 21. bridges will be compensated for by the erection of a minimum of two bat boxes in appropriate locations. For example Schwegler N27 Bat Boxes (Figure 10.9) are 10.254 Currently the inactive roost in building 9 incorporates a large open roof designed for buildings, or underneath bridges. They are particularly useful for new space and has at least one known exit/entrance point at the northern end of the buildings or bridges to attract bats, or to provide new roost sites where existing building. For species that require roof voids to fly around in (e.g., brown long- buildings and bridges with bats are being renovated. It is proposed that the eared bats), an ideal roof void would have an apex height in excess of 2.8 m and boxes are incorporated into renovation works that are planned for bridges on site. a length and width of 5 m or more. These dimensions will be considered when These boxes should be recessed or cemented into a wall. They contain a single incorporating the roost into renovation designs. This roof void and roost area will internal wooden panel which simulates a crevice. be retained and enhanced to maximise its potential to support bats.
Compensation for the disturbance of small bat roosts (dispersal/resting roosts).
10.255 There are several small active roosts associated with buildings 38, 8 and possibly 10. All roosts were identified as being used by Pipistrelle bats. Under current plans buildings 38, 8 and 10 will be demolished. To compensate for the loss of these buildings a minimum of four bat boxes will be erected on buildings in locations as close as possible to the original roosting sites in quiet areas and ideally with a southerly facing aspect (e.g., on buildings 11, 5, 21 & 22 facing the river) Figure 10.8 - Schwegler 1WQ Figure 10.9 - Schwegler N27 Bat Summer and Winter Bat Roost Box
180 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
10.258 Both Pipistrelle and Daubenton’s bats are dependent on buildings for Appropriate lighting roosting sites. They typically roost in crevices and holes and therefore additional roosting opportunities can be provided in a variety of ways including: 10.261 Lighting will avoid high light levels around known bat roosts and foraging areas where there is potential to disrupt bat and invertebrate prey behaviour. The • Access to soffits boxes and eaves via a small gap (15-20 mm) between soffits lighting scheme will look to minimise light spillage. The lighting scheme includes and wall limited street lighting including a combination of bollard lighting around the roads, • Timber cladding mounted on 20-30 mm counter battens with bat access at wall lighting, foot lighting and a few uplighters all of which are of a low light the bottom or sides design. The lighting scheme has been produced in combination with lighting • Access to roof voids via bat bricks (Figure 10.10), gaps in masonry, soffit designers to ensure the lighting scheme will not have a significant impact on the gaps, raised lead flashing or purpose built bat entrances. At least two bat river channel and along woodland edges where bats forage. bricks will be used to provide access to appropriate roof voids. • Access to roof voids over the top of a cavity wall by appropriately constructed gaps. Operation Phase
10.259 Further roosting opportunities will be provided by the erection of two Enhancement Schwegler 2F DFP Bat Boxes (Figure 10.11) on trees within known foraging areas within the site, e.g. within the grounds to the east of Mill House. 10.262 Additional native planting will enhance insect diversity and therefore provide improved foraging habitat for bats and habitat connectivity within the 10.260 An ecological clerk of works will oversee the incorporation of all roosting wider landscape. Additional planting is proposed along the southern boundary of opportunities to be built into new structures and also the erection of various bat the site to the east of Mill house with a further staggered strip of trees following boxes within the site. the current western edge of the secondary woodland copse.
Monitoring
10.263 Monitoring of all roosts (retained, renovated and additional) and general activity will be conducted for at least two years post-construction to ensure that mitigation measures have been successful in maintaining bat populations and to inform management or remedial operations. Monitoring visits will be carried out annually between 1st April and 31st August consisting of internal and external roost checks.
10.264 Exact details of all the above mitigation measures will be provided in a Method Statement to accompany the Natural England Licence application. Figure 10.10 - Schwegler 1FR Bat Figure 10.11 - Schwegler 2F DFP Tube Bat Box
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 181 Chapter Ten : Ecology
Otters Monitor water quality 10.269 Otters are very sensitive to changes in water quality, due to pollution and 10.265 A license will not be required to carry out work on this section of the siltation, as a result of runoff, infiltration and dumping from activities that may be River Test, passing through the proposed development site, as intended works carried out throughout the construction phase. Pollution can affect fish stocks, will not damage or destroy any place of shelter of an Otter (couch or holt). No the Otters main food source. Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs) for pollution shelters were recorded 300m up or down stream from the site. A number of control at construction sites along watercourses, as set out by the Environment mitigation measures should however be put in place to protect this species and Agency, will be followed strictly. Water quality will be monitored throughout the ensure its continued long-term use of this stretch of the River Test. construction phase and any action taken where necessary.
Pre-construction phase Restrict working hours Immediately pre-development re-survey 10.270 Works on site will be restricted to daylight hours to reduce the likelihood of Otters being disturbed as they move through the site. 10.266 A survey will be carried out immediately prior to development to ensure that intended works do not interfere with any Otter shelters that may have arisen since earlier surveys. No building and construction work shall commence unless Operational phase evidence suggests that no Otters are sheltering within 50m of any working area. Habitat enhancement to minimise disturbance Construction phase 10.271 Otters are intolerant of intense human disturbance were cover is absent. Disturbance after the completion of the works can be minimised by maintaining Ensure access is maintained and enhanced where possible as much tree and scrub cover along the riverbanks as possible and enhancing 10.267 Safe aquatic passage through the River Test for any Otters will be this by planting additional thicket type vegetation e.g., pussy willow (Salix spp.), ensured throughout the construction phase particularly during demolition work. dog wood (Cornus sanguinea), wayfaring-tree (Viburnum lantana), purple-flowered Planned works to the river channel and existing control structures will improve raspberry (Rubus odoratus) and bittersweet (Solanum dulcamara). The majority of access and connectivity along the main channel which will also bring ecology this planting will be incorporated into the enhancement works to be carried out enhancements. The removal of some current obstructions such as grates from along the southern bank of the river to the east of the site. In addition, planting within the waterways as part of the enhancement scheme may help to ease Otter will be incorporated along the southern edge of the car park next to the eastern access through the site. This will also improve flow, reduce siltation and therefore bridge to act as a screen. provide a more favourable habitat for Otters. Limit river access to dogs Cap open pipe systems 10.272 Otters are intolerant of dogs. ‘Dogs on leads’ signs will be erected along 10.268 Any temporarily exposed open pipe system will be capped in such a way the Heritage Trail where access to the river by dogs is possible. as to prevent Otters access, as may happen when contractors are off-site.
182 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
Monitor water quality 10.273 With increased human disturbance along the river it is important that water quality is maintained and monitored annually to ensure the long-term viability of the Otter along this stretch of the River Test.
Road and traffic system 10.274 A system has been specifically designed to encourage low vehicle speeds within the development. The increase in traffic outside of normal operating times following development could theoretically increase the risk of road mortality. However, the road layout and design should keep this risk to a minimum. Figure 10.12 - Schwegler 9A House Figure 10.13 - Schwegler No 17 Operational phase Martin Box Triple Cavity Swift Box
Maintenance and monitoring 10.275 The river passing through the site and 300m up and down stream from the site, will be monitored for at least two years post-development to ensure the measures put in place have been successful in maintaining the long-term viability of the Otter along this stretch of the River Test. Monitoring visits will be carried out annually with no restriction on timing.
Birds
10.276 Birds may nest in the buildings, trees, shrubs and hedgerows within the survey area. All occupied bird nests have legal protection from damage and destruction under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended), with Figure 10.14 - SchweglerNo 10 some legal provisions for pest species. Therefore, any tree clearance or building Swallow Nest work which is proposed during the nesting season (March to August inclusive for most species in the UK) would be preceded by a bird survey undertaken by a Figure 10.15 - Schwegler 1B Bird trained ecologist. The nesting of Swallows and House Martins under eves and Box window sills on site are of particular importance. A total of six nest boxes, specific to Swallows, Swifts and House Martins (Figures 10.12-10.14) will be erected to compensate for any loss of nesting potential known to exist on buildings within the site. A further four bird boxes will be erected in retained trees to encourage smaller garden birds and compensate for loss nesting opportunities elsewhere in the site (Figure 10.15).
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 183 Chapter Ten : Ecology
10.277 Evidence suggests that Barn Owls use areas outside of building 9 as Immediately pre-development re-survey perch sites and inside as an occasional roost. This roost will be altered in the 10.282 A survey will be carried out immediately prior to development to check course of development and it is recommended that an owl nest box is provided for roosting Barn Owls. No building and construction work shall commence as compensation for this potential loss. Following best practice guidance from the unless evidence suggests that no birds are nesting. The Local Planning Authority Barn Owl Trust the following mitigation measures will be put in place to ensure will be informed before development commences. This will ensure that nesting the continued viability of Barn Owls roosting on site. Barn Owls are not disturbed by development works and enable the Local Authority to fulfil its obligation under Section 25 (1) of the Wildlife & Countryside Pre-development Act (1981).
Alternative temporary provision Construction phase 10.278 Two temporary alternative Barn Owl roosting/nesting boxes will be provided within 200 metres and in sight of the known roosts found within and Timing restriction outside of building 9. These will be erected at least 30 days before any part of the 10.283 Development works would not commence between 1st March and 31st site used by Barn Owls is affected by development. However, it is recommended August, or at any time while a pair of Barn Owls are roosting/nesting and until that alternative roosts are erected up to a year before development to maximise temporary alternative provisions have been made. the chances of the Barn Owl using the roost and therefore staying on site to then make use of new permanent roosts Permanent provision within buildings 10.284 Two permanent nesting/roosting spaces for Barn Owls will be provided. 10.279 Alternative roosts would remain in place until at least 30 days after One nest box will be placed in the south facing roof apex/gable of building 9 permanent provision has been made, in accordance with details that shall have using the original entry point of a circular window. The second nest box will be first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. placed within the roof of the tower (building 7). The design of these roosting This provision will secure the long-term protection of the species by maintaining spaces will follow guidelines set out by the Barn Owl Trust (Figure 10.18) and will continuity of occupation (by providing temporary additional roosting/nesting be in accordance with details that shall have first been submitted to, and places on-site). approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. A feeding ledge will be erected under the bridge over the road (from building 9). 10.280 Ideally, one indoor and one covered outdoor box should be provided, in an area unaffected by development at that time and as close as possible to the Operational phase building that is subject to development. The second best option is to erect nesting boxes on trees, which are clearly visible and within 200m from the present roosts. A last resort is pole boxes, however, this option is expensive. Maintenance and monitoring 10.285 The permanent roosting/nesting sites will be maintained and monitored 10.281 Proposed locations for temporary roosts will depend on the scheme of for at least two years post-development to ensure the measures put in place to works. Roosts need to be placed in locations with limited disturbance before the conserve biodiversity are successful and therefore maintain the long-term viability permanent roost is operational. Full details will be provided as part of the of this species on site and in the surrounding area. Monitoring visits will be carried Ecological Construction Management Plan. out annually between 1st April and 31st August.
184 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
Aquatic invertebrates and fish
10.287 The prevention of any pollution that may have an adverse impact on the invertebrates can be mitigated against by following the Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs) as discussed in section 10.239 above. Aquatic invertebrates such as Mayflies and Caddis flies are particularly sensitive to water quality. The monitoring of these species during and post construction will give an indication of any adverse impacts the development may be having on the river’s ecological health.
General
10.288 Mitigation will be required for the operational phase external lighting scheme. The lighting scheme avoids some of the most ecologically sensitive areas such as the river channels and buildings that are occupied by bats and birds. Lighting with a high ultraviolet content will be avoided particularly around Figure 10.16 – Roost built to the Barn Owl Trust specifications. tree lines, river channels and buildings with bats roosting. There will be some light spillage into the surrounding area including retained habitat, river corridors and tree lines. However, the amount of light spillage will be minimal and the lights used are of relatively low wattage.
Enhancement
Herpetofauna 10.289 It is possible for development to result in an enhancement of a site’s overall nature conservation value. 10.286 The site has a limited potential to support reptiles due to its highly fragmented landscape and suboptimal habitats present. Despite a negative 10.290 Enhancements to encourage bats to use the site are likely to be effective survey result, there is still the theoretical potential of Slow Worms and Grass as several species are known to roost/forage in the surrounding woodland. The Snakes in the woodland and scrub. This is of note because all native reptiles are presence of this species will be enhanced by installing bat boxes on retained protected from killing and injury by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as buildings and trees. In addition, the appropriate renovation of buildings and the amended). Reptiles should not be considered a constraint to the scope or design subsequent habitation of the buildings will create more favourable conditions for of site development. Following best practice any areas which are to be cleared roosting bats. Additional native planting provide foraging habitat and habitat will be carried out under the supervision of an ecologist to minimise the risk in the connectivity with the wider landscape. unlikely event of encountering individual reptiles and other species.
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 185 Chapter Ten : Ecology
10.291 It is proposed that bird boxes, in addition to those erected to mitigate be minimised through the Ecological Construction Management Plan. Any new against any loss of present nesting areas, are erected around the site. A variety of landscape planting including tree planting will be conducted following bird boxes will be used in order to benefit a range of species, including those of construction at the site to minimise the impact that construction will have on the conservation interest. Swallows and House Martins are known to nest under new plants. window sills and eves of the abandoned Mill buildings and therefore it would be appropriate to provide similar nesting potential within the new development. Nest 10.296 Sections of the river channel that are currently covered are planned to be boxes specific to Swallows and House Martins can be incorporated into the opened up. This will increase the numbers of habitats for species to colonise, development along with Brick boxes for species such as Swifts, Tits and e.g., gastropod molluscs and insect larvae. In turn this will have direct and Flycatchers. positive effects on the populations of species such as fish and birds such as Kingfishers and Grebes. 10.292 Landscape planting proposals will include fruit bearing species such as holly (Ilex aquifolium), dogwood (Cornus sanguinea) and elder (Sambucus nigra) 10.297 It is noted that the historic modifications to the river channel (culverting, which will provide a food source to foraging birds. Additional breeding and hard revetment and flow control structures) will have to some degree, affected the foraging habitat will be created through tree, hedgerow and scrub planting and river ecology and natural processes. Therefore, the proposed development residential gardens as well as providing habitat connectivity that will allow for represents an opportunity for the naturalisation of the Mill Stream. Through species to move more freely across the site. Tree planting will include native ongoing consultation with the Environment Agency, this will broadly include the species such as field maple (Acer campestre), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), following: hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) and beech (Fagus sylvatica). - Regrading of the watercourse from the bypass off-take to the downstream end 10.293. Native planting is planned along the northern edge where the site runs of the Mill, by virtue of opening control structures; adjacent to the River Test bypass channel and the woodland to the north. This - Management of structures to reduce water levels and increase velocities; will help soften the development along this edge with species such as dogwood - Mixture of hard and soft engineering to the banks; (Cornus sanguinea), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), blackthorn (Prunus - Changes to depth/width relationship to improve velocities. spinosa), dog rose (Rosa canina) and elder (Sambucus nigra). Further details on the landscaping scheme are provided in Chapter 9. 10.298 These changes will alter the channel towards a more naturalised gravel bed, and fast flowing watercourse which was there prior to the Mill. They will also 10.294 Enhancement is planned for the southern bank of the central channel. improve the ecology of the watercourse. Some of the enhancement options Here planting will include ephemeral and thicket type vegetation. Further details outlined above are currently being explored. The effect of these will reduce water on the landscaping scheme are provided in Chapter 9. levels significantly and in places limit a faster flow to the centre of the channel. This will in turn expose areas of river bed which now offer the possibility of 10.295 All retained and created habitats will be managed to ensure their integrity enhancement of aquatic habitat via the reduction in flows and creation of modest of habitats during the construction and operational phases of development. areas of emergent wetland plant communities in the recently exposed river Although some temporary disruption will occur during construction works, this will margins. This could be combined with a strategy to modify and re-profile the be necessary for the enhancements to be realised. Any temporary disruption will bank on the southern side of the site (as detailed in Chapter 4).
186 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement Chapter Ten : Ecology
Monitoring Cumulative Effects
10.299 The ECMP will include provision for monitoring during development. This Current Biodiversity Levels should encompass monitoring development activities, and also include the following, for example: 10.302 The River Test is of high ecological value with a rich assemblage of invertebrates. The mature hedgerow along the southern boundary of the site • Monitoring of aquatic invertebrates down stream from the development site. consists predominately of Yew. This hedge displays characteristics that give it • Monitoring of roosting bats significant value within the surrounding landscape. The small secondary woodland • Monitoring of roosting Barn Owls and associated scrub consists of deciduous and coniferous native and non-native species. Due to its isolation and lack of connectivity to other features it is of only • Monitoring of enhanced retained habitats, i.e. trees/ hedgerow. ecological interest in a local context. These features could both be enhanced to • Monitoring of otter usage up and particularly downstream of the development increase the biodiversity of the site. The woodland will not be retained as part of site this proposed development. The monitoring regime for the above species and habitats will be detailed in the Biodiversity Enhancement Post Development ECMP but will be of a level similar to that conducted in the Baseline survey. 10.303 The enhancement of retained habitats would lead to a significant increase Survey results should allow comparison of results between the baseline and the of the number and proportion of native trees found on site. Not only will these monitoring surveys. trees provide important landscape features, they will also in turn provide increased opportunity for species using the site for foraging and nesting. The 10.300 The management plan should be based on targets and clearly set out maturation of these habitats will result in an overall increase in the biodiversity responsibilities for meeting those targets. The management plan should be potential for the site. However, the biodiversity potential for these retained habitats reviewed once every five years in order to meet changes in objectives. is somewhat dependent on the continued management of these habitats as to be laid out in the ECMP. SIignificance of Residual Impacts 10.304 The areas of retained habitat are reservoirs for insects; the insects are in 10.301 At this site, it has been possible to create a development proposal that turn food for insectivorous birds such as Wrens, Sparrows and Whitethroats. should result in the maintenance of biodiversity value and also provide some Song Thrushes and Blackbirds eat Earthworms, Slugs and Snails of the hedge positive benefits. Some potential negative impacts have been identified, and bottoms, while the autumn berry crops are food for Yellowhammers, Bullfinches, mitigation recommendations have been provided to avoid these. Habitats of Chaffinches and winter visitors such as Fieldfares and Redwings. Hedgerows and ecological value are to be retained and enhanced within the site and national and trees will also provide valuable nesting-space and song-posts for breeding birds county BAP priority species such as the Pipistrelle bat and the barn owl will and additional foraging habitat for birds. benefit from the current proposals, with locally beneficial impacts. The overall effect on the site’s biodiversity and that of the locality is therefore positive. 10.305 Hedgerows and trees also provide mammals with food, shelter and Although beneficial, the positive impacts likely to result from the scheme are not protection. At the top of the food chain are the Stoat, Fox and Barn Owl preying considered to be significant in terms of EIA. on the small mammals and birds.
Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement 187 Chapter Ten : Ecology
10.306 The erection of bat and barn owl and other bird boxes throughout the Enhancement of the channel of the River Test as it passes through the site will development has the potential to increase the number of species, including UK also be targeted which will have a positive impact on aquatic invertebrates, BAP priority species, found within the development site. macrophytes, fish and their predators such as birds and otters.
10.307 Works on the river plan to improve the existing watercourse control 10.311 Bats are known to roost in external roof soffits and potentially under structures and their maintenance, watercourse improvements and watercourse bridges. Therefore, a Natural England licence will be required in order to carry out ecology enhancements. These enhancements may help to ease Otter access renovation work that has the potential to disturb these roosts. The timing of through the site and provide a more favorable habitat for Otters. works will be restricted as a result of this. The mitigation package to compensate and mitigate for any adverse impacts, as outlined above, will be included in a Natural England Licence Application. Additional proposed developments 10.312 Evidence of Otters travelling along the River Test as it passes through the 10.308 A total of eight additional developments are proposed within the local site was found although no evidence of holts were found up or downstream in area; one commercial and four residential in Whitchurch and one commercial and the survey. If enhancement works and the construction phase of the two residential in Overton. None are proposed for Laverstoke. It is not predicted redevelopment will result in disturbance of otters then a Natural England licence that these developments in combination with the development at Laverstoke Mill will be required. Currently, no license is required. will have a significant cumulative impact on the surrounding environment given the considerable distance (> 1km) between them. 10.313 The traffic and road proposals have been specifically designed to encourage slow vehicle movement through the site. This will reduce the risk of Summary road traffic accidents involving local wildlife, specifically otters and barn owls.
10.309 The River Test that runs through the site is of high ecological value and is 10.314 Additional features such as bird and bat boxes, have also been included at risk from pollution form demolition and construction works related to the within the scheme which aims to increase the biodiversity of the site. development. Mitigation measures will prevent any adverse potential impacts on the watercourse and aquifer. Measures as laid out in the various Pollution 10.315 Overall, the development aims to increase the biodiversity of the site Prevention Guidelines (PPGs) produced by the Environment Agency will be strictly through habitat enhancement, habitat creation, and the planting of local species adhered to. and the long term and sensitive management of all of these features. within the scheme which aims to increase the biodiversity of the site. 10.310 The River Test, hedgerows and secondary woodland associated with the site in its current state are of most value. The development aims to enhance the hedgerows but the majority of the secondary woodland and associated scrub will be lost although the mature beech trees of highest value will be retained. The enhancement of retained habitats will include planting schemes using native species of local provenance and ensuring their long term management.
188 Laverstoke Mill Environmental Statement