GREAT CRESTED SURVEY OF CATSFIELD C.E.P SCHOOL, EAST SUSSEX (TQ 728 135)

ON BEHALF OF MACKELLAR SCHWERDT ARCHITECTS

JUNE 2009

BARRY KEMP CONSERVATION LIMITED ‘Amblehurst’ Nevill Road Crowborough East Sussex TN6 2RA

(t) 01892 663942 (f) 01892 613341 (m) 07780 665177 (e) [email protected]

Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 1 CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 2.0 Legal Protection of reptiles & amphibians 3.0 Location of site 4.0 Existing records 5.0 6.0 Great crested newt survey 7.0 Results 8.0 Survey constraints 9.0 Interpreting the results 10.0 Assessment of risk to GCN by the proposed development 11.0 Interpreting the legislation 12.0 Risk avoidance measures 13.0 Conclusions 14.0 Recommendations 15.0 References

Appendix

Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 2 1.0 Introduction This report was commissioned by MACKELLAR SCHWERDT ARCHITECTS to establish the presence or absence of Great crested ( cristatus) within the school pond and to help inform any possible mitigation measures prior to a planning application to East Sussex County Council to construct a new pre school building.

2.0 Legal Protection of reptiles & amphibians The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 protects Grass snake (Natrix natrix), Adder (Vipera berus) Slow-worm (Anguis fragilis) and Common lizard (Zootoca vivipara) against deliberate killing and injuring (subsection 9.1) In addition the Sand lizard (Lacerta agilis), Smooth snake (Coronella austriaca), Natterjack toad (Bufo calamita) and Great crested newt receive full protection under the Act and are also protected under the Conservation Regulations of 1994 (Natural ) . Of these (latter) four species only the Great crested newt is widely distributed within Sussex. Legal protection of the Great crested newt makes it an offence to kill, injure, capture or disturb them or obstruct their access to areas where they live and breed. The law applies to eggs, larvae, juveniles and adults. The Countryside & Rights of Way Act (CRoW ) 2000 amends the existing Wildlife & Countryside Act by making it an offence to cause reckless damage, destruction or disturbance to GCN or their habitat. This protection covers an area a distance of 500m from the breeding site. Under these Regulations it is an offence to deliberately kill or to disturb Great crested newts (GCN), or to damage or destroy their breeding sites or resting places. Until recently there was an exemption from these offences if actions were “an incidental result of a lawful operation that could not reasonably have been avoided”. The European Court has recently forced the UK to remove this exemption. Intentional killing or injuring, or taking any actions where it is predictable that protected species are likely to be killed or injured could result in a prosecution. This not only applies to sites where protected species are already known to occur, but to any site where they might reasonably be expected to occur. It is very important that, until the impacts are fully mitigated for, no clearance of vegetation or movement of machinery should take place on the site. This includes any archaeological works and preliminary site clearance works. A conviction can result in a fine of up to £5,000 and/or up to six months imprisonment for each offence. Harm to more than one animal may be taken as separate offences. The police can also confiscate any item, such as equipment, vehicles or machinery, used to commit the offence. Both individuals and companies may be liable for offences.

Subject to the predicted impact, a licence from Natural England (NE) is usually required in order to undertake actions affecting GCN (or other European protected species) which would otherwise be prohibited by law.

The common amphibians, ie, Common frog (Rana temporaria), Common toad (Bufo bufo), Palmate newt (Triturus helveticus) and (Triturus vulgaris) have no legal protection other than that provided by subsection 9.5. of the Wildlife & Countryside Act which makes it an offence to sell them. General animal welfare guidelines do still apply to these species.

Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 3 3.0 Location of site (see Fig. 1) Catsfield school lies on the western side of Church Road on the outskirts of Catsfield in East Sussex , approximately 3km southwest of the town of Battle. It falls just outside the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which has its boundary on the opposite side of Church Road. The central NGR for the site is TQ 728 135.

4.0 Existing records A search of the Sussex Biodiversity Records Centre (SxBRC) revealed no records of GCN or other protected species within the site. The closest records for GCN are some 1km to the southeast of the school . SxBRC data contains several records for protected reptiles and bats within 1km of the site. A desktop survey using SxBRC pond data , Google Earth and MAGIC revealed 6 ponds within a 500m radius of the site. The school pond was not identified in the desktop survey.

5.0 Habitat 5.1 Terrestrial habitat The majority of the school site consists of various buildings dating back to the Victorian period with an additional wing which was built several years ago. There is also associated hard standing , a small area of lawn, playground and car park. There is a school sports field to the rear of the school consisting of short cut amenity grass. The proposed new extension covers some 115m2 with an additional area of 92m2 of play area/access. The combined footprint is positioned between the wildlife garden and existing buildings. This area provides extremely limited cover for GCN being a well maintained lawn with some raised beds, a small conifer and a few recently planted trees. However, there is a short length of hedgeline (approximately 9m) within this area which is to be removed prior to construction and this may provide some cover for GCN. The only suitable GCN habitat within the school grounds is an area set aside as a wildlife garden. This measures approximately 30m x 13m and contains the school pond (Pond 1). Beyond the school grounds to the south is farmland used for the occasional grazing of sheep.

5.1.1 The wildlife garden (see Fig. 3) The wildlife garden is positioned on the southern corner of the school and consists of an area of grassland of good sward length with an informal mowed path running through it , tall shrub and a few small trees. There are numerous features incorporated into the garden that benefit GCN as well as other wildlife and these include log piles, a compost heap and a pond. A 2m tall mixed hedge borders the wildlife garden by to the south and southeastern boundary.

Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 4 5.2 Aquatic habitats (see Fig. 2) There is one water body within the site (Pond 1). Six ponds exist within 500m of the site.

5.2.1 Pond 1 (TQ 72722 13513) Pond 1 is located within the school wildlife garden. It is a small butyl lined pond of approximately 5m x 3m. The pond contains a number of submerged aquatic plants including Hornwort (Ceratophyllum demersum), although is dominanted by non-native New Zealand Stonecrop (Crasulla helmsii) . Other native and non-native marginal and emergent plants were noted which can provide egg laying strata for newts. A good deal of submerged algae was apparent throughout the survey period which reduced the detectability of newts . The presence of Crasulla may well exacerbate the algal bloom within the pond due to the plants tendency to deplete oxygen levels in the water. Pond 1 could not be bottle trapped due to the butyl liner, however, with the exception of areas of submerged algae, water quality remained clear throughout the survey period.

5.2.2 Pond 2 (TQ 72670 13437) Pond 2 lies on the boundary of a small lane and sheep grazed field some 90m south of the school. It measures approximately 20m x 25m but at the time of survey 90% of the pond area was encroached by scrub, particularly willow, which resulted in only approximately 5m2 of open water. Very little submerged aquatic vegetation was noted , however, towards the end of the survey period young shoots of non-native Parrots feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum) were emerging. Water quality was very turbid throughout the survey period making bottle trapping the only effective survey technique.

5.2.3 Pond 3 (TQ 72784 13457 ) Pond 3 is located on the northern side of Church Road some 110m southeast of the school. It is set within a wooded field boundary. Survey of this pond was restricted to a visual assessment from an adjacent public footpath and Church Road. It appeared to hold little water at the start of the survey period and was dry by the end of the period.

5.2.4 Pond 4 (TQ 72853 13260) Pond 4 is located some 290m southeast of the school.

5.2.5 Pond 5 (TQ 72592 13076) Pond 5 is located some 420m south of the school.

5.2.6 Pond 6 (TQ 72371 13290) Pond 6 is located some 380m southwest of the school.

5.2.7 Pond 7 (TQ 72821 13874) Pond 6 is located some 370m north of the school.

Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 5 6.0 Great crested newt survey 6.1 Survey guidelines As a general rule NE advise that all suitable water bodies within 500m of a proposed development should be considered for survey. It is important that sufficient data needs to be obtained to demonstrate the level of impact on the GCN population, to devise suitable mitigation and to allow an assessment of the development and mitigation effects. Survey effort should be proportionate to the level of impact of the development and the decision on whether to survey a particular pond(s) depends primarily on how likely it is that the development would affect newts using the pond(s). NE guidelines for presence/absence survey of GCN require four site visits using appropriate survey methods including torching, bottle-trapping and egg search between mid- March and mid June with at least two of the visits being made between mid April to mid May, which is traditionally accepted to be the peak period for GCN breeding activity. If GCN are identified as being present in a pond it is sometimes necessary to undertake a further two survey visits for a population size estimate. This depends on the distance from the pond and the predicted impact of the development on GCN.

6.2 Survey methodology (see Appendix I) NE guidance indicates that where development comes within 50m of the pond but no ponds are to be lost and less than 0.01 Ha of terrestrial habitat is to be lost or damaged , suitable survey effort would involve a Habitat Suitability Index assessment (HSI) plus presence/absence survey of all relevant ponds. Ponds 4, 5, 6 & 7 were not included in any further survey due to the distance from the proposed development footprint (ranging from 290 – 420m) and because it is unlikely that GCN would migrate these distances to the small area of terrestrial and aquatic habitat available within the school.

Prior to evening surveys commencing a day time visual assessment was made of Ponds 1, 2, 3. A Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment was undertaken of Ponds 1 and 2 (see Appendix II). Pond 3 was viewed from an adjacent public footpath as no permission was obtained to survey. Pond 3 appeared to hold little water during this assessment and subsequently throughout the survey period. By the end of the survey period it appeared to be dry. Therefore survey effort was focussed on Ponds 1 and 2. In an attempt to compensate for reduced detectability and restricted survey methods (see Section 6) within Ponds 1 and 2 , six evening visits were undertaken.

All surveys were undertaken at a time when GCN and other amphibians were being recorded at other sites in Sussex. Surveys were undertaken under licence to Natural England (NE) by Barry Kemp (Licence No. 20080708).

Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 6 7.0 Results 7.1 Pond 1 Date Survey method / no. of GCN (Tc) recorded No. of other newts recorded Egg Bottle trap search Torch (no. of traps) 06/04/09 nil 2x Tc (m) ,1x Tc (f) n/a 9x Th (m), 7x Tv (m), 16x Th/Tv (f) 13/04/09 nil 3x Tc (m) ,2x Tc (f) n/a 12x Th (m), 12x Tv (m), 12x Th/Tv (f) 22/04/09 20 + 2x Tc (m) ,1x Tc (f) n/a 14x Th (m), 16x Tv (m), 11x Th/Tv (f) 01/05/09 40 + 1x Tc (m) n/a 8x Th (m), 16x Tv (m), 15x Th/Tv (f) 11/05/09 40 + 2x Tc (f) n/a 4x Th (m), 15x Tv (m), 9x Th/Tv (f) 20/05/09 40 + nil n/a 5x Th (m), 7x Tv (m), 5x Th/Tv (f)

Th - Palmate newt Tv - Smooth newt

Weather conditions :

06/04/09 : 95% cloud cover average air temp.11.5 ºC minimum water temp 15ºC 13/04/09 : 10% cloud cover average air temp.12.0 ºC minimum water temp 15ºC 22/04/09 : 0% cloud cover average air temp.10.0 ºC minimum water temp 14ºC 01/05/09 : 90% cloud cover average air temp.16.0 ºC minimum water temp 16ºC 11/05/09 : 75% cloud cover average air temp.16.0 ºC minimum water temp 15ºC 20/05/09 : 20% cloud cover average air temp.13.5 ºC minimum water temp 16ºC

7.2 Pond 2 Date Survey method / no of GCN recorded Egg Bottle trap search Torch (no. of traps) Other species / comments 06/04/09 nil n/a (20) / nil 2x Th(m), 1x Th (f) 13/04/09 nil n/a (20) / nil 5x Th(m), 6x Th (f), 2x Tv(m), 1x Th (f) 22/04/09 nil n/a (20) / 1x Tc (m) 6x Th(m), 1x Tv(m) 01/05/09 nil n/a (20) / 1x Tc (m) 3x Th(m), 4x Th (f), 2x Tv(m), 1x Th* (f) 11/05/09 nil n/a (20) / nil 2x Th(m), 1x Th (f) 20/05/09 nil n/a (20) / nil 1x Th(m), 1x Th (f) * dead, attacked by Great diving beetle Th - Palmate newt Tv - Smooth newt

Weather conditions :

06/04/09 : 95% cloud cover average air temp.11.5 ºC minimum water temp 13ºC 13/04/09 : 10% cloud cover average air temp.12.0 ºC minimum water temp 14ºC 22/04/09 : 0% cloud cover average air temp.10.0 ºC minimum water temp 10ºC 01/05/09 : 90% cloud cover average air temp.16.0 ºC minimum water temp 11ºC 11/05/09 : 75% cloud cover average air temp.16.0 ºC minimum water temp 11ºC 20/05/09 : 20% cloud cover average air temp.13.5 ºC minimum water temp 13ºC

8.0 Survey constraints Torch survey is generally accepted to produce higher recordings of GCN than other survey methods provided that the pond is not too turbid and doesn’t have excessive plant growth. Torch survey of Pond 1 was constrained only by the presence of areas of submerged algae but being a small pond 100% of the shoreline was accessible for survey. It was not possible to torch Pond 2 due to turbid water and very restricted areas of open water, however bottle trapping did reveal GCN presence.

Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 7 9.0 Interpreting the results GCN were recorded within Ponds 1 and 2 . The maximum count for GCN within Pond 1 was achieved on 13th April when a total of 5 adults were recorded. The maximum count for GCN within Pond 2 was achieved on 22nd April and 1st May , although only one adult was recorded on each occasion. Egg laying was recorded within Pond 1 but it was difficult to confirm egg laying within Pond 2 due to lack of visable egg laying strata (aquatic or marginal vegetation or leaf litter). Under NE guidelines the population of GCN using both ponds equates to a ‘Small’ population (1-10 individuals). Networks of suitable water bodies within 250m from each other can form GCN metapopulations which allow the interchange of GCN between ponds. Consequently Ponds 1 and 2 can be included as part of the same metapopulation. Population counts of GCN from a number of ponds can therefore be added together if they are all part of the same metapopulation provided that they are carried out on the same evening (English Nature 2001 : Great crested newt mitigation guidelines). Under the guidelines the population of GCN in and around the school still equates to a ‘Small ’ population. No Common frogs or toads were recorded.

It is probably safe to assume that the GCN population using Ponds 1 and 2 (and Pond 3 if/when it holds water) is becoming less viable. This is mainly due to the natural succession of Pond 2 resulting in it becoming increasingly sub-optimal for amphibians. Although Pond 1 is not in such an advanced state of succession , it is relatively small and below the size generally accepted to be optimal for GCN.

10.0 Assessment of risk to GCN by the proposed development (Fig.4) With the exception of a small area of hedgerow which is to be removed, no suitable GCN habitat is to be lost as a result of the development . Although the development footprint does not provide suitable habitat for GCN it is immediately adjacent to Pond 1 and the terrestrial habitat within the wildlife garden. Therefore there is an element of risk to GCN if they migrate through the development footprint whilst groundworks are being undertaken. This could result in them either being injured or killed as a direct result of groundworks or indirectly being trapped within any open excavations or sheltering within spoil or under stored materials. The risk of encountering migrating GCN is increased depending on the duration of the build, particularly if the build covers a number of GCN inward and outward migration periods.

11.0 Interpreting the legislation There are currently two pieces of legislation which protect Great crested newts and other European protected Species (EPS). These are the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (WCA), which is a UK legislation and the Conservation Regulations of 1994 (Natural Habitats) which is European legislation implemented in the UK as the Habitats Regulations.

Since 2007 several changes relating to EPS have been made to the Habitats Regulations as a response to judgments from the European Court

Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 8 of Justice. These found that species protection within the UK’s Habitats Regulations were not compatible with that required by Articles 12 and 13 of the 1992 Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (the Habitats Directive). In particular, the previous defence regarding acts which are an “incidental result of a lawful operation” and “which could not reasonably have been avoided” has been removed. Thus, damaging ,destroying or disturbing a breeding site or resting place of an EPS is no longer defendable and is now an ‘absolute’ offence. The definition of ‘disturbance’ has now been made more complicated, as there are now essentially two disturbance offences; deliberate, significant (high level) disturbance under the Habitat Regulations and intentional, reckless, non-significant (low level) disturbance under the WCA.

Under the Habitats Regulations it must be demonstrated that the disturbance is not likely to significantly affect the ability of any ‘significant group’ of animals (possibly, in this case, interpreted as a breeding colony of GCN) of that species to survive or breed, or likely to ‘significantly’ affect the local distribution or abundance of the species. Despite this, an EPS will still be protected from intentional or reckless disturbance under the WCA but the defence covering acts that are an incidental result of a lawful operation still applies.

In terms of development, any activities that may disturb at a low level would need to rely on one of these legal defences. Any deliberate disturbance above this threshold falls under the Habitat Regulations offence and would require an EPS licence (to make it legal). If it is planned to rely upon a defence under the WCA this will need to be very carefully considered and documented to ensure that the legal position is sound.

11.1 Current NE guidance on licensing (see also Appendix III) Natural England give some guidance based on risk to GCN in their document WML –A14-2 (Method Statement, September 2008). This states that a licence should be applied for if it is considered that ‘on balance’ the proposed works are ‘reasonably likely’ to result in an offence. In addition they state that if it is ‘reasonably unlikely’ to result in an offence a licence would not be required. In the majority of instances the impact on GCN caused by a development are easily assessed. However in instances such as this where impacts are marginal, it is sometimes difficult to apply the available advice satisfactorily, particularly because NE will not be specific in the definition of the criteria used to arrive at these decisions (ie what is ‘significant’ disturbance) and will not advise on individual cases.

12.0 Risk avoidance measures The NE Licence Method Statement details measures to avoid risk if adopting a non-licensed approach to a development, such as locating the site as far as possible from potential breeding ponds, or restricting works to the winter periods. These measures are not possible in this case. Other suggested measures include locating the development on hard, compacted ground and keeping the duration of groundworks as short as possible. To some degree, both of these measures will be applied in this case. Easily achievable ways to reduce risk include backfilling any trenches and other excavations before nightfall (or as soon as possible) , leaving a ramp to

Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 9 allow newts to easily exit the excavation and raising stored materials off the ground on to pallets. However, in this case by far the most effective way to reduce risk would be to erect amphibian exclusion fencing between the development area and pond/wildlife area to stop GCN and other wildlife from entering the site. This would not interfere with any GCN migration routes as they would still be able to travel around the outside of the fence to reach their usual foraging, hibernation or breeding sites.

While this would seem to be the most pragmatic option which would undoubtedly prevent harm to any protected or non-protected species, it should be noted that currently NE advise that a licence is required to install exclusion fencing where GCN may occur.

13.0 Conclusions The proposed development footprint does not contain any suitable GCN terrestrial habitat and no aquatic or terrestrial habitats will be disturbed, damaged or lost. The nearest GCN breeding site (Pond 1) is within a few metres of the development footprint. It is estimated that this pond supports a “small” population of GCN. There may be some potential to encounter GCN sheltering in a small section of hedgerow and possibly travelling through the development area during their migration phases.

14.0 Recommendations 14.1 Mitigation Given the positioning of the development footprint on sub-optimal habitat and the small population of GCN recorded, together with the current NE advice on non-licensed avoidance measures , the only significant mitigation measure that could be adopted is the installation of temporary exclusion fencing. Since the exclusion fencing will not act as a barrier to GCN dispersal and will have no negative impact on the viability of any population of GCN, or individual GCN, it is difficult to see, in this instance, why the installation of exclusion fencing would require a licence. Therefore it is recommended that a temporary amphibian exclusion fence is erected around the development footprint for the duration of the construction. It is advised that immediately prior to heavy machinery being used on site that a suitably experienced ecologist conducts a visual search of the development footprint to ensure that no GCN are sheltering within the area. Particular attention should be given to the length of hedgerow to be removed. Prior to removal it will be necessary to reduce the height of the hedgerow to approximately 150mm above ground level to facilitate a careful search of the base of the hedgerow. This reduction should be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season, ie, between September and late February.

NE advise that if a non-licensing route is adopted then a detailed Method Statement should be prepared.

Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 10 14.2 Habitat enhancement 14.2.1 Obligations to biodiversity Section 40 (1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC Act) directs Local Authorities and Local Planning Authorities that :

“Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.”

Consequently, local authorities should :

“Seek to secure the maximum positive benefit to biodiversity, so long as it does not impact on the proper exercise of their functions”.

14.2.2 Suitable enhancements The invasive plants (particularly Crassula) should be removed from Pond 1 during the winter months. Ideally Pond 1 should also be enlarged to make it more suitable for GCN. This would entail losing terrestrial habitat from the wildlife garden, but overall this would benefit GCN. However, the continued succession of Pond 2 is the biggest limiting factor for the viability of GCN within the area and therefore Pond 2 now requires urgent management to create usable areas of open water for amphibians. Since this pond is outside of the schools ownership and is also owned by two different landowners, this may not be feasible. However this option should be seriously considered as this would be the most beneficial enhancement for the local GCN metapopulation. A suitable alternative may be to create a new pond on adjacent land.

15.0 References Natural England (2009) : WML-A13.1 , Application for a licence. Natural England (2009) : European Protected Species , How to get a licence. Natural England (2008) : WML –A14-2 , GCN Method Statement. Natural England & Countryside Council for Wales (2007) : Disturbance & protected species – Understanding & applying the law in England & Wales English Nature (2001) : Great crested newt mitigation guidelines. Froglife (2001) : Great crested newt conservation handbook Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (now DEFRA) 2000 : Application for a Great crested newt licence in respect of development. Gent, T. & Howarth, W. : Amphibians & Reptiles & the Law (1998). Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual. Froglife (1998) : Evaluating local mitigation/translocation programmes : Maintaining best practice and lawful standards

Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 11 Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 12 Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 13 Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 14 Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 15 Appendix I : Survey guidance table (Taken from Natural England document WML –A14-2 , Method Statement, September 2008).

Impact type and location Potential terrestrial habitat Presence/ Population HSI Maximum - loss or damage (ha) likely size class age of survey absence assessment data (years) survey Permanent habitat loss or damage Pond(s) lost or damaged, !0 YES YES YES 2 with or without other habitat loss or damage No ponds lost or damaged, "0.01 YES NO YES 3 development within 50m of nearest pond >0.01 YES YES YES 2

No ponds lost or damaged, "0.2 YES NO NO 3 development 50-100m from nearest pond >0.2 YES YES YES 2

No ponds lost or damaged, "0.5 YES NO NO 4 development 100-250m from nearest pond >0.5 YES YES YES 3

No ponds lost or damaged, "5 YES NO NO 4 development >250m from nearest pond (NB see notes) >5 YES NO YES 3

Temporary habitat loss or damage Pond(s) lost or damaged, !0 YES YES YES 2 with or without other habitat loss or damage No ponds lost or damaged, "0.05 YES NO YES 3 development within 50m of nearest pond >0.05 YES YES YES 3

No ponds lost or damaged, "0.5 YES NO NO 4 development 50-100m from nearest pond >0.5 YES YES YES 3

No ponds lost or damaged, "5 YES NO NO 4 development >100m from nearest pond >5 YES NO YES 4

Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 16 APPENDIX II : Habitat suitability Index (HSI) scores for Ponds 1 & 2 (Oldham et al 2000)

Pond 1 SI 1 : Location 1.00 SI 2 : Pond area 0.10 SI 3 : Pond drying 0.90 SI 4 : Water quality 0.67 SI 5 : Shade 1.00 SI 6 : Fowl 1.00 SI 7 : Fish 1.00 SI 8 : Ponds 1.00 SI 9 : Terrestrial habitat 0.67 SI10 : Macrophytes 0.55

HSI score 0.68 Categorisation of suitability for GCN - Average Categorisation of suitability for GCN - Average

Pond 2 SI 1 : Location 1.00 SI 2 : Pond area 0.10 SI 3 : Pond drying 0.10 SI 4 : Water quality 0.67 SI 5 : Shade 0.30 SI 6 : Fowl 1.00 SI 7 : Fish 1.00 SI 8 : Ponds 1.00 SI 9 : Terrestrial habitat 0.67 SI10 : Macrophytes 0.55

HSI score 0.49 Categorisation of suitability for GCN - Poor

Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 17 Pond 2 SI 1 : Location 1.00 SI 2 : Pond area 0.10 SI 3 : Pond drying 0.10 SI 4 : Water quality 0.67 SI 5 : Shade 0.30 SI 6 : Fowl 1.00 SI 7 : Fish 1.00 SI 8 : Ponds 1.00 SI 9 : Terrestrial habitat 0.67 SI10 : Macrophytes 0.55

HSI score 0.49 Categorisation of suitability for GCN - Poor

Appendix III : Taken from Application tools: (1) "Do I need a licence?" - rapid risk assessment (Natural England document WML –A14-2 , Method Statement, September 2008).

“In recent years there has been a trend towards increasingly precautionary applications, resulting from a risk-averse approach to mitigation. Whilst considering potential risks to great crested newts is laudable, many recent mitigation schemes were designed for developments that actually had very little or no effect on the newt population. In part this is because it can be difficult to assess whether newts will be affected by certain activities, especially when they take place at some distance from breeding ponds. Newts tend to be present at increasingly low density the further one looks from ponds, and the task of detecting and capturing them becomes more problematic. Further from ponds, there is a corresponding reduction in the scale of impact on populations. Given that great crested newts can disperse over 1km from breeding ponds, the potential for offences may seem vast, yet the probability of an offence outside the core breeding and resting area is often rather small, and even if an offence takes place, the effect on the population may be negligible.

Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 18 Natural England is concerned about the trend for increasingly risk-averse mitigation for several reasons. Primarily, there is no legal need, and little benefit to great crested newt conservation, in undertaking mitigation where there are no offences through development. Even where there technically is an offence, such as the destruction of a small, distant area of resting place habitat, or even killing low numbers of newts, it is arguable that impacts beyond the core area often have little or no tangible impact on the viability of populations. Mitigation in such circumstances is of questionable value in conservation terms. There are, however, substantial costs: developers delay projects and spend large sums on mitigation. Sometimes the mitigation project itself has environmental costs, especially when it entails substantial lengths of newt fencing. In some cases long newt fences are employed with no justification. Natural England wishes to see newt fencing used more appropriately, i.e. only where there is a reasonable risk of capturing, containing and/or excluding newts”.

Barry Kemp Conservation Ltd – Catsfield CEP School report : June 2009 19