Ecology Report

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Land at Manor Farm, Beighton

June 2020

REPORT PRODUCED BY: MHE Consulting Ltd Mill House Homersfield Harleston IP20 0ET

01986 788791 07766 771305 [email protected]

PLANNING CONSULTANT: Gareth Watts Savills Stuart House St John’s Street Peterborough PE1 5DD

01733 559349 www.savills.co.uk

Contents Amendment Record REPORT NUMBER: BEIGHTON/2020/ER/001 This report has been issued and amended as follows:

Issue Revision Description Date Signed

1 0 Final Draft 15/06/20 H. Booth/C. Whiting

This report has been prepared in accordance with the instructions of the client for their sole and specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained within do so at their own risk.

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BRIEF 1 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1 2 PLANNING POLICY AND LEGISLATION 2 2.1 INTRODUCTION 2 2.2 PLANNING POLICY 2 2.3 LEGISLATION 3 3 METHODOLOGY 6 3.1 INTRODUCTION 6 3.2 DESK SURVEY 6 3.3 FIELD SURVEY 7 3.4 SURVEY CONSTRAINTS 9 3.5 SURVEYORS 9 3.6 ASSESSMENT 9 4 RESULTS 10 4.1 INTRODUCTION 10 4.2 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS - DESK STUDY 10 4.3 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS – FIELD SURVEY 13 4.4 GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT 16 5 ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 5.1 INTRODUCTION 17 5.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 17 5.3 FURTHER SURVEYS REQUIRED 17 5.4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 17 5.5 DESIGNTATED SITES 18 5.6 HABITATS AND VASCULAR PLANTS 18 5.7 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES 19 5.8 BATS 20 5.9 NESTING BIRDS 21 5.10 OTHER S. 41 LIST HABITATS AND SPECIES 21 5.11 COMPENSATION 22 5.12 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 22 5.13 ENHANCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES 22 5.14 CONCLUSIONS 23 6 REFERENCES 24

Figures Figure 1 Site location plan Figure 2 Phase 1 habitats plan Figure 3 Ponds location plan

Appendices Appendix A1 Photos Appendix A2 NBIS data search Appendix A3 EcIA Criteria

Executive Summary

MHE Consulting Ltd were instructed to undertake and report an ecological survey and assessment for an area of arable land at Manor Farm in Beighton, Norfolk where it is proposed to construct a single poultry shed to accommodate 20,000 free range broilers. Proposed landscape planting includes meadow grassland, and native hedgerow and localised woodland planting.

Surveys undertaken in February 2020 indicate the site comprises arable farmland with hedgerows and mature trees, and grass margins present. A number of designated sites, many with notable vegetation features are present in the area.

Construction works will locally remove hedgerow/grassland for the construction of an access roadway and have the potential to injure animals such as nesting birds (through nest destruction), and amphibians or small mammals due to entrapment in open excavations. Good working practices are recommended to avoid impacts. Operational phase impacts in the immediate locality of the site relate to a reduction in the availability of skylark (Alauda arvensis) nesting habitat, to be compensated for locally through the provision of skylark plots. Proposed landscape planting will result in an overall Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) for the site. The use of a range of native taxa is suggested to maximise the gains provided.

The main consideration of the Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) relates to direct and indirect effects of ammonia emissions during the operational phase, specifically on sensitive features within locally, nationally, and internationally designated sites. Potential impacts have been avoided/minimised in the first instance through a reduction in size of the proposed scheme, with detailed modelling (AS Modelling & Data, 2020) undertaken to assess potential impacts relative to standard Environment Agency and Natural England guidance/thresholds. The modelling predicts that at all of the wildlife sites identified, the process contribution of the proposed poultry house to ammonia concentrations and nitrogen deposition rates would be below the relevant thresholds and would therefore normally be considered insignificant.

With avoidance, minimisation, compensation, and enhancement measures proposed, the scheme is considered consistent with national and local biodiversity related planning policies.

1 Introduction

1.1 BRIEF MHE Consulting Ltd were instructed to undertake and report an ecological survey and assessment for an area of arable land at Manor Farm in Beighton, Norfolk (TG 37847 08257, Figure 1) where it is proposed to construct a single poultry shed to accommodate 20,000 free range broilers. A Strategy Landscape Plan has been scoped to retain and incorporate landscape and biodiversity features into the scheme.

The ecological survey and this report are necessary to: • Identify the existing ecological value of the site; • Identify the need for further (e.g. protected species) surveys; • Assess any potential adverse impacts of the proposed development on ecological features of the site or nearby designated sites; • Make recommendations for mitigation (if required); and • Identify opportunities for biodiversity enhancements and, consistent with national and local planning policy, net gains.

This report will form the basis for the submission of biodiversity information with the planning application. It reflects the site at the time of survey(s) and should be reviewed and revised as appropriate.

1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The main site (Figure 2) comprises part of an existing large arable field with grass margins, and boundary hedgerows and mature trees along the southern and western boundaries. Access to the site will run from the B1140, across two further arable fields and associated boundaries.

Photos of the habitats present are provided within Appendix A1.

2 Planning policy and legislation

2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarises the key legislation and policies relevant to assessing the biodiversity impacts of the scheme upon habitats and species.

2.2 PLANNING POLICY 2.2.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPFF) The National Planning Policy Framework was originally published in 2012 and recently revised in February 2019. The document sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and provides guidance on how these policies are expected to be applied. It provides a framework for, and must be taken account of within, locally prepared plans for housing and other development, and is a material consideration in planning decisions.

An overarching objective of the NPPF, which aims to secure net gains, is to contribute to protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.

The full NPPF is available to view online using the gov.uk website: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/779764/NPPF_Feb_2019_web.pdf Policies of particular relevance to development and biodiversity include 170, 175, 176 and 177.

170. Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland; c) maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where appropriate; d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans; and f) remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.

175. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:

a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; b) development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest; c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and d) development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity.

176. The following should be given the same protection as habitats sites: a) potential Special Protection Areas (SPA) and possible Special Areas of Conservation (SAC); b) listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and c) sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on habitats sites, potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites.

177. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where the plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a habitats site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), unless an appropriate assessment has concluded that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the habitats site.

2.2.2 Local Plan Adopted local plans provide the framework for development across England, and include policies related to conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Planning policies and supporting documents that are used to plan, deliver and monitor development across the Broadland District, including the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk, can be found at www.broadland.gov.uk/info/200139/planning_for_future_development.

2.3 LEGISLATION 2.3.1 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 Section 40 places a duty on every public body in exercising its functions, to have regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity; this includes restoring or enhancing populations or habitats. A key purpose of this duty is to embed consideration of biodiversity as an integral part of policy and public-sector decision making. Habitats and species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England are those published under Section 41 (“S. 41”) of the NERC Act 2006.

2.3.2 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) Rare and scarce habitats and species are afforded varying levels of protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (hereafter “WCA 1981”). Some species and groups are afforded full protection (e.g. Schedule 1 bird species, bats), whilst others receive partial protection (e.g. widespread reptiles). Section 3.1 provides further detail relevant to this scheme. Species afforded legal protection are referred to by their relevant schedule (“Sch.”) within the act, i.e. “Sch. 1” (birds), “Sch. 5” (other animals), or “Sch. 8” (plants).

Invasive plant species such as Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) and giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzanium) are listed on Schedule 9 of the WCA 1981. It is an offence to plant or otherwise cause these species to grow in the wild and this includes the development of sites such that the plant colonises land owned by a third party.

2.3.3 The Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 The CROW Act 2000 strengthened and updated elements of the WCA 1981, and gave a statutory basis to biodiversity conservation, requiring government departments to have regard for biodiversity in carrying out its functions and to take positive steps to further the conservation of listed habitats and species. It strengthened the protection of SSSI and threatened species. Many of its provisions have been incorporated as amendments into the WCA 1981 and some have been superseded by the NERC Act 2006.

2.3.4 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 The Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2017 (hereafter referred to as the Habitat Regulations 2017) consolidate the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 with subsequent amendments. The Regulations transpose Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (EC Habitats Directive), and elements of the EU Wild Birds Directive, into national law. The 2017 Regulations provide for the designation and protection of ‘European sites’ (Special Protection Areas, SPAs, and Special Areas of Conservation, SACs), the protection of ‘European Protected Species’ (“EPS”), and the adaptation of planning and other controls for the protection of European Sites. They have recently been amended by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which continue the same provision for European protected species, licensing requirements, and protected areas after Brexit.

Under the Regulations, competent authorities i.e. any Minister, government department, public body, or person holding public office, have a general duty, in the exercise of any of their functions, to have regard to the relevant EC Directives.

2.3.5 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 The scheme is considered to meet the description of a Schedule 2 development under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. A screening opinion was therefore sought from Broadland District Council (Application Number 20200094) in January 2020 under Regulation 6 to determine the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Revised consultation is underway following design amendments to scheme design.

2.3.6 Protection of Badgers Act 1992 The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (hereafter “PBA 1992”) consolidates and improves upon the previous Badgers Act 1973, Badgers Act 1991, and Badgers (Further Protection) Act 1991. Under the PBA 1992 (except when holding a licence to do so) it is illegal for a person to wilfully; kill, injure, take, posses, sell, or otherwise cruelly treat a badger. It is also illegal to dig out, damage, destroy, or obstruct entry to setts (including by use of dog(s)). Further information on offences, exceptions, and penalties are listed on the PBA 1992 on legislation.gov.uk.

3 Methodology

3.1 INTRODUCTION This document reports protected species surveys and provides an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA). It has been produced with reference to relevant guidance, most notably: • Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing (CIEEM, 2017); • Biodiversity – Code of Practice for Planning and Development (BS 42020:20131); • Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland (CIEEM, 2018); and • Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG): good practise principles for development (CIRIA, CIEEM and IEMA, 2016).

The following sections summarise the approaches used to review existing data, and to undertake appropriate field surveys to scope and inform an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) for the scheme. Where further surveys are considered necessary, this is identified in section 5.

3.2 DESK SURVEY The following data sources were consulted to assess the potential for the application site to support protected or notable habitats/species: • Aerial photos, Ordnance Survey maps, and the MAGIC website (http://magic.defra.gov.uk/). These were used to identify habitat types including priority habitats, suitability for particular species/groups, and the locality of nationally and internationally designated sites; • Natural England’s (NE’s) great crested newt (GCN) (Triturus cristatus) open source data (class licence returns and district licensing eDNA survey data); and • Historical biological records: species and locally designated site records within 2km of the site were provided by the Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service (NBIS) – see Appendix A2.

From this exercise, it was concluded that the following legally protected species/groups may be present on the site and/or land immediately adjacent to it: • Amphibians2 and reptiles3 including widespread species such as toads (Bufo bufo) and grass snake (Natrix helvetica); • Mammals including badgers (Meles meles)4 and bats2; • Breeding birds5 including Red and Amber status6 species; and • S. 417 list habitats such as hedgerows, and species such as hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus).

In the context of the landscape setting, scale of the application site, and nature of the development, the ‘Zone of Influence’ of the scheme is considered restricted to habitats

1 BSI Standards publication BS 42020:2013 Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development. 2 GCNs, otter and all species of bats receive full protection under the WCA 1981 and Habitats Regulations 2017. 3 Widespread reptiles and amphibians receive partial protection under the WCA 1981. 4 Badgers and their setts are afforded protection by the PBA 1992. 5 All wild birds, their nests and eggs are protected under the WCA 1981 (as amended), level of protection varies per species. 6 The conservation statuses of UK bird species are listed within the Birds of Conservation Concern 4 (Eaton et al., 2015). 7 S. 41 of the NERC Act 2006 lists ‘habitats and species which are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England’. 6

on the site and species within 250m of the site boundary unless identified otherwise (e.g. designated sites).

3.3 FIELD SURVEY An initial site walkover was undertaken on the 14th February 2020 to 1) record habitats present; and 2) assess the value of the habitats present for protected and notable species. A list of vascular plants and a description of the vegetation was made, including the location and extent of any Schedule 9 (WCA 1981) plants.

Photos of the habitats and any field present signs are provided in Appendix A1.

3.3.1 Habitats and vascular plants The site was walked with all distinct vegetation and habitat types as well as any features of interest identified using the Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology (JNCC, 2010). Care was taken to record as many species as possible.

Important hedgerows Hedgerows were also assessed with regards to whether they constitute an ‘important hedgerow’ under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 which states that a hedgerow is “important”8 if it, or the hedgerow of which it is a stretch: (a) has existed for 30 years or more; and (b) satisfies at least one of the criteria listed in Part II of Schedule 1.

• marks all or part of a parish boundary that existed before 1850; • contains an archaeological feature such as a scheduled monument; • is completely or partly in or next to an archaeological site listed on a Historic Environment Record (HER), (formerly a Sites and Monuments Record); • marks the boundary of an estate or manor or looks to be related to any building or other feature that’s part of the estate or manor that existed before 1600; • is part of a field system or looks to be related to any building or other feature associated with the field system that existed before 1845; • contains protected species listed in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 • contains species that are endangered, vulnerable and rare and identified in the British Red Data books; and • includes woody species and associated features as specified in Schedule 1, Part II Criteria, paragraph 7(1) of the Hedgerow Regulations.

3.3.2 Amphibians and reptiles The terrestrial habitat suitability of the site was assessed with respect to refugia and foraging habitat based on the known habitat preferences of widespread amphibians and reptiles.

No ponds or waterbodies exist on the application site though 2 ponds exist within 250m of the application site (P1 and P2; Figure 3) and their suitability for supporting GCNs was assessed using the GCN Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) as developed by Oldham et al. (2000).

8 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/countryside-hedgerows-regulation-and-management 7

3.3.3 Bats a) Tree Roost Assessment Existing trees in areas of hedgerow which could potentially be affected by the scheme were visually checked to assess their suitability for supporting roosting bats using the following criteria: 1. All Potential Roosting Features (PRFs) (e.g. natural cavities, rot holes, woodpecker holes, splits, peeling bark) were inspected from the ground, using binoculars where necessary; 2. All potential niches would be assigned a category according to Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) protocols (Collins, 2016). These categories are listed below: • High Suitability: Trees with one or more potential roost sites that are obviously suitable for use by larger numbers of bats on a more regular basis and potentially for longer periods of time due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat; • Moderate Suitability: Trees with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by bats due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation; • Low Suitability: A tree of sufficient size and age to contain potential roosting features but with none seen from the ground or features seen with only very limited roosting potential. However, the tree(s) are of a size and age that elevated surveys may result in features being found; or features which may have limited potential to support bats; and • Negligible Suitability: Trees with negligible bat roost potential. 3. Where potential niches existed, niches below 5m high were physically inspected, using ladders where appropriate. Any cavities with the potential to support roosting bats were inspected with a SeeSnake endoscope and/or a small LED torch as necessary; and 4. All potential roosting niches were checked for the presence of bats (alive or dead), faecal staining, fur and/or scratch marks around the entrance and droppings within the cavities or attached to the trunk/bough below the entrance.

b) Foraging and commuting habitat Consideration was given to the value of any potential foraging and commuting habitats (i.e. hedgerows, trees, streams, ponds, composting areas) on or close to the application site (Collins, 2016).

3.3.4 Nesting birds The value of the site was assessed in relation to nesting birds. This was supplemented with field records of birds seen or heard within the site, or nests observed.

3.3.5 Badger The application site and adjacent habitats were surveyed for evidence of badger activity including setts, day beds, latrines, diggings/snuffle holes, paths/runs, scratching posts, hair, and footprints. Any potential sett found was then assessed for evidence of recent use by badger and classified as per current guidance (Scottish Badgers, 2018).

3.3.6 S.41 habitats and species The site was surveyed to determine the presence of any S. 41 habitats such as native species-rich hedgerows. The site’s suitability for S. 41 list species such as hedgehog was assessed based on their habitat preferences.

3.3.9 Non-native invasive plant species The site was inspected for Schedule 9 species such as Japanese knotweed and giant hogweed.

3.4 SURVEY CONSTRAINTS Given the nature of the site and the survey carried out, the timing of the survey visit was considered appropriate for this report.

3.5 SURVEYORS Christian Whiting BSc (Hons) MSc MCIEEM MEECW has over 20 years’ experience working as an ecologist and holds NE survey licences for barn owl (CL29/00213), bats (2015-14745-CLS-CLS - Bat Survey Level 2), and great crested newts (Class A licence 2015-17633-CLS-CLS). He is a Registered Consultant (Registration RC089) on NE’s Bat Low Impact Class Licence. He is registered on the NE water vole (Arvicola amphibius) Developers Class Licence CL31 (Intentional disturbance of water voles and damage/destruction of water vole burrows by means of ‘Displacement’) and the Environment Agency’s and IDB water vole organisational and class licences respectively. His main areas of expertise are bats, vascular plants, amphibians and reptiles, otter (Lutra lutra) and water vole.

Helen Booth (BSC, MSc, CEnv, MCIEEM) has over 19 years’ experience as an Ecologist and is an experienced Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIAs) practitioner. She has many years’ experience designing and undertaking surveys, impact assessments and mitigation for water vole, and is registered on the NE water vole (Arvicola amphibius) Developers Class Licence CL31 (Intentional disturbance of water voles and damage/destruction of water vole burrows by means of ‘Displacement’) and the Environment Agency’s and IDB water vole organisational and class licences respectively. She has also acted as Named Ecologist on numerous site specific mitigation licences for the species.

3.6 ASSESSMENT Impacts and effects upon habitats and species are assessed with reference to the CIEEM Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (2018) and are reported in Section 5, based on the baseline conditions reported in Section 4.

The assessment includes potential impacts upon habitats and species during the construction and operational phases of the scheme. It considers positive and negative impacts, their extent, magnitude and duration, frequency and timing, and reversibility.

In relation to ammonia emissions and potential impacts upon sensitive receptors, the commissioned modelling report (AS Modelling & Data, 2020) is referred to. Full details of the technical assessment employed are provided within the source document.

4 Results

4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarises the results of the desk and field surveys.

4.2 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS - DESK STUDY 4.2.1 Designated sites Initial site screening using the MAGIC website (Table 4.1) identified Nationally, and Internationally designated sites within 5km and 10km respectively of the site.

Table 4.1 Relevant designated sites Site name and designation The Broads SAC Broadland SPA and Ramsar sites Cantley Marshes SSSI Damgate Marshes, Acle SSSI Decoy Carr, Acle SSSI Halvergate Marshes SSSI Limpenhoe Meadows SSSI Upton Broad and Marshes SSSI Yare Broads and Marshes SSSI Mid-Yare National Nature Reserve (NNR)

a) EIA screening Natural England were consulted by Broadland District Council with regards to an EIA screening opinion for the proposed poultry development. Natural England identified a larger number of component SSSIs for The Broads SAC and Broadland SPA and Ramsar sites. In addition to the SSSIs listed in Table 4.1 the following SSSIs were also identified as potentially being impacted by the proposed development:

• Bure Broads and Marshes SSSI • Burgh Common and Muckfleet Marshes • Ducan’s Marsh, Claxton SSSI • Hardley Flood SSSI • Ludham – Potter Heigham Marshes SSSI • Poplar Farm Meadows, Langley SSSI • Shallam Dyke Marshes, Thurne SSSI • Trinity Broads SSSI • Breydon Water SSSI, SPA and Ramsar

Air Quality modelling (AS Modelling and Data Ltd, 2020) and Broadland District Council’s EIA screening was subsequently based on assessing impacts on:

• The Broads SAC and the Broadland SPA/Ramsar sites and the component SSSIs: Cantley Marshes SSSI, Decoy Carr, Acle SSSI, Yare Broads and Marshes SSSI; • Breydon Water SSSI, SPA and Ramsar; and • Buckenham Wood an area of ancient semi-natural woodland c. 2.3km to the north- west of the application site.

b) Local sites No Local Natures Reserves are located within 2km of the application site but the Buckenham Wood, an ancient woodland site, is located c. 2.3km to the

National sites The SSSIs listed within Table 4.1 are also component SSSIs for The Broads SAC and Broadland SPA and Ramsar sites referred to as Natura 2000 sites. In summary their designated site interest comprises open water (“broads”), mixed fen, unimproved pasture, reed swamp, carr woodland, wet grassland and marsh dykes. The Broads which have clear water (e.g. Upton Broad) support a number of notable macrophytes, whilst the areas of fen meadow support a number of rare wetland plants.

The marsh dykes support a range of macroinvertebrates including dragonflies such as the Norfolk hawker (Anaciaeschna isoceles) and molluscs such as lesser whirlpool ram’s-horn snail (Anisus vorticulus) (GB Red List Near Threatened). The nationally scarce swallowtail butterfly (Papillo machaon). The habitats present support a number of rare bird species including for breeding and overwintering for which the Broadland SPA and Ramsar sites are designated.

For a detailed description of the site interest for the SSSIs their citations are available via the www.magic.defra.gov.uk website.

The application site falls within the SSSI Impact Risk Zone which states that Natural England should be consulted for “Any industrial/agricultural development that could cause AIR POLLUTION (incl: industrial processes, livestock & poultry units with floorspace > 500m², slurry lagoons > 750m² & manure stores > 3500t).”

Natural England were formally consulted by Broadland District Council for the EIA screening opinion (Application Number 20200094) for the initial proposal for 2 poultry sheds. Their response (26/05/20) and stated that the proposed development may have an impact on a number of SSSIs and Natura 2000 sites due to air quality impacts.

International sites The Broads SAC is designated for its Annex I habitats and species as follows:

Qualifying habitats: The site is designated under article 4(4) of the Directive (92/43/EEC) as it hosts the following habitats listed in Annex I: • Alkaline fens. (Calcium-rich spring water-fed fens); • Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae). (Alder woodland on floodplains)*; • Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae. (Calcium-rich fen dominated by great fen sedge (saw sedge))*; • Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp. (Calcium- rich nutrient-poor lakes, lochs and pools); • Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae). (Purple moor-grass meadows); • Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition-type vegetation. (Naturally nutrient-rich lakes or lochs which are often dominated by pondweed); and • Transition mires and quaking bogs. (Very wet mires often identified by an unstable ‘quaking’ surface).

Qualifying species: The site is designated under article 4(4) of the Directive (92/43/EEC) as it hosts the following species listed in Annex II: • Desmoulin’s whorl-snail (Vertigo moulinsiana); • Little whirlpool ram’s-horn snail (Anisus vorticulus); • Fen orchid (Liparis loeselii); and • Otter (Lutra lutra).

*Annex I priority habitats.

The Broadland SPA and Ramsar sites are designated for their bird interest, whilst the Ramsar site also supports habitats, plants, and invertebrate interest as follows:

a) It is used regularly by 1% or more of the GB population of a species listed on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) in any season.

Annex 1 species 5-yr peak mean 1996/1997 from 1987-88- 1991/2* Bittern (Botaurus stellaris) 2-3(10-15% GB) M Bewick's swan (Cygnus columbianus bewickii) 495(7.1% GB) I >600 8.6% GB) I Whooper swan (Cygnus Cygnus) 121(2% GB) I 100 (1.8% GB) I Marsh harrier (Circus aeruginosus) 16(16% GB) F Hen harrier (Circus cyaneus) 22 (3% GB) Ruff (Philomachus pugnax) 96 (6.4% GB)

Units of population size: M - booming males, F - breeding females, I - individual birds wintering *Figures relate to the SPA boundary classified in 1994

b) It is used regularly by 1% or more of the biogeographic population of a regularly occurring migratory species (other than those listed on Annex 1) in any season.

Non-Annex 1 migratory 5-yr peak mean from 5-yr peak mean bird species 1987/88- 1991/92* from 1990/91- 1995/96 Wigeon (Anas penelope) 8,966 (l.2% NW Europe)' 10,071 (1.34% NW Europe)' Gadwall (Anas strepera) 486 (4% NW Europe)' 240 (0.96% NW Europe)' Shoveler (Anas clypeata) 675(1.7% NW Europe)' <1% N W Europe'

Given the application sites location relative to the designated sites no direct physical impacts are predicted but potential impacts on The Broads SAC and Broadland SPA, Ramsar sites and the component SSSIs have been considered with regards to air quality impacts from ammonia emissions and Nitrogen deposition. Air quality modelling has been undertaken to assess air quality impacts of the proposed poultry development in combination with existing background levels.

4.2.2 NBIS Species Records Protected and notable species records are summarised in Table 4.2 below. Records within 250m of the site are highlighted in bold.

Table 4.2 Protected/notable species Common name Scientific name Legal/conservation status Amphibians Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus EPS; Sch. 5; S. 41

Common name Scientific name Legal/conservation status Bats Serotine Eptesicus serotinus EPS; Sch. 5 Daubenton’s Myotis daubentonii EPS; Sch. 5 Natterer’s Myotis nattereri EPS; Sch. 5 Nathusius’ pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii EPS; Sch. 5 Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus EPS; Sch. 5 Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus EPS; Sch. 5; S. 41 Brown long-eared Plecotus auritus EPS; Sch. 5; S. 41 Natterer’s Myotis nattereri EPS; Sch. 5 Noctule Nyctalus noctula EPS; Sch. 5; S. 41 Birds Skylark Alauda arvensis Red Status; S. 41 Swift Apus apus Amber Status Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella Red Status; S. 41 Reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus Amber Status; S. 41 Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Amber Status Linnet Linaria cannabina Red Status; S. 41 House sparrow Passer domesticus Red Status; S. 41 Grey partridge Perdix perdix Red Status; S. 41 Turtle dove Streptopelia turtur Red Status; S. 41 Starling Sturnus vulgaris Red Status; S. 41 Song thrush Turdus philomelos Red Status; S. 41 Kingfisher Alcedo atthis Sch. 1 Field fare Turdus pilaris Red Status; Sch. 1 Mistle thrush Turdus viscivorus Red Status Barn owl Tyto alba Sch. 1 Other mammals Badger Meles meles PBA 1992 S. 41 species Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus S. 41 Brown hare Lepus europaeus S. 41

4.2.3 Priority habitats The application site supports no areas of priority habitats as shown on the Defra MAGIC website.

4.2.4 GCN records The nearest positive Natural England Class licence records (2017) exist c. 1km to the north of the application site with a railway line separating the ponds from the application site. Natural England GCN eDNA surveys undertaken of 6 ponds within 5km of the application were all negative.

4.3 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS – FIELD SURVEY 4.3.1 Habitats and vascular plants Descriptions of the habitats (Figure 2) and the characteristic plants species present are provided below. Photos are provided in Appendix A1.

a) Arable farmland The proposed access roadway will cross 2 arable fields (Photo 1) whilst the poultry shed is to be located in an arable field (Photo 2).

b) Hedgerows Three hedgerows H1 to H3 (Photos 3 to 5, Figure 2) are present on or adjacent to the application site. Some trees (Photo 6) exist within the hedgerows and along the field boundaries.

H1 (Photo 3) is located where the access roadway meets the B1140 High Road, Beighton. Hedgerow H1 is of a recent origin having been planted in the last c. 10 years and it comprises mostly of hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) with field maple (Acer campestre), dog rose (Rosa canina) and blackthorn (Prunus spinosa). It has a relatively species poor ground flora and road verge adjacent to it consisting of Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), false oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius) and cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerata) with some forbs and ruderal species.

H2 (Photo 4) is a boundary hedgerow for an arable field which the new roadway crosses to access the arable field where the poultry shed is to be located. It is dominated by hawthorn with occasional field maple and blackthorn.

H3 (Photo 5) marks the southern site boundary and is planted hedgerow of recent origin (c. 10 - 15 years). It is species rich (>4 woody shrubs) with hawthorn, dog rose , common dogwood (Cornus sanguinea), field maple, blackthorn, and spindle (Euonymus europaeus).

Hedgerow Regulations Hedgerow H1 and H3 are recently planted hedgerows (e.g. last c.10 years) and do not meet the criteria for important hedgerows as neither are over 30 years old. Hedgerow H2 is a more established hedgerow but aerial photos (Google Earth Pro) indicate the section to be removed may not have existed for more than 30 years. It is also species poor and it does not support any of the ground flora indicator species and as such is not considered an important hedgerow. c) Trees There are scattered tree standards (Photos 5 and 6) of pedunculate oak (Quercus robur) along hedgerow H3 whilst further pedunculate oak trees exist along the western site boundary of the arable field where the poultry shed is proposed. d) Grass margin Grass margins (Photo 4) exist along the edges of some of the arable fields (Figure 2). The margins are tussocky and dominated by cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerate), false oat- grass (Arrhenatherum elatius) and Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus). The sward included some forbs including common knapweed (Centaurea nigra), oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), meadow buttercup (Ranunculus acris) and red campion (Silene dioica). e) Broad-leaved woodland A block of broad-leaved woodland (Photos 8 and 9) of mostly oak exists adjacent to the northern end of the proposed access roadway. f) Ruderal/grass field edge A narrow grassy ruderal field edge (Photo 5) c. 1m wide exists along the northern side of hedgerow H3.

4.3.2 Amphibians and reptiles a) Amphibians Terrestrial habitat on the application site is considered suboptimal for GCNs and widespread amphibians such as common toad. The grass margins to some of the arable fields and the woodland area by the proposed roadway provide suitable terrestrial foraging habitat.

A pond P1 (Photo 7, Figure 3) is located within 250m of the proposed access roadway. It supports a range of macrophytes including some common reed (Phragmites australis), marsh marigold (Caltha palustris), common bulrush (Typha latifolia), starwort (Callitriche sp), yellowflag iris (Iris pseudacorus). Water quality is considered moderate with some turbidity as a result of waterfowl, though fish could be present. This pond was assessed as having a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) score of 0.79 (Good suitability).

Pond P2 (Figure 3) is a small pond which has been heavily shaded by trees for at least 20 years and is considered unsuitable for breeding amphibians with an HIS score of 0.49 which assesses it as supporting poor suitability.

b) Reptiles The arable fields offer suboptimal habitat for widespread reptiles. The hedgerows are not sufficiently dense to offer overwintering habitat, though the woodland area does offer suitable habitat. The grass margins provide potential basking habitat for grass snake which may hunt in pond P1.

4.3.3 Bats a) Tree Roost Assessment No trees require removal, but some mature pedunculate oak T1 to T3 (Photos 8 to 10, Figure 2) have the potential to support roosting bats.

b) Foraging/commuting habitat The hedgerows H1 and H3 provide low habitat suitability for commuting and foraging bats as they short in height (up to c. 1.2 to 1.5m high) and are narrow. The more established hedgerow H2 provides more structural size width wise but is still fairly short. The grass field margins support some forbs such that they will attract insects and moths. Together they provide moderate habitat suitability for commuting and foraging bats.

4.3.4 Nesting birds The hedgerows H1 and H3 are of a young age and are short in height and have no dense basal growth and as such provide limited bird nesting habitat. The hedgerows will provide seasonal food sources such as hips and berries.

Male skylarks were heard singing on adjacent fields to the south of the proposed access roadway and east of the arable field where the poultry shed is proposed. It is likely that the arable field where the poultry shed is proposed will support nesting skylark in some years. A flock of linnets (Red Status; S. 41 list) were observed foraging over the stubble. Hedgerow trees and trees provide nesting, foraging and song perch habitat for a range of species.

4.3.5 Badger No evidence of badgers or badger setts were identified on site.

4.3.6 S. 41 habitats and species a) Habitats Hedgerows H1, H2 and H3 (Figure 2) all support native species and as such meet the qualifying criteria as S. 41 habitats, but hedgerows H1 and H3 are both recently planted hedgerows and as such do not support the structure of an established hedgerow of any great age.

b) Species Hedgehog may periodically forage over the arable farmland and grass field margins, whilst they may seek refuge in established hedgerows.

Brown hare were observed on the arable field where the poultry shed is proposed.

Other species including invertebrates (many of which are S. 41 species) may utilise the hedgerows and grass field margins present, though no records are held.

4.3.7 Non-native invasive plants No non-native invasive species were recorded within the application site boundaries.

4.4 GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT The geographic context of a feature is a useful consideration within an assessment of impacts.

The geographic frames of reference for the habitats and species present on site, to be used in this report, are provided in Table 4.3. Values are based upon the criteria in Appendix A3 Table A3.1 and expert best judgements.

Table 4.3 Feature value based on geographic context

Feature Value Designated sites International Arable farmland, grass field margins, grassy ruderal field edges, Local hedgerows, and hedgerow trees Amphibians and reptiles Local Bats Local Nesting birds Local S. 41 Habitats and Species Local

5 Assessment and recommendations

5.1 INTRODUCTION The following section provides a summary description of the proposed development, with an assessment of associated impacts and likely significant effects upon biodiversity.

The assessment and recommendations are based on use of the mitigation hierarchy, which in the first instance aims to avoid impacts. Where impacts cannot be avoided, they should be minimised (through mitigation). Only where impacts cannot be avoided or minimised should there be compensation for biodiversity harm.

Ecological enhancements are suggested, and consideration is given to individual as well as overall net gains or losses of biodiversity.

5.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The construction of a single free range broiler chicken rearing house on an existing arable field at Manor Farm, in Beighton, Norfolk will result in loss of arable farmland and very localised losses of hedgerow and grass margins where an access track is to be created. Proposed landscaping for the scheme includes native hedgerow and localised woodland planting, as well as grassland creation. During the operational phase, animal housing will result in the emission of ammonia, which when dispersed can directly and indirectly affect plant growth and species composition.

In the first instance, potential ecological impacts have been avoided or mitigated where possible through amendments to scheme design. Of particular note is the reduction in the size of the proposal (from two units to one), with the aim of reducing the likelihood of significant effects upon sensitive receptors (specifically from ammonia), following an EIA screening opinion from Broadland District Council in February 2020 (Application Number 20200094).

The assessment below is based on drawings available at the time of writing (notably C E Davidson Ltd Drawing No. s MACK - LAY03 Elevations and Floor Plan and Revised Site Layout dated 23-05-20 and 18-05-20 respectively; the Savills Location Plan for the scheme) and the description provided regarding landscaping proposals (personal communication from G. Watts to C. Whiting). The report should be updated accordingly if the scheme is subsequently amended.

5.3 FURTHER SURVEYS REQUIRED It is generally advised that subject to no significant change in site management regimes, and dependent on the species present, baseline survey results typically remain valid for approximately 12 – 18 months (CIEEM, 2019). Exceptions include where mobile species are/may be present, where site management practices cease or change, or where existing guidance indicates otherwise.

No further surveys are considered necessary for the proposed scheme at the current time.

5.4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS The EcIA assessment process (CIEEM, 2018) involves:

• Identifying and characterising impacts and their effects; • Incorporating measures to avoid and mitigate negative impacts and effects; • Assessing the significance of any residual effects after mitigation; • Identifying appropriate compensation measures to offset significant residual effects; and • Identifying opportunities for ecological enhancement.

The emphasis in EcIA is on the assessment of ‘significant effects’ i.e. an effect that either supports or undermines biodiversity conservation objectives for ‘important ecological features’ or for biodiversity in general. In broad terms significant effects encompass impacts on structure and function of defined sites, habitats or ecosystems and the conservation status of habitats and species including extent, abundance and distribution.

The ecological features to be subject to detailed assessment in this report are those judged to be important and potentially affected by the project; protected species are included where the development will result in a potential breach of legislation.

In relation to assessments of impacts upon designated sites, the conclusions of the commissioned modelling report (AS Modelling & Data, 2020) are used to inform the assessment of likely significant effect. The full report should be read by all relevant statutory consultees in conjunction with this report.

5.5 DESIGNTATED SITES a) Potential impacts The rearing of poultry results in the emission of ammonia from the birds’ droppings into the atmosphere. Ammonia in the air disperses and may exert direct negative effects on vegetation, or indirectly affect the ecosystem through deposition which causes both hyper-eutrophication (excess nitrogen enrichment) and acidification of soils (AS Modelling & Data, 2020). Receptors which are sensitive to the enrichment may be subject to declines in species diversity and habitat condition; designated sites for which individual plant taxa or communities are notable features may by particularly sensitive to significant negative ecological effects.

b) Mitigation Amendment of the proposed scheme from two buildings housing 39,999 birds to a single building housing 20,000 birds results in a reduction in predicted ammonia emission rates. Detailed modelling (AS Modelling & Data, 2020) predicts that at all of the wildlife sites identified, the process contribution of the proposed poultry house to ammonia concentrations and nitrogen deposition rates would be below 1% of the relevant Critical Level or Critical Load (as well as the Environment Agency’s lower threshold percentages used for permitting purposes).

c) Residual effects With the reduced size of the scheme, the modelled process contributions are below 1% of the relevant Critical Levels or Critical Loads for the designated sites considered and would therefore normally be considered insignificant (AS Modelling & Data, 2020).

5.6 HABITATS AND VASCULAR PLANTS a) Potential impacts Vegetation clearance, ground-breaking and construction operations have the potential to negatively impact habitats present. However, given the limited biodiversity value of

the arable field, impacts are considered not significant for the main footprint of the scheme. Impacts upon grassland and hedgerows as a result of access creation are minimal and in the context of retained, alternative habitats losses are therefore also considered not significant.

Proposed hedgerow and localised woodland planting together with grassland seeding will provide positive ecological effects locally.

b) Mitigation Vegetation clearance of hedgerows/grassland margins for access track creation should be limited to the immediate footprint required.

c) Residual effects No significant negative effects. There will be a minor positive effect on the extent of ecologically valuable habitats present locally.

5.7 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES a) Potential impacts Given the habitats to be affected, no significant ecological effects are considered likely at the population level.

Building works may result in potential entrapment, injury and mortality of very low numbers of animals that may potentially pass through the area or use hedgerows/grassland margins, considered a negative effect.

Proposed hedgerow planting will provide habitat connectivity and cover, though habitats where chickens have access (grassland, woodland planting) are less likely to be of value due to predation pressure.

b) Mitigation As per 5.6. Current habitat management should be maintained until such time that construction work commences.

Good practice measures should be implemented during construction works: • Hedgerow and grassland vegetation >300mm will be cleared sensitively as follows: • Vegetation should be strimmed to ground level using a 2-stage cut with the first cut to c. 150 mm above ground level; and • The area should be left for at least 1 hour before cutting to ground level. • Trenches left overnight must be covered with ply/OSB sheets and any gaps filled with damp sharp sand, or mammal ramps/ladders (wooden planks set at an angle at the edge of the trench) placed and all trenches checked daily; • Footings and concrete slabs will be poured during the morning to ensure they have hardened off prior to evening to reduce the risk of animals encountering wet concrete, or covered with ply boarding or membrane overnight; • Any hand mixing of mortar or concrete should be on ply boarding over a tarpaulin which is folded over the boarding at the end of each day to prevent animals coming into contact; • Any excess cement/concrete should be poured into a concrete skip, so it can then set to prevent animals coming into contact. Equipment must be cleaned off in a location to avoid pollution of the watercourse;

• All building materials should be stored on bare ground or hard standing, or stored off the ground on pallets; • Any building waste stored on site temporarily should be stored on bare/hard ground or in skips to prevent amphibians or reptiles from seeking refuge; and • Should any e.g. toads be encountered they should be allowed to displace or be carefully moved into retained habitat (e.g. boundaries). An ecologist must be called immediately if any suspected GCNs are encountered.

c) Residual effects No significant negative effects.

5.8 BATS a) Potential impacts Inappropriate lighting during the construction and operational phases has the potential to result in impacts upon foraging and/or commuting bats, and potentially upon emergence of bats from local roosts. Such impacts would have negative effects upon foraging success for a small number of individuals.

Proposed hedgerow and localised woodland planting together with grassland seeding, and animal dung on the grassland will provide an increase in the extent of foraging and commuting habitats present.

b) Mitigation As per 5.5.

Lighting design should minimise lighting impacts upon retained and newly planted boundary habitats, as per current guidance910: Type of lamp (light source): Light levels should be as low as possible as required to fulfil the lighting need. Lamps in regular use should have a maximum of 7.5 to 10 lux and LED lights should be used using the warm white (or amber) spectrum, with peak wavelengths >550nm (2700 or 3000°K) and no UV component; and Lighting design: Lighting should be directed to where it is needed, with minimal horizontal spillage towards habitats. This can be achieved by restricting the height of the lighting columns/fixtures and the design of the luminaire, including the following measure: • Light columns/fixtures in general should be as short as possible as light at a low level reduces the ecological impact. • Luminaires with an upward light ratio of 0% should be mounted on the horizontal i.e. with no upward tilt. • If taller lights are required, and as a last resort, accessories such as baffles, hoods or louvres can be used to reduce light spill; and • PIR movement sensors and timers should be used to minimise the ‘lit time’ where possible (up to 1 minute).

c) Residual effects No significant negative effect. With appropriate lighting design there will be a potential minor positive effect upon the extent of foraging and commuting habitats present

9 https://www.theilp.org.uk/documents/guidance-note-8-bats-and-artificial-lighting 10www.eurobats.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/publication_series/WEB_DIN_A4_EUROBATS_08_ENGL_NVK_ 28022019.pdf 20

5.9 NESTING BIRDS a) Potential impacts During construction works vegetation removal of hedgerows carries a very minor risk for destruction of active nests.

The construction and operational phases will cause a reduction in the availability of skylark nesting habitat.

Proposed hedgerow and localised woodland planting will in an increase in the extent of passerine nesting habitat availability once planting has matured, a positive effect at a local level.

b) Mitigation Hedgerow and arable field clearance should be undertaken outside of the nesting bird season (March to August inclusive). If for any reason this is not feasible then a suitably experienced ecologist should check for nesting birds prior to clearance.

c) Residual effects There will be no significant negative effect upon passerine nesting availability, with a minor positive effect in the overall area of nesting habitat available locally once planting has matured.

Losses in the availability of skylark nesting habitat will require compensation (see section 5.11).

5.10 OTHER S. 41 LIST HABITATS AND SPECIES a) Potential impacts Hedgerow removal has the potential to injure or kill nesting hedgehog, whilst construction activities could result in potential entrapment, injury and mortality of individuals due to presence of trenches, caustic and building materials; effects are unlikely to be significant in relation to conservation status of the local population, but can be readily avoided through good working practices.

b) Mitigation As per 5.6.

Any hedgerow to be cleared should be removed in early autumn to avoid impacts upon nesting hedgehog. If clearance is required in the spring to avoid nesting bird issues, vegetation should be retained to no lower than 300mm above ground level to avoid injury or harm to hibernating hedgehog until temperatures are regularly (6 consecutive days/nights) maintained above 6°C.

Clearance at other times of year should be undertaken with prior checks/supervision by an ecologist.

During construction, concrete should be poured early in the day or covered with ply boarding or membrane overnight to present animals coming into contact. Trenches should be covered overnight.

c) Residual effects No significant effects.

5.11 COMPENSATION Once landscape planting has matured, residual significant negative effects upon habitats and species related to the proposed development are restricted to reductions in the availability of skylark nesting habitat. This should be compensated through the provision of up to 2 skylark plots within the centre of an arable field within the applicant’s land holding. The plots would be sited a minimum of 30-40m apart, maintained on an annual basis for 10 years. The detailed approach to siting and management would be specified by a suitably experienced ecologist.

All other minor losses of (grass margin and hedgerow) habitat will be more than offset by proposed landscaping, which will result in an overall BNG for the site.

5.12 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The previous EIA screening opinion from Broadland District Council (Application Number 20200094) concluded that for that (larger, two building) scheme, biodiversity related impacts were likely to be restricted to ammonia emissions in relation to two other farms in the wider area; specifically poultry units York Hall Farm Moulton St Mary approximately 2.4 km and at South Farm Upton 2.5 km from the site.

As a statutory consultee, NE usually advise that if predicted process contributions exceed 1% of Critical Level or Critical Load at a SSSI, SAC, SPA or Ramsar site, then the local authority should consider whether other farming installations might act in- combination or cumulatively with the farm and the sensitivities of the wildlife sites (AS Modelling & Data, 2020). It is worth noting that the process contribution from most farming installations is already included in the background ammonia concentrations and nitrogen and acid deposition rates. Therefore, it is normally only necessary to consider new installations and installations with extant planning permission and proposed developments when understanding the additional impact of a proposal upon nearby ecological sites. However, established farms in close proximity may need to be considered given the background concentrations and deposition rates are derived as an average for a 5 km by 5 km grid.

Because of the reduced scale of the current proposal, modelled process contributions of the single poultry house to ammonia concentrations and nitrogen deposition rates would be below 1% of the relevant Critical Level or Critical Load of the relevant designated sites. There are therefore no anticipated significant negative in-combination or cumulative effects.

5.13 ENHANCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES In order to maximise the biodiversity benefit of grassland, hedgerow and woodland planting planned, mixed native species planting should be used. The relevant NE farm advisor may be able to advise suitable taxa for inclusion, with the following suitable for consideration:

Grassland: A wildflower seed mix (approximate 20:80 wildflower to grass ratio) using native species of UK provenance should be used. The taxa should be appropriate to the soil type present (http://www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes/ suggests freely draining slightly acid loamy soils to be present), for example:

• BS1M: Traditional Wildflower Meadow Seeds

https://www.bostonseeds.com/products/wildflowers-seed/wildflower-seed- mixtures-20/bs1m-traditional-wildflower-meadow-seeds.html • BS3M: Dry, Sandy Loam Soils Wildflower Seeds https://www.bostonseeds.com/products/wildflowers-seed/wildflower-seed- mixtures-20/bs3m-dry-sandy-loam-soils-wildflower-seeds.html

Hedgerow: Hedgerow planting should utilise mixed native taxa, with at least 6 species per 30m. Planting should ideally be double width to maximise habitat provided. The following taxa are suitable for inclusion:

• Common beech - Fagus sylvatica • Common hawthorn - Crataegus monogyna • Blackthorn - Prunus spinosa • Common hornbeam - Carpinus betulus • Dog-rose - Rosa canina • Guelder rose Viburnum opulus • Field maple - Acer campestre • Hazel Corylus avellana • Holly - Ilex aquifolium • Wayfaring tree - Viburnum lantana • Honeysuckle - Lonicera periclymenum • Ivy - Hedera helix • Traveller’s-joy or Old Man's Beard - Clematis vitalba

Woodland: Any woodland copse planting should comprise a high proportion of thorn species including common hawthorn, Midland hawthorn (Crataegus laevigata), cherry plum (Prunus cerasifera), holly and dog rose. Other species could include crab apple (Malus sylvestris), guelder rose, and wild cherry (P. avium).

5.14 CONCLUSIONS Ecological impacts resulting from the proposed design have where possible been avoided or minimised through design. Detailed ammonia modelling indicates no significant effects are anticipated upon the relevant features of the designated sites in the area. With compensatory skylark plots provided, and once landscape planting has matured, a BNG will be provided.

6 References

AS Modelling & Data (2020) Report on the Modelling of the Dispersion and Deposition of Ammonia from the Proposed Free Range Broiler Chicken Rearing House at Manor Farm, Beighton in Norfolk. Report dated 23rd April 2020.

CIEEM (2017) Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing. Second edition. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.

CIEEM (2018) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.

CIEEM (2019) Advice Note: on the lifespan of ecological reports and surveys.

CIRIA, CIEEM and IEMA (2016) Biodiversity Net Gain: good practice principles for development.

Collins, J. (ed) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition), Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Eaton, M.A., Brown, A.F., Noble, D.G., Musgrove, A.J., Hearn, R., Aebischer, N.J., Gibbons, D.W., Evans, A. and Gregory, R.D. (2015) Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 102, pp296-341.

JNCC (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey – A technique for environmental audit, JNCC, Peterborough.

Oldham, R., Keeble, J., Swan, M. and Jeffcote, M. (2000), Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal 10(4), pp. 143-155.

Scottish Badgers. (2018) Surveying for Badgers: Good Practice Guidelines. Version 1.

Figures

H2 H1

Appendices

Appendix A1 Photos

Photo 1 Proposed route for the access roadway across Photo 2 Looking from the north-west corner of the site in an arable field a south-easterly direction.

Hedgerow H2

Photo 3 Proposed access with planted hedgerow H1 Photo 4 Hedgerow H2, arable field and a grass field margin

Photo 5 Hedgerow H3 and a grassy/ruderal field edge Photo 6 Trees along the western site boundary where the poultry shed is proposed

Photo 7 Pond P1 Photo 8 Oak T1 along the western edge of a block of woodland

Photo 9 Oak T2 along the western edge of a block of Photo 10 Oak T3 along the western site boundary with woodland cavities

Appendix A2 NBIS data search

Appendix A3 EcIA criteria

A3.1 General criteria for geographic context/value

Designation Example

International • SPA, SAC and Ramsar sites and the features that they have been designated for. • A sustainable area of habitat listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive or smaller areas of such habitat which are essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole. • A sustainable population of an internationally important species e.g. UK Red Data Book (RDB) species or European Protected Species (EPS) of unfavourable conservation status in Europe (e.g. Annex II species: bats, GCNs etc.), of uncertain conservation status or of global conservation concern in the UK BAP.

National • SSSI or a discrete area that meets the selection criteria for designation. • A sustainable area of priority habitat identified included on the S. 41 NERC Act list or smaller areas of such habitat that are essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole. • A sustainable population of priority species (listed under S. 41 of the NERC Act 2006). • A sustainable population of a nationally important species i.e. RDB species not included in above category but which is listed on Schedules 5 or 8 of the WCA 1981 (as amended). Also, sites supporting a breeding population of such species or supplying a critical element of their habitat requirements. • A sustainable population of uncommon or threatened Annex IV EPS species at a UK level. • A nationally scarce species (occurs in 30-100 10km squares in the UK) that has its main UK population within the district.

County • A viable area of habitat identified in the county BAP. • A County Wildlife Site. • A sustainable population of common or non-threatened Annex IV EPS species at a UK level. • A Nationally Scarce species that does not have its main population within the county. • A sustainable population of a BAP species not included in the ‘national’ category above for which a county Action Plan exists.

Local • Individual members of local populations of priority or other nationally/internationally important species which are not in themselves key for maintaining a sustainable population (e.g. individual dog otter passing through area with no holts or resting sites). • Other habitats and species not in the above categories but are considered to have some value at the district/borough level.