Ecological Impact Assessment
Middlemarch Environmental
April 2020
RAYNERS LANE STATION CAR PARK, HARROW
ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
A Report to: CBRE
Report No: RT-MME-130823-03
Date: April 2020
Triumph House, Birmingham Road, Allesley, Coventry CV5 9AZ Tel: 01676 525880 Fax: 01676 521400 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.middlemarch-environmental.com Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
REPORT VERIFICATION AND DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE
This study has been undertaken in accordance with British Standard 42020:2013 “Biodiversity, Code of practice for planning and development”. It is compliant with the best practice guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland, as defined by CIEEM (2018).
Report Date Completed by: Checked by: Approved by: Version
Hannah Train Tom Docker CEcol David Smith MCIEEM Rev A 14/04/2020 GradCIEEM (Senior MCIEEM (Ecology and Ecological Consultant) (Managing Director) Landscapes Director)
Hannah Train Tom Docker CEcol David Smith MCIEEM Final 24/03/2020 GradCIEEM (Senior MCIEEM (Ecology and Ecological Consultant) (Managing Director) Landscapes Director) Tom Docker CEcol Ella Robinson BSc Dr Philip Fermor MCIEEM DRAFT 31/07/2019 (Hons) (Senior CEnv MCIEEM (Associate Director: Ecological Consultant) (Managing Director) EIA)
The information which we have prepared is true, and has been prepared and provided in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Code of Professional Conduct. We confirm that the opinions expressed are our true and professional bona fide opinions.
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report are the responsibility of Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. It should be noted that, whilst every effort is made to meet the client’s brief, no site investigation can ensure complete assessment or prediction of the natural environment.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd accepts no responsibility or liability for any use that is made of this document other than by the client for the purposes for which it was originally commissioned and prepared.
VALIDITY OF DATA
The findings of this study are valid for a period of 24 months from the date of survey. If works have not commenced by this date, an updated site visit should be carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist to assess any changes in the habitats present on site, and to inform a review of the conclusions and recommendations made.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 1 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY
This Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) has been prepared by Middlemarch Environmental Ltd in support of a planning application for a proposed development at Rayners Lane Station Car Park in Harrow, London. The EcIA provides an overview of any significant effects, both beneficial and adverse, on ecological features, which may result during the construction and operational phases of the proposed development.
The EcIA has been produced based on current best practice guidance for assessing ecological impacts, as defined by the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM, 2018). The ecological baseline conditions have been informed by survey work completed by Middlemarch Environmental Ltd at the site to date.
The most notable ecological feature in relation to the proposed development is Rayners Lane Railsides, Borough Grade II Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), a non-statutory nature conservation site which forms the western portion of the site. In terms of species this nature conservation site has the potential to support foraging and commuting bats as well as reptiles. The site is also considered to offer suitable habitat for nesting birds, while foraging terrestrial mammals, including badger and hedgehogs may occasionally pass through the site.
The main predicted construction phase effects are associated with direct habitat loss/damage, localised increase in air pollutants and potential harm to, or displacement or disturbance of, existing species on and adjacent to the site. Some minor vegetation clearance within Rayners Lane Railsides SINC will be required to facilitate the installation of surface water drainage. The construction phase of the development will be controlled by a Construction Ecological Management Plan (CEcMP) which will include best practice methods to avoid any significant ecological impacts, e.g. pollution prevention measures.
Predicted operational phase effects include disturbance to species from lighting and degradation of habitat value due to inappropriate management and increased human presence. Proposed mitigation to address the predicted effects includes the implementation of a Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan (BEMP) and a Lighting Strategy.
Provided that all recommended avoidance and mitigation measures are implemented, and compensation and enhancement is delivered, such as the provision of new nesting habitat for birds, the predicted ecological effects can either be avoided entirely or reduced to negligible significance.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 2 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 5
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ...... 5 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT ...... 5 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSALS ...... 5 2. METHODOLOGIES...... 6
2.1 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL SURVEYS ...... 6 2.1.1 Desk Study ...... 6 2.1.2 Phase 1 Habitat Survey ...... 6 2.1.3 Breeding Bird Survey ...... 6 2.1.4 Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment ...... 7 2.1.5 Japanese Knotweed Survey ...... 7 2.2 SCOPE OF THE ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 8 2.3 CONSULTATION ...... 8 2.4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 8 2.4.1 Features of Ecological Importance ...... 8 2.4.2 Determining Importance ...... 8 2.4.3 Characterising Impacts ...... 9 2.4.4 Determining Significant Effects ...... 9 3. BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS AND EVALUATION ...... 10
3.1 DESK STUDY ...... 10 3.1.1 Introduction ...... 10 3.1.2 Nature Conservation Sites ...... 10 3.1.3 Protected/Notable Species ...... 11 3.1.4 Invasive Species ...... 13 3.2 HABITATS ...... 14 3.2.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey ...... 14 3.3 SPECIES ...... 17 3.3.1 Amphibians ...... 17 3.3.2 Bats ...... 17 3.3.3 Badgers ...... 17 3.3.4 Birds ...... 17 3.3.5 Hedgehog...... 19 3.3.6 Water vole ...... 19 3.3.7 Reptiles ...... 19 3.3.8 Terrestrial invertebrates ...... 19 3.3.9 Other Species ...... 19 3.3.10 Protected/Notable Plant Species ...... 19 3.3.11 Non-Native Invasive Plant Species ...... 19 3.4 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANCE OF ECOLOGICAL FEATURES ...... 20 4. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 22
4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 22 4.2 MITIGATION BY DESIGN ...... 22 4.3 POTENTIAL FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS ...... 22 4.3.1 Non-statutory Sites ...... 22 4.3.2 Habitats ...... 23 4.3.3 Species ...... 23 4.4 POTENTIAL FOR OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS ...... 25 4.4.1 Non-Statutory Sites ...... 25 4.4.2 Habitats ...... 25 4.4.3 Species ...... 26 5. MITIGATION, COMPENSATION AND ENHANCEMENT ...... 28
5.1 MITIGATION MEASURES...... 28
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 3 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
5.1.1 Construction Ecological Management Plan (CEcMP) ...... 28 5.1.2 Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan (BEMP) ...... 28 5.1.3 Operational Lighting Strategy ...... 28 5.2 COMPENSATION AND ENHANCEMENT ...... 28 6. CONCLUSIONS ...... 30
6.1 CONCLUSIONS ...... 30 7. DRAWINGS ...... 35 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 38 APPENDICIES ...... 40
APPENDIX 1 ...... 41 APPENDIX 2 ...... 51
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 4 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND In May 2019, CBRE commissioned Middlemarch Environmental Ltd to undertake an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) associated with a proposed development at Rayners Lane Station Car Park in Harrow, London. This assessment is required to support a planning application associated with the redevelopment of the site to provide new residential accommodation and flexible ground floorspace.
The report outlines the legislative and policy context for the development in respect of ecology; the Ecological Impact Assessment methodology; the baseline ecological conditions at the site, the likely significant ecological effects of the proposed development; the avoidance and mitigation measures required to offset significant ecological effects; and, the residual effects after avoidance and mitigation has been employed.
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT The development site comprises an active train station carpark and adjoining railway embankment located in Harrow, London. The site is approximately 1.61 ha in extent and is centred at Ordnance Survey Grid Reference TQ 12809 87519.
The site was dominated by a large, active tarmacked train station car park with areas of tall ruderal vegetation along the southern boundary and a small section of scrub and young trees along the north- western boundary. Part of Rayners Lane Railsides Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) forms the western portion of the site and comprises scrub and early successional woodland.
Residential gardens abutted the site to the south, a railway embankment and adjoining railway lines to the north and the rear of commercial properties to the east.
The wider landscape was very urban, with residential properties dominating the wider landscape to the south, north and west and commercial development, including Rayners Lane High Street, to the north-east and east.
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSALS The proposals for the site comprise:
“Redevelopment of existing car park to provide new residential accommodation (Use Class C3) and Sui Generis unit at ground floor and public car park along with associated works.”
As part of the development, some minor vegetation clearance within Rayners Lane Railsides SINC will be required to facilitate the installation of surface water drainage.
Documentation made available by the client is listed in Table 1.1.
Document Name / Drawing Number Author Project Summary: 445-KCA-XX-XX-FN-A-0100-BRI Karakusevic Carson Architects Rayners Lane: Landscape & Public Realm Strategy Issue R00 Townshend Landscape Architects Harrow Car Park Sites: Rayners Lane: Specialist Lighting Aecom Design Report, April 2020 Below Ground Drainage Layout Site Plan: 28202 / 6000 Price & Myers Below Ground Drainage Layout: 28202 / 6006 Price & Myers Table 1.1: Documentation Provided by Client
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 5 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
2. METHODOLOGIES
2.1 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL SURVEYS 2.1.1 Desk Study An ecological desk study was undertaken to determine the presence of any designated nature conservation sites and protected species in proximity to the site. This involved contacting appropriate statutory and non- statutory organisations which hold ecological data relating to the survey area. Middlemarch Environmental Ltd then assimilated and reviewed the desk study data provided by these organisations.
The consultees for the desk study were: • Natural England - MAGIC website for statutory conservation sites; and, • Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL).
The desk study included a search for European statutory nature conservation sites within a 5 km radius of the site (extended to 10 km for any statutory site designated for bats), UK statutory sites within a 2 km radius and non-statutory sites and protected/notable species records within a 1 km radius.
The data collected from the consultees is discussed in Chapter 3. In compliance with the terms and conditions relating to its commercial use, the full desk study data is not provided within this report.
The desk study also included a review of relevant local planning policy with regard to biodiversity and nature conservation (see Appendix 1).
2.1.2 Phase 1 Habitat Survey The walkover survey was conducted following the Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC, 2010) and the Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA, 1995). Phase 1 Habitat Survey is a standard technique for classifying and mapping British habitats. The aim is to provide a record of habitats that are present on site. During the survey, the presence, or potential presence, of protected species was noted.
Whilst every effort is made to notify the client of any plant species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended) present on site it should be noted that this is not a specific survey for these species.
Both the main site and the adjacent SINC have been subject to a Phase 1 Habitat Survey assessment.
2.1.3 Breeding Bird Survey The breeding bird survey was conducted in line with specifications detailed by the British Trust for Ornithology (Gilbert, 1998), although the methodology was tailored to site conditions. The methodology is a ‘scaled down’ version of the Common Bird Census (CBC) approach defined in Gilbert, with three site visits deemed appropriate. The CBC methodology involved walking the entire survey site and passing within 50 m of every point (where vegetation and access allowed). The route was chosen so as to sample all habitats recorded within the survey area.
For each survey visit, the study area is walked at a slow pace in suitable weather conditions to locate and identify all individual bird species within the survey boundaries. Registrations of birds were plotted onto suitably scaled maps on each site visit and all activities were noted i.e. singing, alarm calling, nest-building, feeding young and other behaviours indicative of breeding activities. Subsequent analysis of field maps enabled the approximate territories of species to be calculated and the number of territories of individual species worked out. As specified by the CBC methodology all morning visits were undertaken between 0600 and 0700 British Standard Time (BST), and no later than 0900 BST, avoiding the first hour before sunrise. Timing of the survey visits was also dictated by weather conditions. Therefore the site was examined only in appropriate weather conditions. None of the visits were conducted in cold weather, heavy rain, poor visibility or strong winds. All surveys were undertaken by experienced field ornithologists.
The Breeding Bird Survey focused on the main site, and also covered the eastern side of the adjacent SINC.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 6 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
2.1.4 Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment In line with the specifications detailed in Bat Mitigation Guidelines (English Nature, 2004) and Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (Collins, 2016), a Preliminary Ground Level Bat Roost Assessment of the trees within the SINC was conducted during daylight hours. A visual assessment of the trees was undertaken to determine the presence of any Potential Roost Feature (PRF) within the tree/s, together with a general appraisal of the suitability of the site for foraging and commuting. Table 2.1 provides examples of PRFs in trees. Any accessible PRFs were inspected using binoculars, a torch and endoscope for evidence of possible bat presence. For reasons of health and safety, the survey was only undertaken in areas accessible from 3.5 m ladders.
Example of Potential Roost Features • Bat, bird and dormouse boxes on trees; • Cankers (caused by localized bark death) in which cavities have developed; • Compression forks with included bark, forming potential cavities; • Cracks/splits in stems or branches (both vertical and horizontal); • Crossing stems or branches with suitable space between for roosting; • Ivy stems with diameters in excess of 50 mm with suitable roosting space behind (or where a roosting space can be seen where a mat of thinner stems has left a gap between the mat and the trunk); • Man-made holes (e.g. cavities that have developed from flush cuts); • Natural holes (e.g. knot holes) arising from naturally shed branches, or cavities created by branches tearing out from parent stems; • Other hollows or cavities, including rot holes and butt rots; • Partially detached or loose, platy bark; • Woodpecker holes; or, • Other features that offer a place of shelter. Table 2.1: Potential Roost Features (Adapted from Collins 2016 and BSI 2015)
Based on the PRF’s present, the trees within the survey area were assessed using the suitability classes detailed within Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (Collins, 2016), as detailed in Table 2.2. Trees with features present that are suitable to support roosting bats (high and moderate suitability) are discussed more fully in the report.
A summary of the trees within the survey area without suitable features to support roosting bats (low and negligible suitability) is provided within the report. Due to their negligible potential to support roosting bats, the Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (Collins, 2016) recommend no further survey work is required for these tree classes.
Suitability Description A tree with one or more potential roost sites that are obviously suitable for use by larger High 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. A tree 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 Moderate conservation status (with respect to roost type only – the assessments in this table are made irrespective of species conservation status, which is established after presence is confirmed). A tree of sufficient size and age to contain PRFs but with none seen from the ground or Low features seen with only very limited roosting potential. Negligible Negligible habitat features on site likely to be used by roosting bats. Table 2.2: Classification of Trees with Bat Potential (Adapted from Collins, 2016)
2.1.5 Japanese Knotweed Survey A survey searching directly for evidence of invasive plant species was undertaken within the adjacent SINC. This included a walkover survey of the site by an ecologist experienced in surveying for Japanese knotweed. Locations of stands were mapped using a GPS unit (Garmin GPSMap60Cx, accuracy < 5 m under ideal conditions). GPS data collected during the field survey was used to inform the production of a survey map detailing the locations and extents of all stands identified during the survey.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 7 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
2.2 SCOPE OF THE ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT The methodology for this assessment described in the Ecology Chapter is derived from the criteria set out in The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) ‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland’ (2018) (herein referred to as the ‘CIEEM Guidelines’). The methodology comprises: • Determination of the ecological baseline including a desk study, an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and, where relevant, further surveys for legally protected species and Species of Principal Importance in England; • Identification of important ecological receptors within the zone of influence; • An assessment of the significant effects on important ecological receptors from the construction and • operational phases of the Proposed Development; • A review of the mitigation and assessment of residual effects; and, • A cumulative assessment with other development proposals in the surrounding area.
Further information regarding the assessment methodology for each phase of the Ecological Impact Assessment is provided in Sections 2.4.
The assessment considers all activities associated with the construction and operational phases of the proposed development that are likely to have direct or indirect impacts on the ecological feature.
The zone of influence for the Ecological Impact Assessment has been defined in accordance with the CIEEM Guidelines (2018). These guidelines state that the ‘Zone of Influence’ with respect to ecology does not simply relate to the red line boundary of an application site. Activities and effects described above that occur outside of the application site can still have a negative or positive impact as a result of the construction, operation and potentially decommissioning of a project. The Zone of Influence in this assessment will therefore consider direct and indirect effects on ecological receptors both within and adjacent to the application site, and potentially associated with other areas that could be affected e.g. through transportation or excavation.
2.3 CONSULTATION The scope of baseline ecological assessment work undertaken to inform this impact assessment was agreed in consultation with the London Borough of Harrow (Biodiversity Officer) and London Wildlife Trust (via Rosie Whicheloe, Landscape Ecologist) in May 2019. The consultation response from London Wildlife Trust (LWT) outlined the type of habitat and species information that would be required to allow LWT to undertake a review of the biodiversity net gain/loss position of the proposed development, including habitat areas, species lists and descriptions of condition and management.
2.4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2.4.1 Features of Ecological Importance The assessment considers all ecological features within the zone of influence that are capable of being a material consideration in the planning process. This includes the following: • Statutory and Non-Statutory Nature Conservation Sites; • Statutory Protected Species; • Habitats and Species of Principal Importance to Nature Conservation in England (as identified in Section 41 of the NERC Act); • Priority habitats and species identified in the London Biodiversity Action Plan; and, • Features of importance by virtue of their location, role or function within the ecological landscape.
2.4.2 Determining Importance The CIEEM guidelines (2018) state that ecological features should be considered within a ‘defined geographical context’. The geographical frame of reference used to determine ecological importance in this assessment is detailed in Table 2.3. Assigning importance to ecological features is based on professional judgement informed by available guidance and information and expert advice.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 8 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
Importance Examples International High importance and rarity on an international scale and limited potential for substitution. e.g. Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, Ramsar Sites, or an area which meets the published selection criteria for such designation. A regularly occurring, nationally significant population or number of any internationally important species. National High importance, quality and rarity on a national or regional scale, with limited potential for substitution. e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves and sites which meets the published selection criteria for national designation. A regularly occurring, regionally or county significant population or number of any nationally important species. Regional High importance, quality or rarity on a metropolitan scale, or medium quality or rarity on a regional scale, with limited potential for substitution e.g. large-scale metropolitan Wildlife Sites or other sites that exceed the metropolitan-level designations but fall short of SSSI selection criteria, or areas of regionally rare or valuable habitat. A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a regionally important species during a critical phase of its life cycle. County / Medium importance, quality and rarity on a metropolitan scale and (limited) potential for Metropolitan substitution. e.g. Local Nature Reserves, metropolitan Wildlife Sites and features such as diverse and/or ecologically valuable hedgerow networks, high quality woodlands and high quality ponds. A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a important species at the metropolitan level during a critical phase of its life cycle. Local Borough: Medium to high importance, quality and rarity on a local scale, with (limited) potential for substitution e.g. semi-natural vegetation that due to its size, quality or the wide distribution of such habitats within the local area are not considered for the above classifications, medium- sized areas of habitat that could be re-created, such as wildflower meadows, medium to low quality ponds, and low quality woodlands. A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a borough important species during a critical phase of its life cycle.
Site: Low or very low importance, quality and rarity on a local scale with potential for substitution. e.g. low quality grasslands and intensive agricultural land. Any regularly occurring population of a locally common species. Negligible Areas of no ecological value e.g. hardstanding, areas of built development not supporting assemblages of species. Table 2.3: Geographical Context of Ecological Importance
2.4.3 Characterising Impacts Impacts arising as a result of development activities on site are described for all features of ecological importance. When describing impacts the assessment refers to characteristics such as the extent; magnitude; duration; frequency; and, reversibility of the impact in order to provide justification for any conclusions about the nature and likelihood of the impact described.
2.4.4 Determining Significant Effects The CIEEM guidelines (2018) define a significant effect in the context of an Ecological Impact Assessment as ‘an effect that either supports or undermines biodiversity conservation objectives for important ecological features or for biodiversity in general’. A significant effect is therefore an effect that is ‘sufficiently important to require assessment and reporting so that the decision maker is adequately informed of the environmental consequences of a project’.
Significant effects are determined by assessing any deviation in the baseline conditions of a feature of ecological importance that may occur as a result of individual and cumulative impacts during the construction and operational phases of the proposed development. These effects are expressed in terms of a geographical scale, corresponding to that in Table 2.3, however the geographical scale at which an effect is significant can vary from the geographical importance of the ecological feature being assessed. This assessment uses the above methodology to describe all significant effects on features of ecological importance within the zone of influence.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 9 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
3. BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS AND EVALUATION
3.1 DESK STUDY 3.1.1 Introduction The data search was carried out in May 2019 by Greenspace Information for Greater London. All relevant ecological data provided by the consultees was reviewed and the results from these investigations are summarised in Sections 3.1.2 to 3.1.4.
3.1.2 Nature Conservation Sites Statutory and non-statutory nature conservation sites located in proximity to the survey area are summarised in Table 3.1. An extract from the data search provided by GiGL which illustrates the location of non-statutory sites is included in Chapter 7.
Proximity to Site Name Designation Description Survey Area Non-Statutory Sites The largest part of this fragmented site is a triangle to the east of Rayners Lane station. The centre of the triangle contains a housing development, but the edges are densely vegetated with scrub and trees and are likely to be of importance for nesting and foraging birds. To the south-east of the triangle, the railway runs on an embankment with grassland, scrub and scattered oak trees Quercus robur. This is a good, well-drained SINC: Adjacent to habitat mosaic with gorce Ulex europaeus, Spanish Rayners Lane Railsides Borough western broom Spartium junceum, cherry, Michaelmas-daisy Grade II boundary Aster sp., and dog rose Rosa canina, as well as decaying timber and bare earth habitats. There is further habitat to the west of the station car park, where grassland is largely overgrown with scrub and small to medium-sized trees. None of the site is publicly accessible, although some of it may be seen at close quarters from a footpath to the east and from the car park to the west. The brook flows for about two and a half kilometres from North Harrow to the boundary with Hillingdon. SINC: Along the brook you can find habitats such as amenity Yeading Brook Borough 310 m west grassland, scrub, secondary woodland, and semi- Grade II improved neutral grassland. This diverse array of habitats produces a high diversity of flora and fauna on the site. This is well-used site with a variety of grassland, SINC: wetland, hedgerow, and woodland habitats. The site is Roxbourne Rough Nature Borough 570 m west important for it’s strong population of red bartsia Reserve Grade I Odontites verma. It is also known for being an important site for invertebrates. This site is made up of two parks, linked by the River Roxbourne and comprises of the following habitats: amenity grassland, flower beds, hedgerows, pond/lake, Newton Park and Newton 710 m SINC: Local river, ruderal, scattered trees, secondary woodland, Ecology Park south-east semi-improved neutral grassland and wet grassland. This site is home to a vast range of fungi, aquatic algae, wildflowers and fauna. The site is a flower-rich meadow created on a former Old Tennis Court, West tennis court and now contained scattered trees, scrub, Harrow Recreation Ground 820 m SINC: Local and semi-improved neutral grassland. The site is known and Ridgeway north-east for its diverse butterfly and grasshopper populations Embankment and provides an ideal habitat for birds. Table 3.1: Summary of Nature Conservation Sites (continues)
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 10 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
Proximity to Site Name Designation Description Survey Area This section of Yeading Brook riverside walk comprises the brook, riparian habitats, adjacent areas of rough grassland, native hedgerow, river to the east which runs Yeading Brook between SINC: through densely vegetated cutting and landfills. The 910 m Roxbourne Park and Borough area is known for its diverse invertebrate populations. south-west Ruislip Gardens Grade II The nationally notable leaf-beetle Chrysolina oricalcia feeds on flowers of cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris, and the high insect diversity along the riverside also includes numerous solitary bees and hoverflies. Key: SINC: Site of Importance for Nature Conservation Metropolitan: Site of Metropolitan Importance. Borough Grade I: Site of Borough Importance Grade I. Borough Grade II: Site of Borough Importance Grade II. Local: Site of Local Importance. SSSI: Site of Special Scientific Interest Table 3.1 (continued): Summary of Nature Conservation Sites
No Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI’s) are located within a 2 km radius of the survey area, however the survey area does fall within two SSSI Impact Risk Zones. The closest to the site being Ruislip Woods, which is located 2.9 km north-west of the site. The proposed nature and scale of the development does not fall within any of the categories of concern for this nature conservation site and therefore no impacts are predicted on this SSSI.
With the exception of Rayners Lane Railsides SINC, no significant impacts are predicted on the designated sites detailed in Table 3.1 due to the spatial separation between the sites and the development and the built- up nature of the intervening habitats. An assessment of impacts on Rayners Lane Railsides SINC is provided in Chapter 4.
3.1.3 Protected/Notable Species Table 3.2 and the following text provide a summary of protected and notable species records within a 1 km radius of the study area. It should be noted that the absence of records should not be taken as confirmation that a species is absent from the search area.
Most Proximity of Species of No. of Legislation / Species Recent Nearest Record Principal Records Conservation Status Record to Study Area Importance? Mammals - bats Common pipistrelle ECH 4, 2 2015 510 m west - Pipistrellus pipistrellus WCA 5, WCA 6, Local Unidentified bat 705 m north- 1 2006 # # Vespertilionidae sp. east ECH 4, Pipistrelle 1 1997 800 m west # WCA 5, WCA 6, Pipistrellus sp. Local Mammals – other Hedgehog 6 2012 534 m east ✓ WCA 6, Local Erinaceus europaeus Common shrew 2 1997 800 m west - WCA 6 Sorex araneus Badger 3 2015 † - WCA 6, PBA Meles meles Amphibians Common toad 609 m north- 2 2002 ✓ WCA 5 S9(5), Local Bufo bufo east Common frog 609 m north- 15 2006 - WCA 5 S9(5) Rana temporaria east Table 3.2: Summary of Protected/Notable Species Records Within 1 km of Survey Area (continues)
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 11 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
Most Proximity of Species of No. of Legislation / Species Recent Nearest Record Principal Records Conservation Status Record to Study Area Importance? Reptiles Slow worm WCA 5 S9(1) 44 2016 800 m west ✓ Anguis fragilis WCA 5 S9(5), Local Grass snake WCA 5 S9(1) WCA 5 1 2006 860 m west ✓ Natrix natrix S9(5), Local Common lizard WCA 5 S9(1) 4 2006 860 m west ✓ Zootoca vivipara WCA 5 S9(5), Local Birds Redwing 2 1996 219 m east - WCA1i Turdus iliacus Kingfisher 1 2009 732 m west - WCA1i Alcedo atthis Fieldfare 2 1996 800 m west - WCA1i Turdus pilaris Eurasian hobby 2 2013 † - WCA1i Falco subbuteo Red kite 1 2015 † - WCA1i Milvus milvus Invertebrates Stag beetle ECH 2, 5 2017 534 m east ✓ Lucanus cervus WCA 5 S9(5), Local Key: #: Dependent on the species †: Records are confidential and therefore proximity is not provided within the report.
ECH 2: Annex II of the European Communities Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora. Animal and plant species of community interest whose conservation requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation. ECH 4: Annex IV of the European Communities Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora. Animal and plant species of community interest in need of strict protection.
WCA 1i: Schedule 1 Part 1 of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Birds protected by special penalties at all times. WCA 5: Schedule 5 of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Protected animals (other than birds). WCA 5 S9(1): Schedule 5 Section 9(1) of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Protected animals (other than birds). Protection limited to intentional killing, injury or taking. WCA 5 S9(5): Schedule 5 Section 9(5) of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Protected animals (other than birds). Protection limited to selling, offering for sale, processing or transporting for purpose of sale, or advertising for sale, any live or dead animal, or any part of, or anything derived from, such animal. WCA 6: Schedule 6 of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Animals which may not be killed or taken by certain methods.
Species of Principal Importance: Species of Principal Importance for Nature Conservation in England. Local: Priority Species on the London Biodiversity Action Plan.
Note. This table does not include reference to the Berne Convention (Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats), the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals or the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Table 3.2 (continued): Summary of Protected/Notable Species Records Within 1 km of Survey Area
Birds The desk study provided records of seven bird species listed as Species of Principal Importnace within 1 km, including: spotted flycatcher Muscicapa striata, house sparrow Passer domesticus and bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula.
The desk study also provided one bird species listed on the RSPB Red list, comprising: grey wagtail Motacilla cinereal and four bird species listed on the RSPB Amber list, including: swift Apus apus, kestrel Falco tinnunculus and snipe Gallinago gallinago. In addition to this, one species was found to be listed under the London Biodiversity Action Plan, comprising: dunnock Prunella modularis.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 12 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
Invertebrates The desk study provided records of twelve moth and two butterfly species that are listed as being a Species of Principal Importance, including: knot grass moth Acronicta rumicis, mouse moth Amphipyra tragopoginis and small heath butterfly Coenonympha pamphilus.
Plants The desk study provided records of two species that are listed as Vulnerable and Lower Risk on the IUCN Red List, comprising: yellow vetchling Lathyrus aphaca and meadow clary Salvia pratensis, respectively. The desk study provided records of three species to be listed as a priority species on the London Biodiversity Action Plan, comprising: green-flowered helleborine Epipactis phyllanthes, black poplar Populus nigra subsp. betulifolia and mistletoe Viscum album.
3.1.4 Invasive Species Table 3.3 provides a summary of invasive species records within a 1 km radius of the study area. It should be noted that the absence of records should not be taken as confirmation that a species is absent from the search area.
No. of Most Recent Proximity of Nearest Legislation / Species Records Record Record to Study Area Conservation Status False-acacia 2 2005 80 m east LISI 4 Robinia pseudoacacia Snowberry 2 2003 180 m south-east LISI 2 Symphoricarpos albus Himalayan balsam 12 2011 520 m south-west LISI 3, WCA 9 Impatiens glandulifera Spanish bluebell 1 1997 610 m west LISI 4 Hyacinthoides hispanica Green alkanet 1 2017 610 m west LISI 6 Pentaglottis sempervirens Parrot’s-feather 2 2005 640 m south-east LISI 3, WCA 9 Myriophyllum aquaticum Japanese knotweed 14 2011 650 m south-west LISI 3, WCA 9 Fallopia japonica Giant knotweed 1 2008 650 m west WCA 9 Fallopia sachalinensis Butterfly-bush 8 2011 830 m east LISI 3 Buddleia davdii Cotoneaster 4 2003 830 m east LISI 2, WCA 9 Cotoneaster sp. Turkey oak 3 2003 880 m west LISI 5 Quercus cerris Evergreen oak 3 2003 880 m west LISI 5 Quercus ilex Goat’s-rue 5 2003 920 m east LISI 4 Galega officinalis Cherry laurel 5 2008 950 m south-west LISI 3 Prunus lauroceraus Key: WCA9: Schedule 9 of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Invasive, non-native, plants and animals. LISI: London Invasive Species Initiative LISI 2: London Invasive Species Initiative – Species of high impact or concern present at specific sites that require attention (control, management, eradication etc). LISI 3: London Invasive Species Initiative – Species of high impact or concern which are widespread in London and require concerted, coordinated and extensive action to control/eradicate. LISI 4: London Invasive Species Initiative – Species which are widespread for which eradication is not feasible but where avoiding spread to other sites may be required. LISI 5: London Invasive Species Initiative – Species for which insufficient data or evidence was available from those present to be able to prioritise. LISI 6: London Invasive Species Initiative – Species that were not currently considered to pose a threat or have the potential to cause problems in London. Table 3.3: Summary of Invasive Species Records Within 1 km of Survey Area
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 13 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
3.2 HABITATS 3.2.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey The Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the main site was carried out on 4th July 2019 by Jamie Fletcher, Senior Ecological Consultant. The ecological walkover survey of Rayners Lane Railsides SINC was undertaken on 20th January 2020 by Richard Sainsbury, Ecological Consultant. Table 3.4 details the weather conditions at the time of the surveys.
Parameter 04/07/2019 20/01/2020 Temperature (ºC) 19 4 Cloud (%) 25 50 Wind (Beaufort) F0-1 F0 Precipitation Nil Nil Table 3.4: Weather Conditions During Field Survey
The following habitats were identified within main site and the adjacent SINC during the surveys (listed alphabetically and not in order of importance). The location and extent of each habitat is shown on Drawing C130823-03 in Chapter 7). No notable constraints were experienced during the survey visits.
Habitats within Main Site Hardstanding The site was dominated by tarmacked car park. Additional areas of hardstanding in the form of paved paths to the east and west of the entrance road in the south-east of the site were also present. All areas of hardstanding were in fairly good condition and were well used.
Fence A poorly maintained metal chain link fence set upon concrete posts lined the sites southern boundary abutting residential gardens. The fence measured approximately 2 m in height and was covered in dense ivy and bindweed for the majority of its length, with some sections having collapsed or come away from the concrete posts as a result.
Along the northern boundary of the site, abutting the railway embankment and railway lines to the north, an approximate 2 m tall metal mesh security fence topped with barbed wire was present. The fence was in good condition and no obvious areas of damage or decay were noted. The metal security fence was also present along the site’s western boundary.
An approximate 2 m tall metal palisade fence lined the eastern boundary of the site, abutting the rear of commercial properties to the east.
The western side of the entrance road into the car park located in the south-eastern corner of the site was lined by a 2 m tall weatherboard panelled garden fence set upon concrete posts and concrete gravel boards. The fence enclosed the adjoining residential garden to the west and appeared to have only recently been erected.
Poor semi-improved grassland A narrow strip of poor semi-improved grassland lined the sites southern boundary, forming a narrow verge between the car park and the adjoining residential gardens. The area measured approximately 1 m in width, with species including perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne, dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg., bindweed Calystegia sp., cleavers Galium aparine, ivy Hedera helix, bristly ox-tongue Helminthotheca echioides, scarlet pimpernel Anagallis arvensis subsp. arvensis and St John’s wort Hypericum sp. The area was unmanaged, with sward height varying between 8-15 cm.
Scattered trees A number of scattered trees were located along the railway embankment abutting the site to the north and along a narrow strip/verge of poor semi-improved grassland along the southern boundary of the site. The trees located within the railway embankment to the north comprised young-early mature ash Fraxinus excelsior, sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus and plum Prunus sp. None of the trees exceeded more than 6 m in height.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 14 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
The trees present within the poor semi-improved grassland verge lining the southern site boundary included a small number of mature silver birch measuring in excess of 10 m tall.
Many trees and shrubs also overhung the site from residential gardens to the south. These included mature silver birch Betula pendula, ash, Leyland cypress X Cupressocyparis leylandii, laurel Prunus sp., firethorn Pyracantha sp., hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, privet Ligustrum sp., broom Cytisus scoparius, spruce Picae sp. and cherry Prunus sp.
The area of scrub/early successional woodland offsite to the west included a range of scattered trees including early mature sycamore and ash. Access to this area was not possible due to the density of the vegetation.
Tall ruderal A narrow belt of tall ruderal had developed along the eastern boundary of the entrance road/footpath in the south-eastern part of the site (Target note 2). The tall ruderal had developed on an area of previously cleared ground and measured approximately 1.5 m in height. Species included thistle Cirsium sp., nettle Urtica dioica, willowherb Epilobium sp., dandelion, bindweed and ragwort Senecio sp.
Habitats within adjacent SINC Bare ground Thin bands of bare ground were present either side of the Smart’s brook, predominantly found within the centre of the survey area. These areas were generally devoid of any vegetation.
Dense scrub Pockets of dense scrub were noted across the site. The scrub was generally dominated by bramble Rubus fruticosus agg., which encroached into areas of bare ground. Other species included occasional gorse Ulex europaeus and dogwood Cornus sanguinea.
Hardstanding A section of the Rayners Lane station car park abutted the SINC to the east, delineated by a damaged chain-link fence. The area consisted of tarmac entirely and was utilised predominantly as a storage facility, enclosed by sections of heras fencing. Four large shipping containers, a skip and piles of miscellaneous building material and waste were noted within this area.
Introduced shrub Patches of introduced shrub were distributed sparingly around the SINC. The largest extent of the introduced plantings was recorded within the centre of the survey area and adjacent to the residential gardens, which abutted the site’s southern boundary. Common species recorded include box holly Ilex crenata, wild privet Ligustrum vulgare, bearded iris Iris germanica and holly Ilex aquifolium. An established snowberry Symphoricarpos albus bush was present on the northern embankment of the Smart’s brook, located within the western section of the SINC. Singular Japanese Knotweed Fallopia japonica stands were recorded emerging from the ivy understorey within the western section of the survey area whilst a larger extent was present within the centre of the SINC, either side of the Smart’s brook.
Other habitats Debris / vegetation piles Several miscellaneous debris, log and brash piles were situated behind the residential gardens, present along the site’s southern and western boundary. These piles have been left undisturbed for an extensive time period and were colonised by encroaching ground ivy, common ivy and bramble scrub.
Dense Understorey Extents of dense ground ivy Glechoma hedereacea and common ivy Hedera helix colonised the understorey of the successional woodland present within the western half of the survey area. Further expanses of ground ivy and common ivy coverage were present to the east however the composition of the habitat types within this area were more diverse, colonising areas of pre-existing bare ground and encroaching into areas of scattered scrub. The distribution of dense understorey across the site is known to constantly change, as ruderal and ephemeral vegetation were beginning to slowly regenerate, with species including: cow’s parsley Anthriscus sylvestris, common nettle Urtica dioica, lady fern Athyrium filix-femina, common bedstraw Galium aparine and field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis beginning to colonise.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 15 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
Fencing A poorly maintained 2 m tall metal chain link fence set upon concrete posts lined the sites southern and eastern boundary abutting residential gardens. The fence was covered in dense ivy and bindweed for much of its length, with some sections having collapsed or come away from the concrete posts as a result. Wooden fences and sections of brick wall were located on the southern side of the fence lining the back of residential gardens, though these garden boundaries are thought to be located just outside of the site boundary.
The sites northern boundary, abutting the railway embankment and railway lines to the north, was lined by an approximate 2 m tall metal mesh security fence topped with barbed wire. The fence was in good condition and no obvious areas of damage or decay were noted.
Railway embankment A chain-link fence delineated the boundaries between the SINC and railway line which ran parallel to the northern site boundary. A two-tiered vegetated embankment stretching approximately 135 m from east to west, was present along the site’s northern boundary. The habitats recorded were not subject to any form of management. Dense ground ivy and common ivy dominated the ground flora, with interspersed sections of connecting bramble scrub and scattered trees located to the south and east. Four mammal burrows were identified within the embankment, approximately 20 m away from the Smart’s brook; deemed that to be of red fox Vulpes vulpes.
Poor semi-improved grassland A narrow strip of poor semi-improved grassland lined the sites southern boundary, forming a narrow verge between the car park and the adjoining residential gardens. The area measured approximately 1 m wide and included perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne, dandelion Taraxacum officinale, field bindweed, common bedstraw, common ivy, bristly ox-tongue Helminthotheca echioides and non-grassland species too such as common nettle. The area was not subject to management and the sward height varied throughout its length from approximately 80-150 mm.
Scattered scrub Patches of scattered bramble and buddleia Buddleja davidii scrub were located along the railway embankment lining the northern site boundary. Stands of regenerating bramble were emerging from the dense understorey within the western section of the SINC whilst a small area of dogwood existed within the south-eastern corner of the site. Larger areas of dense bramble were present within the north-eastern corner of the site and either side of the Smart’s Brook.
Smart’s Brook Smart’s Brook was located within the northern section of the survey area and intersects through the centre of the SINC, before running parallel to the site’s southern boundary and diverting towards the south-western corner. Smart’s Brook functions as a drainage ditch, transferring wastewater away from the connected Yeading Brook, and is not known to dry seasonally. At the time of the survey, the water was approximately 0.35 m deep and fast flowing, heading westwards. The Smart’s Brook was surrounded by steep embankments, lined with corrugated metal and wooden sleepers in places, and supported areas of established bramble scrub, pendulous sedge Carex pendula, ground ivy, common ivy, snowberry and Japanese Knotweed.
Scattered trees A congregation of early mature to mature scattered trees existed along the boundaries of the SINC. Several crack willow Salix fragilis and Leyland cypress Cupressus x leylandii were recorded around the Smart’s Brook, within the south-western corner of the site. A row of early mature plum Prunus sp. trees abutted the site’s southern boundary whilst semi-mature hawthorn Crataegus monogyna was recorded further east.
A denser area of trees predominantly consistent of semi-mature to mature ash Fraxinus excelsior, sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus and elder Sambucus nigra occupied the western half of the survey area. A composition of similar species was recorded along the site’s northern boundary, albeit more sparsely distributed. For a full species list, please refer to Middlemarch Environmental’s Preliminary Arboricultural Appraisal (Report RT-MME-130823-01 RevB).
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 16 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
3.3 SPECIES 3.3.1 Amphibians The desk provided records of two species of common amphibian, namely common toad and common frog, within a 1 km radius of the survey area. No records of great crested newt were provided. There is no suitable breeding habitat for amphibians within either the main site or the SINC. Some small sections of suitable terrestrial habitat, limited to scattered scrub and tall ruderal vegetation along the railway embankment, are present within the main site. The SINC provides suitable terrestrial habitat in the form of dense and scattered scrub, dense understorey, successional woodland and vegetation/log piles. Reference to Ordnance Survey mapped data and aerial imagery indicates there is one pond within 500 m of the survey area, located 20 m north-east. It is separated from the site by an active railway line, although this feature is not considered to present a significant barrier to dispersal for amphibians between the pond and the site. However, even if amphibians are present in the pond, the risk of individuals accessing the site is considered to be low, given the large amount of suitable terrestrial habitat immediately surrounding the pond.
3.3.2 Bats The desk study provided records of at least one species of bat within a 1 km radius of the survey area. The closest record was located 510 m west. The trees within the main site were identified as providing negligible potential to support roosting bats during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey.
A targeted Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment of the trees within the SINC was undertaken on 17th March 2020 by Richard Sainsbury, Ecological Consultant. Table 3.5 details the weather conditions at the time of the surveys.
Parameter Conditions Temperature (ºC) 13 Cloud (%) 100 Wind (Beaufort) F1-2 Precipitation Nil Table 3.5: Weather Conditions During Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment
Whilst the application boundary itself offers limited foraging opportunities for bats, the adjacent railway corridor offers a linear foraging and commuting feature linking the site to the wider landscape. The habitat mosaic within the adjacent SINC provides suitable foraging and commuting habitat for bats.
3.3.3 Badgers The desk study provided three records of badger within a 1 km radius of the survey area. No evidence of badger such as setts, prints or latrines were recorded within the main site or the SINC during the field survey visits. There is limited habitat within the main site for badgers, although the adjacent mosaic of habitats within the SINC may provide suitable sett creation opportunities. Nonetheless, the risk of badgers utilising this area for sett creation is considered low, given the disturbance from passing trains and its location within a highly urbanised area of London. Badger may however occasionally pass through the site.
3.3.4 Birds The desk study provided several records of birds listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Given the specific breeding ranges and habitat requirements of these species they are considered unlikely to be present on site. Records of Species of Principal Importance as well as RSPB Red and Amber Listed were also provided.
The scattered trees on and adjacent to the main site offer suitable nesting habitat for birds, whilst the mosaic of habitats within the SINC, including scattered trees, dense and scattered scrub and introduced shrub, provides suitable opportunities for nesting and foraging, potentially for a limited number of protected or notable species, but predominately for more common/generalist bird species.
Breeding Bird Survey visits were undertaken between 14th May and 27th June 2019 by Jamie Fletcher (Senior Ecological Consultant). Survey dates and weather conditions are listed in Table 3.5.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 17 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
Parameter Date Temperature (ºC) Cloud (%) Wind (Beaufort) Precipitation 14/05/2019 16 25 F0-1 Nil 03/06/2019 17 50 F2-3 Nil 27/06/2019 15 0 F1 Nil Table 3.5: Dates and Weather Conditions of Breeding Bird Surveys
During the survey visits a total of 17 bird species were recorded using this site. Of these species, five were either confirmed to have bred or probably did so based on habitat suitability and observed patterns of behavior. Confirmed and probable breeding species are listed in Table 3.6, and approximate territory locations are plotted on Drawing C130823-03-01 in Chapter 7.
No. of Species Scientific Name Conservation Status Territories Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla - 1 Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita - 1 Dunnock Prunella modularis SPI, Amber 2 Robin Erithacus rubecula - 4 Wren Troglodytes troglodytes - 3 Key: SPI: Species of Principal Importance in England. Amber: Birds of Conservation Concern 4 Amber List Species – those whose population or range has declined moderately in recent years (by more than 25% but less than 50% in 25 years), those whose population has declined historically but recovered recently, rare breeders (fewer than 300 pairs), those with internationally important populations in the UK, those with localised populations, and those with an unfavourable conservation status in Europe. Table 3.6: Confirmed and Probable Breeding Bird Species Recorded
The remaining species recorded using the site are not considered to have bred and were using the site as a temporary foraging resource or passing through at the time of the survey visits. Non-breeding species recorded during the survey are listed in Table 3.7.
Species Scientific Name Conservation Status Blackbird Turdus merula - Blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus - Carrion crow Corvus corone - Collared dove Streptopelia decaocto - Feral pigeon Columba livia - Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis - Great tit Parus major - Greenfinch Chloris chloris - Long-tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus - Magpie Pica pica - Pied wagtail Motacilla alba - Woodpigeon Columba palumbus - Table 3.7: Non-Breeding Bird Species Recorded
Due to the nature of the site, a fairly limited range of species were recorded during both survey visits. The adjacent SINC had the greatest ornithological interest.
Although the full SINC has not been subject to a targeted Breeding Bird Survey, the birds recorded within the eastern part of this area during the surveys of the main site are considered to be fairly representative of the assemblage within the wider SINC. The most notable bird species recorded within the wider SINC during 2020 survey visits is dunnock Prunella modularis, a Species of Principal Importance in England and Birds of Conservation Concern 4 Amber List Species. Two territories for this species were recorded within the main site during the 2019 Breeding Bird Surveys, and it is considered highly likely that at least one or two further territories are resent within the SINC.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 18 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
3.3.5 Hedgehog The desk study provided six records of hedgehog within a 1 km radius of the survey area. The majority of the main site is considered sub optimal for hedgehog; however, the adjacent SINC comprises areas of woodland and scrub, which offer opportunities for foraging and refuge. There may also be good connectivity to further suitable habitat within the adjacent residential gardens.
3.3.6 Water vole The desk study provided no records of water vole within a 1 km radius of the survey area. There is no suitable aquatic habitat for this species within the main site. Smart’s Brook, a watercourse which runs through the adjacent SINC, is considered sub-optimal for water vole. The water is fast flowing and polluted, and the channel supports no aquatic vegetation. Furthermore, along much of the length of the watercourse, the embankments are steep sloped, reinforced by sections of corrugated metal and wooden sleepers, limiting the opportunities for burrowing water vole. Additionally, no water vole field signs were recorded during the ecological walkover survey. Therefore, water voles are not a notable consideration in respect of the development and are not discussed further.
3.3.7 Reptiles The desk study provided records of slow worm, grass snake and common lizard within a 1 km radius of the survey area. The main site offers limited suitable habitat for reptiles (confined to the tall ruderal vegetation along the peripheries of the site), however the scrub along the railway embankment, as well as mosaic of habitats within the adjacent SINC, offers suitable basking, foraging, refuge and hibernation habitat for reptiles, particularly slow worm and common lizard.
3.3.8 Terrestrial invertebrates The desk study provided five records of stag beetle within a 1 km radius of the survey area. The closest record was located 560 m north. No suitable habitat for stag beetle, such as extensive deadwood, has been recorded within the main site during the field survey visits. However, the SINC supports suitable habitat for stag beetle, such as extensive deadwood and log piles.
Records of moth and butterfly species were provided by the desk study. The small areas of scrub and grassland within the main site may offer some suitable habitat for invertebrates, particularly common species, however higher value habitat for invertebrates, such as dense scrub, is present within the adjacent SINC. Although any invertebrate species present within the site or SINC may be displaced during the construction phase of the proposed development, it is considered that they will recolonise following completion of the works, particularly if new habitats are created as part of the development. No long-term adverse effect on invertebrates is predicted as a result of the proposed development. Invertebrates are not discussed further within this assessment.
3.3.9 Other Species The following protected species are not deemed be material considerations due to the lack of desk study records and absence of suitable habitats within the development site and its surroundings: dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius, harvest mouse Micromys minutus, pine martin Martes martes, polecat Mustela putorius, red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris, otter Lutra lutra, brown hare Lepus europaeus and white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes.
3.3.10 Protected/Notable Plant Species The desk study provided no records of notable plant species within 1 km search area. During the Phase 1 Habitat Survey, which was undertaken at a suitable time of year for botanical assessments, no notable plant species were identified. Notable flora are therefore not considered further in this assessment.
3.3.11 Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Buddleia Buddleja davidii has been identified within the main site and snowberry Symphoricarpos albus has been identified within the SINC. Buddleia and snowberry are designated as invasive species under the London Invasive Species Initiative (LISI). They are listed as Category 3 species, which are those that are of high impact or concern which are widespread in London and require concerted, coordinated and extensive action to control/eradicate.
Singular Japanese Knotweed Fallopia japonica stands were recorded emerging from the ivy understorey within the western section of the SINC, whilst a larger extent was present within the centre of the SINC,
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 19 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment either side of Smart’s Brook. Japanese Knotweed is designated as an invasive species under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), making it an offence to cause it to spread in the wild.
3.4 EVALUATION OF IMPORTANCE OF ECOLOGICAL FEATURES Table 3.8 identifies the important ecological features on site and the geographical frame of reference for which they are important. Only receptors important at the Local (Site) level or above are included in the table and are therefore considered further in the impact assessment. Receptors deemed to be of negligible importance at the site level by virtue of their absence from site or limited value to biodiversity are not included within the table and are scoped out of further assessment.
Receptor Nature Justification Conservation Value Designated Sites Rayners Lane Local This site support habitats and ecological features deemed to be of Local Railsides – Site of (Borough) (Borough) importance for nature conservation. These are sites which are Importance for important in the context of the borough, in the same way that Metropolitan sites Nature are important to the whole of London. Conservation (Borough Grade 1) Damage to individual sites may alter the distribution of valuable habitats within the borough or lead to fragmentation of ecological corridors which provide connectivity at the scale of the borough. Habitats Main site – Local (Site) Although these habitats are of low or very low importance, quality and rarity on Poor semi- a local scale and can be easily replaced if lost, they contribute to the structural improved diversity of the site and have the potential to support protected / notable grassland, young species. scattered trees scattered scrub As such, they are considered to be of Local (Site) importance for nature and tall ruderal conservation. vegetation SINC habitats – Local These habitats fall within the adjacent SINC (discussed above) and contribute mosaic of habitats, (Borough) to its structural diversity. including scrub, running water, mature and semi- mature trees Protected/Notable Species Bats Local (Site) Pipistrelle sp. (depending on species) are Species of Principal Importance in England. All bat species occurring in London are grouped as a priority species (bats) in the London Biodiversity Action Plan. At least one species of bat was identified in the desk study, potentially more, occurring within 1 km radius of the site.
The trees within the main site and SINC offer negligible opportunities for roosting bats. The mosaic of habitats along the adjacent railway line and within the SINC offer a suitable foraging and commuting opportunities for bats. Birds Local (Site) The site and SINC support a limited range of bird species, the majority of which are common and widespread. Fuller (1980) describes a method for assessing the ornithological interest of sites, whereby the importance is defined by the assemblage of breeding species present. The total of five confirmed/probable breeding species identified during the field surveys indicates that the site is likely to be of no more than Local value in terms of its breeding bird interest.
All wild birds receive protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) whilst nesting. Reptiles Up to Local The SINC supports suitable refuge, basking, foraging and hibernation habitat (Borough) for reptiles, particularly slow worm and common lizard.
All reptiles are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and so their potential presence is a material consideration for the proposed development. Table 3.8: Summary of Nature Conservation Value of Ecological Receptors (continues)
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 20 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
Receptor Nature Justification Conservation Value Protected/Notable Species Badger Local (Site) Badgers and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act (1992). Whilst no evidence of badgers was observed, they are widespread and increasing in England and so could potentially colonise the adjacent railway or SINC.
They are considered to be of Local (Site) importance for nature conservation. Hedgehog Local (Site) Hedgehogs are Species of Principal Importance and their presence cannot be ruled out due to their mobile nature, and the availability of suitable habitat and connectivity within the site.
Populations of these species are considered to be of Local (Site) importance for nature conservation. Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Butterfly bush, N/A Butterfly bush is present within the main site, whilst snowberry s present within snowberry and the SINC. These species are considered invasive in London and is listed on Japanese the London Invasive Species Initiative. Stands of Japanese knotweed, listed on knotweed Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), are also present within the SINC. Table 3.8: (continued) Summary of Nature Conservation Value of Ecological Receptors
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 21 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
4. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
4.1 INTRODUCTION This section describes predicted ecological impacts and resultant effects during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed development. The initial assessment of predicted effects takes into account mitigation by design, i.e. mitigation that forms an inherent part of the submitted masterplan but excludes any additional mitigation measures. Any further mitigation is then described, and an assessment of residual effects is presented. The assessment of impacts and effects is based on the documentation listed in Table 1.2.
This section is informed by the mitigation hierarchy, as described in Paragraph 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework and reiterated in British Standard 42020:2013 (Biodiversity). The mitigation hierarchy states that impacts should be avoided where possible, with mitigation or compensation applied when avoidance is not viable.
The activities likely to have an impact on habitats and species can be split into construction phase impacts and operational phase impacts. During the construction phase of the scheme, the main activities on the site will include vegetation clearance, construction activities including ground works, the use of operational plant and machinery and associated vehicle movements. Impacts likely to arise from these activities could include loss, fragmentation and physical damage of habitat, hydrological changes and pollution, direct mortality of species and disturbance (physical disturbance, lighting and air pollution) of sites, habitats and species.
During the operational phase of the scheme, there will be an increase in the use of the site by people, increases in lighting and illumination and site maintenance activities. Potential impacts from these activities include disturbance (recreational, lighting and noise) and potentially the direct mortality of species.
4.2 MITIGATION BY DESIGN As described in Section 4.1, any avoidance or mitigation that has been built into the design of the development is taken into account during the initial assessment of potential impacts and effects. Mitigation by design has been informed through consultation between the design team and project ecologist and is outlined in the Landscape and Public Realm Strategy (Townshend Landscape Architects, 2020) and Specialist Lighting Design Report (Aecom, 2020). Mitigation by design comprises: • Development largely confined to the existing built footprint; • Retention of the majority habitats within the SINC (with the unavoidable loss of a small area to facilitate drainage infrastructure); and, • Adoption of ecologically sensitive lighting principles.
The scheme design also incorporates newly created habitat areas, which will provide replacement habitat to compensate for those lost and additional habitat to enhance the site for wildlife. Compensation and enhancement measures are discussed in Section 5.2.
4.3 POTENTIAL FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS 4.3.1 Non-statutory Sites Rayners Lane Railsides SINC Part of Rayners Lane Railsides SINC is located immediately west of the main development area. Surface water drainage will be installed within the SINC. It is anticipated that these works will result in a small-scale loss of habitat within the SINC. This potential loss of a small section of habitat is unlikely to result in any long- term change to the integrity of the SINC or its ability to support protected/notable species, and is deemed to be an adverse effect, significant at the Local (Site) level. This loss of habitat cannot be avoided or directly mitigated for, although the creation of ecologically valuable habitats, which have been incorporated into the design of the development, will provide compensation and enhancement to address the residual adverse effect. This is discussed further in Section 5.2.
In the absence of mitigation, construction activities such as ground works and use of operational machinery, could result in the physical damage or disturbance to the retained habitats within the SINC, through compaction of soils and damage to the root stock. In addition, there is the potential for this site to be
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 22 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment temporarily adversely impacted during the construction phase of the development as a result of a localised increase in air pollutants (e.g nitrogen and dust deposition) from construction traffic and activities. There is also potential that the construction phase will result in an increase in pollution and siltation of the Smart’s Brook, located within the site, and the connected Yeading Brook. These impacts would result in an adverse effect, significant at up to the Local (Borough) level. However, subject to the implementation of suitable protection measures, including installation of fencing and pollution prevention controls, which can be detailed in a CEcMP and secured by condition, these adverse impacts can be avoided altogether and no significant residual effect on this non-statutory site is anticipated.
The spatial separation between the remainder of this conservation site and the construction works, as well as the built-up nature of intervening habitats, means that no significant construction phase impacts are predicted.
4.3.2 Habitats Main Site - Poor semi-improved grassland, scattered scrub, scattered trees and tall ruderal vegetation The proposed development will result in the permanent loss of these habitats. Considered individually, the loss of these common, widespread habitats, which are of low ecological value and can easily be replaced, is of negligible significance. However, together, these habitats contribute to the structural diversity of the site and their loss in combination is considered to be an adverse effect, significant at the Local (Site) level.
The loss of these habitats cannot be avoided or mitigated for, although the creation of ecologically valuable habitats, which have been incorporated into the design of the development, will provide compensation and enhancement to address the residual effect. This is discussed further in Section 5.2.
SINC Habitats The small loss of habitats within the SINC to facilitate the installation of drainage infrastructure is discussed in Section 4.3.1 above.
4.3.3 Species Bats The survey work undertaken identified no suitable roosting habitat for bats within the main site or the SINC and therefore there will be no adverse significant effect on the status of any populations of bats utilising the site for roosting purposes and no contravention of the Habitats Regulations 2017 or the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) during the construction phase of the proposed development.
Although small areas of suitable foraging habitat will be permanently lost from the peripheries of the main site and within the adjacent part of the SINC, the retention of the majority of scrub and tree habitats within the SINC, which will remain connected to habitats along the railway embankment to the north, will ensure that bats can continue to forage and commute into the wider landscape. Bats can however be disturbed by significant increases in noise, vibration and lighting during construction if undertaken at night. The pipistrelle species that have been recorded within a 1 km of the site can tolerate low levels of lighting. However, insensitively designed or located lighting could reduce the extent of suitable bat foraging habitat for these species. There is subsequently a risk that insensitive lighting could result in decreased activity or avoidance behaviours by this species around illuminated areas of the site, therefore disrupting potential foraging habitat or commuting routes between local roost sites.
Without control measures, this adverse temporary effect could be significant at the Local (Site) level as it may result in minor alterations of the use of the site by foraging and commuting species, but is not considered likely to affect the distribution of the species at a Local (Borough) level. However, implementation of a CEcMP, which will outline measures regarding the retention and protection of, and avoidance of light spill on to, important foraging and commuting features immediately adjacent to the site, will ensure construction phase disturbance impacts on foraging and commuting bats are avoided. As such, no significant residual adverse effect is predicted for bat species utilising the site for foraging and commuting.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 23 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
Badgers Given the presence of suitable habitat within and adjacent to the SINC, it is possible that badgers may excavate new setts prior to works commencing, and, in the absence of mitigation, site clearance works could result in the damage or destruction of a badger sett or the killing or injury of badgers. This could lead to a reduction in breeding success of badgers and a decline in the favourable conservation status of local badger populations, an adverse effect, significant at the Local (Site) level. In addition, badgers are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and therefore any potential damage or disturbance to a badger sett or the killing or injury of a badger would be in breach of wildlife legislation. However, subject to the completion of a pre-commencement survey to assess the current status of badgers on site and determine the requirements for implementation of suitable buffer zones if feasible, or the undertaking of works in accordance with a licence from Natural England if required, then impacts on badger can be avoided. Details regarding the pre-commencement survey can be provided in the CEcMP.
General construction activities within the proposed development site are likely to include ground works, excavations and storage of materials including pipes which, left uncovered, could trap or injure badgers moving through the site. Injuries sustained could reduce badger foraging success over a temporary period. However, this short-term effect is considered unlikely to lead to any significant change in the current status of any local badger populations and as such is considered to be not significant, although the implementation of the measures outlined in the CEcMP will ensure harm to badgers is avoided during the construction phase of the proposed development.
Birds Site clearance during the construction phases of the proposed development will result in the loss of scattered trees and some dense scrub, habitats which are likely to provide nesting opportunities for a variety of bird species during the breeding season. This loss is considered to be temporary as the new buildings and areas of tree planting included within the landscaping proposals will provide replacement nesting opportunities for those lost. Furthermore, suitable nesting habitat is present within the wider area. As such, it is considered that the temporary loss of suitable nesting habitat during the construction phase of the proposed development will have no significant effect on the favorable conservation status of bird populations in the local area.
It is possible that vegetation clearance or construction activities may result in the damage or destruction of an active bird’s nest if undertaken during the bird nesting season (March to August inclusive). Any such damage and disturbance of an active nest would constitute an adverse effect, significant at Local (Site) level and an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and so will be a legislative consideration during the construction phases.
The CEcMP will set out the legislative considerations regarding nesting birds during the construction phases of the proposed development and seek to ensure that all vegetation clearance works are undertaken outside of the nesting bird season (March to August inclusive). The CEcMP will also be inclusive of a method statement setting out the safeguards, i.e. pre-construction nesting bird checks and ecological supervision of vegetation clearance, that will be implemented to minimise the risk of damaging or destroying an active birds nest if essential works are required during the nesting bird season. Subject to the implementation of the CEcMP, it is considered that there will be no residual adverse significant effect on the favourable conservation status of breeding birds in the area and no contravention of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) during the construction phase of the proposed development.
Reptiles The main site is considered sub-optimal to support reptiles, as it is dominated by hardstanding. However, the scrub and young trees along the railway embankment and mosaic of habitats within the adjacent SINC are considered to provide suitable opportunities for reptiles. Construction activities such as ground works and use of operational machinery could result in the physical damage or disturbance to suitable habitats, subsequently causing direct harm or injury to reptile species, if present. These impacts could have an adverse effect of the favourable conservation status of reptile populations at the site, significant at the Local (Site) level. However subject to works proceeding in accordance with a reasonable avoidance measures method statement, which can be provided in the CEcMP, it is anticipated that there will be no residual adverse significant effect on the status of any populations of reptiles, if present at the site, and no contravention of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) during the construction phase of the proposed development.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 24 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
Hedgehog Although some limited suitable habitat for hedgehog will be lost to accommodate the proposed development, given the abundance of suitable habitat for this species within the surrounding landscape, it is considered unlikely that this habitat loss will result in a noticeable effect on populations of this species in the area. The effect is assessed as being not significant.
General construction activities within the proposed development are likely to include ground works, excavations and storage of materials including pipes which, if left uncovered, could trap, injure or kill individual hedgehogs moving through the site. These effects could increase hedgehog mortality within the site, leading reduced breeding success and recruitment into the local population. This would constitute an adverse effect significant at the Local (Site) level.
Subject to the implementation of the CEcMP, it is considered that mortality risk to hedgehogs is not significant. The CEcMP will include a method statement setting out the safeguards that will be implemented to ensure that terrestrial mammals are not killed or injured during the construction phase of the proposed development. The method statement will include measures such as covering up excavations and pipe work at the end of each work-day and the provision of mammal ramps in all excavations that cannot be covered overnight. As such no significant residual effect is anticipated.
Invasive plants Three invasive plant species, comprising Japanese knotweed, snowberry and butterfly-bush have been recorded within the main site or adjacent SINC. In the absence of appropriate mitigation, there is potential for these species to spread during construction works. With respect to Japanese knotweed, this would be in breach of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
The CEcMP will be inclusive of a method statement setting out the safeguards that will be implemented to ensure that invasive species do not spread during the construction phase of the proposed development. The method statement will include measures such as management of existing above-ground vegetation using manual and mechanical control measures and waste management. Subject to the implementation of the CEcMP, the spread of invasive species can be avoided altogether, and no significant effects are anticipated.
4.4 POTENTIAL FOR OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS 4.4.1 Non-Statutory Sites Rayners Lane Railsides SINC The section of Rayners Lane Railsides SINC located adjacent to the main site is not accessible to the public and therefore is considered unlikely to be subject to any increased recreational pressure from the residential development. Nevertheless, increases in illumination are anticipated and are further discussed under ‘Bats’ in Section 4.4.3.
A further section of this conservation site is located around the edge of a housing development and is likely to already be subject to high levels of use, which is unlikely to increase significantly as a result of the new housing development. Another section of this SINC is located within a railway embankment which is not accessible to the general public and will therefore unlikely to be subject to any increased recreational pressure. These two sections of this conservation site are considered unlikely to be subject to any operational phase impacts.
4.4.2 Habitats Created Habitats The completed development would be potentially associated with an increase in litter generation and disturbance of habitats, which could lead to minor losses or degradation of the habitats on site. However, these effects are generally considered to be localised and reversible and so are not considered to significantly alter the conservation status of the habitats on site.
The implementation of a BEMP will also ensure the appropriate management of created habitats so that their intended biodiversity value is achieved and maintained in the long-term. Once established the increase in habitat diversity at the site has the potential to constitute an overall beneficial effect at a Local (Site) level. This is discussed further in Section 5.2.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 25 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
Retained SINC Habitats Potential operational phase impacts on the SINC habitats are discussed in Section 4.4.1 above.
4.4.3 Species Bats The operational phase of the development may result in some light spill on to key bat foraging and commuting features, notably the adjacent vegetated railway line. However, operational phase lighting levels are anticipated to be similar to that within the existing car park, and lighting installed as part of the development is unlikely to result in any noticeable changes to the distribution of local bat populations.
Furthermore, a Specialist Lighting Design report has been prepared by Aecom (2020), which details how the lighting will be designed to minimise lighting impacts on key bat foraging and commuting habitat. This includes the following measures: • Avoiding the installation of new lighting in proximity to key ecological features, such as the vegetated railway embankment or adjacent SINC. • Using modern LED fittings rather than metal halide or sodium fittings, as modern LEDs emit negligible UV radiation. • The use of directional lighting to reduce light spill, e.g. by installing bespoke fittings or using hoods or shields. Using downlighting to illuminate features such as footpaths whilst reducing the horizontal and vertical spill of light.
Subject to the the implementation of the measures detailed in the Specialist Lighting Design report, it is considered that there will be no residual significant effect on the favourable conservation status of local bat populations.
Badgers and hedgehog Badgers and hedgehog are likely to cross the site for foraging and commuting purposes. Although the operational use of the proposed development will result in some vehicle movements within the site, it is considered that there will be a net decrease in overall movements given the current use of the site as a busy station car park. As such, the risk of road related mortality for badger and hedgehog, nocturnal species, is considered to be low and is not anticipated to cause a reduction in the survival rate and viability of local populations. No significant adverse effects on the favourable conservation status of these species is predicted as a result of vehicle movements during the operational phase of the proposed development.
Birds The operational use of the proposed development may lead to the disturbance of habitats used by nesting birds, arising from increased movement and noise from vehicles and people. This disturbance is likely to be intermittent throughout the nesting period, and will vary in extent depending on the proximity of the nest to the areas exposed to disturbance, but could result in a reduction of suitable opportunities for nesting birds within the site. It is also possible that management activities undertaken during the operational phases of the proposed development may result in the damage or destruction of an active bird’s nest if undertaken during the bird nesting season (March to August inclusive). Any such damage or destruction of an active nest could have an adverse effect on populations of breeding birds, which would be significant at the Local (Site) level. It would also constitute an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and so will be a legislative consideration during the operational phase of the proposed development. There are few enforceable options for managing the potentially adverse effect of domestic pet predation on nesting birds, however given the nature the development (blocks of flats) the likelihood of pet ownership is somewhat reduced.
Subject to the production and implementation of a BEMP which will set out appropriate timings for all proposed habitat management activities, the destruction or disturbance of bird nests or killing or injury of nesting birds from inappropriate management can be avoided. In addition, the BEMP should outline the location and types of bird boxes to be installed, to ensure key features for breeding birds will be created in locations subject to minimum disturbance. As such no significant residual effect on bird populations is anticipated.
Reptiles The adjacent railway corridor which supports suitable reptile habitat is fenced off to the public and therefore issues associated with increased human presence are not deemed to be a notable consideration. The introduction of pets to the site could however result in increased predation on reptiles, from domestic cats in particular. However, this potential impact is not considered to be significant given the nature of the
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 26 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment accommodation (high rise flats). As such no significant residual effect on reptiles is anticipated during the operational phase of the development.
Subject to the implementation of a BEMP covering the adjacent and on-site habitats there is potential for a beneficial residual effect on reptiles at a Local (Site) level. However, this would be reliant on appropriate management of the woodland edge / grassland buffer to provide a suitable combination of basking/refuge habitat for reptiles.
Invasive plants Subject to the implementation of the CEcMP, it is considered that the risk of invasive plant species spreading during the operational phase of the development will be diminished through removal of the species from the site during the construction phase. However, should invasive species recolonise the site, it is possible that management associated with the operational phase of the development may result in the spread of invasive species. As such the BEMP will be inclusive of a method statement setting out the safeguards that will be implemented to ensure that invasive species do not spread during the operational phase of the proposed development.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 27 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
5. MITIGATION, COMPENSATION AND ENHANCEMENT
5.1 MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation to address the predicted effects associated with both the construction and operational stages of the development are detailed below.
5.1.1 Construction Ecological Management Plan (CEcMP) Prior to the commencement of construction works, a Construction Ecological Management Plan (CEcMP) should be produced. This plan should set out the necessary timings and safe working practices that will be required to minimise disturbance and impacts on habitats and species during the construction phase. As a minimum, the CEcMP should include the following measures: • Details of protective fencing installed prior to construction to demarcate works areas and to safeguard sensitive ecological features to be retained; • Any pre-construction checks required before the commencement of the construction phases (i.e. for nesting birds and badger setts); • Details associated with vegetation management and vegetation clearance, including supervised works associated with amphibians and hedgehogs and appropriate timing of site clearance to avoid breeding bird period (March - August inclusive); • Adherence to best practice guidelines to minimise noise disturbance, supress dust and limit disturbance to retained areas of habitat; • Details of root protection areas for all retained trees and hedgerows; • Outline of construction phase lighting measures to minimise light spill on sensitive habitat areas; and, • Relevant safeguards to minimise the risk to terrestrial mammals such as covering all excavations and the provision of escape ramps.
The CEcMP can be secured by a suitably worded planning condition. Subject to prior agreement with the local authority, the CEcMP should be implemented in full throughout the construction phase.
5.1.2 Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan (BEMP) A Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan should be compiled for the site which will provide details with respect to strategies for enhancing / creating / target habitats / species as part of the proposed development, which will be in accordance with the Local Biodiversity Action Plan.
The document should include: • Aims and objectives of the proposals; • A description and evaluation of features to be enhanced / created; • Appropriate management options for achieving the aims and objectives; • Prescriptions, techniques and practices and timeframes for enhancement actions; • Method statement for site preparation and establishment; • Aftercare and long-term management prescriptions; • Monitoring measures; and, • Access management measures.
5.1.3 Operational Lighting Strategy As detailed in Section 4.2, a Specialist Lighting Design report has been prepared by Aecom (2020), which details how ecologically sensitive lighting principles will be adopted to avoid or minimise potential impacts on sensitive features, particularly foraging and commuting bats.
5.2 COMPENSATION AND ENHANCEMENT The CIEEM (2018) guidelines describe compensation as:
‘…measures taken to make up for residual effects resulting in the loss of, or permanent damage to, ecological features despite mitigation. For example, it may take the form of replacement habitat or improvements to existing habitats. Compensation can be provided either within or outside the project site (defined by the red line of a planning application).’
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 28 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Rev A Ecological Impact Assessment
The guidelines go on to state that:
‘Where ecological equivalence can be delivered within the project site this is sometimes incorrectly considered mitigation rather than compensation. However, the correct distinction between mitigation and compensation is that mitigation reduces the extent of effects occurring and compensation addresses effects which are residual, after avoidance and mitigation have been considered. Measures to address impacts and effects that will occur should therefore be referred to as compensation whether the compensation is located within or outside of the project site.’
The CIEEM (2018) guidelines describe enhancement as:
‘Enhancement is improved management of ecological features or provision of new ecological features, resulting in a net benefit to biodiversity, which is unrelated to a negative impact or is ‘over and above’ that required to mitigate/compensate for an impact.
A series of habitat creation proposals have been incorporated into the design of the proposed development, providing both compensation and enhancement. These comprise: • Green roofs (including invertebrate structures); • Tree and hedge planting; • Herbaceous planting, and, • A wildlife garden.
The establishment of new areas of replacement habitats will, in the medium to long-term, provide compensation for the unavoidable loss of a small amount of habitat from the main site and Rayners Lane Railsides SINC during the construction phase of the proposed development, and will strengthen wildlife corridors across the site, thereby addressing the residual adverse effects significant at the Local (Site) level. Newly created habitats will be managed as part of the wider green infrastructure at the site. These measures will ensure that there is no significant long-term effect on overall quality or quantity of habitats within the main site or the adjacent SINC.
The Landscape and Public Realm Strategy (Townshend Landscape Architects, 2020) also indicates that bird and bat boxes will be provided, and a habitat structure will be installed within the wildlife garden. These features will enhance the site for a range of wildlife.
Created habitats will be managed in accordance with the BEMP (see Section 5.1.2). Subject to implementation of the BEMP, in the medium to long term the increase in habitat diversity at the has the potential to constitute an overall beneficial effect at a Local (Site) level.
In order to enhance the site for reptiles, the following measures should be implemented, and outlined in the BEMP: • Provision of refugia/hibernacula; and, • Management of the woodland edge / grassland buffer (adjacent to SINC) to provide a suitable combination of basking/refuge habitat for reptiles.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 29 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 CONCLUSIONS The tables in this section provide a summary of the Ecological Impact Assessment that has been undertaken for the construction and operational phases of the proposed development, respectively.
Ecological Scale of Description of Impact/s Mitigation by Additional Residual Effect Compensation / Overall Effect / Feature Importance and Effect in Absence of Design Mitigation Enhancement to Conclusion Mitigation Proposed and Address Residual Mechanism to Effect Secure Nature Conservation Sites Rayners Lane Local Loss of small amount of Retention of majority None proposed. Residual adverse Planting of green No significant long- Railsides – (Borough) habitat from SINC. of habitats within effect, significant at roofs, trees, term effect on overall Site of SINC. Local (Site) level. herbaceous planting quality or quantity of Importance for Adverse effect, significant and gardens the SINC / Nature at Local (Site) level. broadleaved Conservation Further woodland habitat (Borough enhancement to be Grade 1) outlined within BEMP. Root compaction and Retention of majority Control measures Not significant N/A Not significant damage. Indirect temporary of the nature outlined in CEcMP. impacts from air pollution. conservation site. Secured via planning Increase in siltation and condition. pollution to Smart’s Brook / Yeadling Brook. Further loss / degradation of habitat.
Adverse effect, significant at up to Local (Borough) level. Table 6.1: Summary of Ecological Assessment for Construction Phase (Continues)
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 30 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
Ecological Scale of Description of Impact/s Mitigation by Additional Residual Effect Compensation / Overall Effect / Feature Importance and Effect in Absence of Design Mitigation Enhancement to Conclusion Mitigation Proposed and Address Residual Mechanism to Effect Secure Habitats Main site – Local Habitat loss. N/A None proposed. Residual adverse Planting of green Not significant. In the Poor semi- (Site) effect, significant at roofs/screens, trees, medium to long-term, improved Adverse effect, significant Local (Site) level. wildflower planting the establishment of grassland, at Local (Site) level. and gardens newly created young habitats has the scattered Further potential to constitute trees, enhancement to be a beneficial effect at scattered outlined within a Local (Site) Level. scrub and tall BEMP. ruderal vegetation SINC Habitats Please refer to Rayners Lane Railsides – Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (Borough Grade 1) above Species Bats Local Disturbance of foraging / N/A Control measures Not significant N/A Not significant (Site) commuting habitat. outlined in CEcMP. Secured via planning Adverse effect, significant condition. at Local (Site) level. Badgers Local Loss/disturbance of badger N/A Control measures Not significant N/A Not significant (Site) setts. outlined in CEcMP. Secured via planning No breach of wildlife Adverse effect, significant condition. legislation at Local (Site) level.
Breach of wildlife legislation. Temporary reduction in N/A Control measures Not significant N/A Not significant foraging success due to outlined in CEcMP. injuries from open Secured via planning excavations / pipework - Not condition. significant. Table 6.1 (continued): Summary of Ecological Assessment for Construction Phase (continues)
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 31 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
Ecological Scale of Description of Impact/s Mitigation by Additional Residual Effect Compensation / Overall Effect / Feature Importance and Effect in Absence of Design Mitigation Enhancement to Conclusion Mitigation Proposed and Address Residual Mechanism to Effect Secure Species Birds Local Loss of suitable nesting N/A Control measures No breach of wildlife Tree planting and Not significant (Site) habitat. Killing, injury or outlined in CEcMP. legislation green roofs disturbance to nesting birds Secured via planning No breach of wildlife during site clearance. condition. legislation
Adverse effect, significant at Local (Site) level.
Breach of wildlife legislation. Reptiles Local (Site) Increased disturbance N/A Control measures Not significant N/A Not significant during construction works. outlined in CEcMP. Secured via planning Adverse effect, significant condition. at Local (Site) level. Hedgehog Local (Site) Loss of suitable habitat. N/A N/A Not significant Not significant Not significant.
If present, potential for a Control measures temporary increase in outlined in CEcMP. mortality and reduced Secured via planning breeding success (open condition. excavations / pipework leading to trapping / injury).
Adverse effect, significant at Local (Site) level. Invasive n/a Spread of invasive species. N/A Control measures Not significant N/A Not significant plants outlined in CEcMP. Secured via planning condition. Table 6.1 (Continued): Summary of Ecological Assessment for Construction Phase
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 32 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
Ecological Scale of Description of Impact/s Mitigation by Additional Residual Effect Compensation / Overall Effect / Feature Importance and Effect in Absence of Design Mitigation Enhancement to Conclusion Mitigation Proposed and Address Residual Mechanism to Effect Secure Nature Conservation Sites Rayners Lane Local N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Railsides – (Borough) Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (Borough Grade 1) Habitats Newly created Local Effect of increased N/A Implementation of a Not significant N/A Not significant habitats (Site) disturbance and BEMP. Secured via inappropriate management planning condition. resulting minor loss and/or degradation of habitats.
Adverse effect, significant at Local level.
In the medium to long-term, Green roofs, tree Implementation of a Potential N/A Potential the establishment of newly planting, wildflower BEMP. Secured via beneficial effect at beneficial effect at created habitats has the planting and planning condition. a Local (Site) a Local (Site) potential to constitute a gardens Level Level. beneficial effect at a Local (Site) level SINC Habitats Please refer to Rayners Lane Railsides – Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (Borough Grade 1) above Table 6.2: Summary of Ecological Impact Assessment for Operational Phase (Continues)
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 33 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
Ecological Scale of Description of Impact/s Mitigation by Additional Residual Effect Compensation / Overall Effect / Feature Importance and Effect in Absence of Design Mitigation Enhancement to Conclusion Mitigation Proposed and Address Residual Mechanism to Effect Secure Species Bats Local Minor increase in N/A Implementation of Not significant N/A Not significant (Site) illumination of foraging and measures outlined commuting habitat. in a Lighting Strategy. Adverse effect, significant at Local (Site) level. Badgers and Local Low risk of road related N/A N/A Not significant N/A Not significant hedgehog (Site) mortality Birds Local Killing, injury or disturbance N/A Implementation of a Not significant. No N/A Not significant (Site) to nesting birds during BEMP. Secured via breach in legislation habitat management. planning condition. No breach of wildlife legislation Adverse effect, significant at Local (Site) level. Breach of wildlife legislation
Increased disturbance and predation from domestic pets - Not significant Reptiles Local (Site) Increased disturbance and N/A N/A Not significant N/A Not significant/ predation from domestic Potential for pets - Not significant beneficial effect at a Local (Site) Level. Invasive n/a Management associated N/A Implementation of a Not significant N/A Not significant plants with the operational phase of BEMP. Secured via the development may result planning condition. in the spread of invasive species. Table 6.2: (Continues) Summary of Ecological Impact Assessment for Operational Phase
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 34 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
7. DRAWINGS
Non - Statutory Nature conservation Sites within a 1 km radius (GIGL Extract)
C130823-03-01 – Summary of Habitats and Species
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 35 Annexes
This report may not be passed on to third parties without written permission from GiGL. 46
512600 512700 512800 512900 0 0
0 0 C130823-03-01 7 7 7 7 8 8 1 1 Legend
Site boundary Invasive plants SINC Area Habitats Area (m²) Main Area Habitats Area (m²) # Japanese Knotweed Bare ground 80.3 # Spanish Bluebell Hardstanding 9081.0 Dense scrub 1559.6 Phase 1 Habitats Poor semi-improved grassland 115.8 E Scattered scrub Introduced shrub 312.7 Tall ruderal 358.8 &§ Scattered tree Other habitat 5004.1 | | | | | | | Fence Grand Total 9555.6 Grand Total 6956.7 Proposed pipeline route Running water ! !> ! ! ! ! Bare ground ! ! ! ! Dense scrub ! ! ! ! Hardstanding
Introduced shrub 0 0 0 0 6 6 7 7 8 8
1 1 Other habitat &§ &§ Poor semi-improved grassland &§ SI &§ &§ Tall ruderal &§ &§ &§ Target note &§ &§ &§ &§ !H E 7 &§ # &§ E!H 1 Metal containers and miscellaneous &§ &§ E E building materials and waste &§ &§ &§ &§ 2 Brash pile
3 Ticket machine and booth # &§ &§ >
&§ 4 Railway lines/track
6 &§ &§ &§ 8 # > # 5 Dense scrub/early woodland # &§ 9 E &§ #!H &§ !H 6 Vegetation piles &§ || | | | E !H CC | | | | | | &§
&§ &§ | | | | | 7 Fox's earth | |
5 | | | | E | | | &§ > R. # | | &§ | &§ &§ &§ 1 | | | | 8 Introduced shrub- Japanese !H &§ | | | | | E E WR | | | | | &§ R. | | knotweed &§ E E E # !H | | | E | | | | E E E 6 &§ | | | | &§ 9 Introduced shrub- Snowberry E E E &§ &§BC# | | | | | | ## &§ | | !H | | || E | | | &§ | | | | &§ # | | | | | | | # | | | | | | E &§ | | | | | | | | | | # | | | | | | &§ | | | |
&§ # | | | |
| | |
| |
| | |
|
| |
| |
| Bird Species | |
|
| |
| | |
| |
&§ | |
|
| |
| |
# | |
| E | |
&§ | |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
WR | |
| |
| | |
| | |
| 2 |
| |
| |
| | Amber List Species
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
!H | |
| | 4
| |
| |
| |
| | | D. Dunnock
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
R. | |
| |
| | E
| | !H
| | |
| | WR
| |
| |
| | Other Species
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | D.
| |
| |
| |
| | |
| | |
| |
| | |
| | BC Blackcap
| |
0 0
| |
| |
| | |
| E
0 | 0 |
| |
|
| | |
|
| | | | |
5 | | 5 | | |
| |
| | |
| | 7 7 | |
| |
| |
8 8 CC Chiffchaff
| | |
| | E 1 1 | |
| |
| | | |
| |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
|
| R. Robin
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| WR Wren
|
D. | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| | | |
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| 3
|
| |
|
|
|
R. | |
|
|
!H|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | $
| |
| Project |
| |
| | |
| Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow Drawing Summary of Habitats and Species Client CBRE Drawing Number Revision C130823-03-01 00 Scale @ A3 Date 1:1,250 March 2020 Approved By Drawn By ER CA 0 0 0 0 4 4 7 7 8 8 1 1
Triumph House, Birmingham Road, Allesley, Coventry CV5 9AZ T:01676 525880 F:01676 521400 E:[email protected] 0 30 60 m This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office. © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution of civil proceedings. Licence Number: 100040519 512600 512700 512800 512900 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aecom (2020). Harrow Car Park Sites: Rayners Lane – Specialist Lighting Design Report. April 2020.
Altringham, J (2003). British Bats. New Naturalist. HarperCollins.
Brown, A and Grice, P., (2005). Birds in England. T& A D Poyser.
Bibby, C. J., Hill, D. A., Burgess, N. D. and Mustoe, S., (1992), Bird Census Techniques. Academic Press
British Standards Institution (2013). British Standard 42020: 2013. Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development. British Standards Institution, London.
British Standards Institution. (2012). British Standard 5837:2012, Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – recommendations. British Standards Institution, London.
BSI. (2015). BS8596:2015 Surveying for bats in trees and woodland. British Standard Institution, London.
CIEEM. (2018). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.
Collins, J. (ed.). (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). The Bat Conservation Trust, London.
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
English Nature. (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough.
Fuller R J (1980) A Method for Assessing Ornithological Importance of Sites for Nature Conservation, Biological Conservation, 17, pp.229-239.
Fuller, R.J. (1982). Bird Habitats in Britain. T & A D Poyser
Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D.W. and Evans, J. (1998). Bird Monitoring Methods. RSPB, Sandy, Bedfordshire.
Gunnell, K., Grant, G. and Williams, C. (2012) Landscape and urban design for bats and biodiversity. Bat Conservation Trust.
Institute of Environmental Assessment. (1995). Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment, Institute of Environmental Assessment. E&FN Spon, An Imprint of Chapman and Hall. London.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A technique for environmental audit (reprint). Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2012). UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. Available: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/UK_Post2010_Bio-Fwork.pdf
Jones, K and Walsh, A (2006). A Guide to British Bats. The Mammal Society, London.
Miles, J., Ferguson, J., Smith, N. and Fox, H. (2018) Bats and artificial lighting in the UK. Bats and the Built Environment Series. Bat Conservation Trust and Institution of Lighting Professionals.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 38 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2019). National Planning Policy Framework. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2
Mitchell-Jones, A.J. & McLeish, A.P. (2004). The Bat Workers’ Manual (3nd Ed.). JNCC, Peterborough.
R.S.P.B. et al (2015), Birds of Conservation Concern 4. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Sandy.
Townshend Landscape Architects (2020). Rayners Lane: Landscape & Public Realm Strategy. Ref TOWN695.02(03)2001 R00. April 2020.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 39 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX 1: General Biodiversity Legislation and Policy
APPENDIX 2: Overview of Relevant Species Specific Legislation
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 40 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
APPENDIX 1 General Biodiversity Legislation and Policy
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 41 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
The below provides an overview of the framework of legislation and policy which underpins nature conservation and is a material consideration in the planning process in England. The reader should refer to the original legislation for the definitive interpretation.
General Biodiversity Legislation And Policy Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (The Habitats Regulations 2017) The Habitats Regulations 2017 consolidate and update the Habitats Regulations 2010 (as amended). The Habitat Regulations 2017 are the principal means by which the EEC Council Directive 92/43 (The Habitats Directive) as amended is transposed into English and Welsh law.
The Habitats Regulations 2017 place duty upon the relevant authority of government to identify sites which are of importance to the habitats and species listed in Annexes I and II of the Habitats Directive. Those sites which meet the criteria are, in conjunction with the European Commission, designated as Sites of Community Importance, which are subsequently identified as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) by the European Union member states. The regulations also place a duty upon the government to maintain a register of European protected sites designated as a result of EC Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (The Birds Directive). These sites are termed Special Protection Areas (SPA) and, in conjunction with SACs, form a network of sites known as Natura 2000. The Habitats Directive introduces for the first time for protected areas, the precautionary principle; that is that projects can only be permitted having ascertained no adverse effect on the integrity of the site. Projects may still be permitted if there are no alternatives, and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest.
The Habitats Regulations 2017 also provide for the protection of individual species of fauna and flora of European conservation concern listed in Schedules 2 and 5 respectively. Schedule 2 includes species such as otter and great crested newt for which the UK population represents a significant proportion of the total European population. It is an offence to deliberately kill, injure, disturb or trade these species. Schedule 5 plant species are protected from unlawful destruction, uprooting or trade under the regulations.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981 (as amended) The WCA, as amended, consolidates and amends pre-existing national wildlife legislation in order to implement the Bern Convention and the Birds Directive. It complements the Habitat Regulations 2017, offering protection to a wider range of species. The Act also provides for the designation and protection of national conservation sites of value for their floral, faunal or geological features, termed Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).
Schedules of the act provide lists of protected species, both flora and fauna, and detail the possible offences that apply to these species.
The Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 The CROW Act, introduced in England and Wales in 2000, amends and strengthens existing wildlife legislation detailed in the WCA. It places a duty on government departments and the National Assembly for Wales to have regard for biodiversity, and provides increased powers for the protection and maintenance of SSSIs. The Act also contains lists of habitats and species (Section 74) for which conservation measures should be promoted, in accordance with the recommendations of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio Earth Summit) 1992.
The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 Section 40 of the NERC Act places a duty upon all local authorities and public bodies in England and Wales to promote and enhance biodiversity in all of their functions. Sections 41 (England) and 42 (Wales) list habitats and species of principal importance to the conservation of biodiversity. These lists superseded Section 74 of the CRoW Act 2000.
The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 The Hedgerow Regulations make provision for the identification of important hedgerows which may not be removed without permission from the Local Planning Authority.
UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), published in 1994, was the UK Government’s response to signing the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. The new UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework replaces the previous UK level BAP. The UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 42 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment covers the period 2011-2020 and forms the UK Government’s response to the new strategic plan of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), published in 2010 at the CBD meeting in Nagoya, Japan. This includes five internationally agreed strategic goals and supporting targets to be achieved by 2020. The five strategic goals agreed were: • Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society; • Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use; • To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity; • Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services; and, • Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building.
The Framework recognises that most work which was previously carried out under the UK BAP is now focused on the four individual countries of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and delivered through the countries’ own strategies. Following the publication of the new Framework the UK BAP partnership no longer operates but many of the tools and resources originally developed under the UK BAP still remain of use and form the basis of much biodiversity work at country level. In England the focus is on delivering the outcomes set out in the Government’s ‘Biodiversity 2020: a Strategy for England’s Wildlife and Ecosystem Services’ (DEFRA, 2011). This sets out how the quality of our environment on land and at sea will be improved over the next ten years and follows on from policies contained in the Natural Environment White Paper.
Species and Habitats of Material Consideration for Planning in England Previous planning policy (and some supporting guidance which is still current, e.g. ODPM Circular 06/2005, now under revision), refers to UK BAP habitats and species as being a material consideration in the planning process. Equally many local plans refer to BAP priority habitats and species. Both remain as material considerations in the planning process but such habitats and species are now described as Species and Habitats of Principal Importance for Conservation in England, or simply priority habitats and priority species under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. The list of habitats and species remains unchanged and is still derived from Section 41 list of the Natural Environmental and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. As was previously the case when it was a BAP priority species hen harrier continues to be regarded as a priority species although it does not appear on the Section 41 list.
National Planning Policy Framework And Practice Guidance In February 2019, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was updated, replacing the previous framework published in 2012 and revised in 2018. The government circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory Obligations and Their Impact within the Planning System, which accompanied PPS9, still remains valid. A presumption towards sustainable development is at the heart of the NPPF. This presumption does not apply however where developments require appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives.
Chapter 15, on conserving and enhancing the natural environment, sets out how the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: • protecting and enhancing existing sites of biodiversity value; • minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity; and, • establishing coherent ecological networks.
If a proposed development would result in significant harm to the natural environment which cannot be avoided (through the use of an alternative site with less harmful impacts), mitigated or compensated for (as a last resort) then planning permission should be refused. With respect to development on land within or outside of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is likely to have an adverse effect (either alone or in-combination with other developments) would only be permitted where the benefits of the proposed development clearly outweigh the impacts on the SSSI itself, and the wider network of SSSIs. Development resulting in the loss of deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons for the development, and a suitable compensation strategy is provided.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 43 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
Chapter 15 identifies that development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported and opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around development should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity.
Chapter 11, making effective use of the land, sets out how the planning system should promote use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs. Opportunities for achieving net environmental gains, including new habitat creation, are encouraged.
In March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government released guidance to support the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), known as the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG).
This has been produced to provide guidance for planners and communities which will help deliver high quality development and sustainable growth in England. The guidance includes a section entitled ‘Natural Environment: Biodiversity, ecosystems and green infrastructure’ which sets out information with respect to the following: • the statutory basis for minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible; • the local planning authority’s requirements for planning for biodiversity; • what local ecological networks are and how to identify and map them; • the sources of ecological evidence; • the legal obligations on local planning authorities and developers regarding statutory designated sites and protected species; • the considerations for local (non-statutory) designated sites; • definition of green infrastructure; • where biodiversity should be taken into account in preparing a planning application; • how development can enhance biodiversity; • how policy is applied to avoid, mitigate or compensate for significant harm to biodiversity and how mitigation and compensation measures can be ensured; and, • the consideration of ancient woodlands and veteran trees in planning decisions.
London Planning Policy https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan
The London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2011) The London Plan, is the overall strategic plan for London, setting out an integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of London over the next 20–25 years. It is the policies in this document that form part of the development plan for Greater London, and which should be taken into account in taking relevant planning decisions, such as determining planning applications.
The 2015-16 Minor Alterations (MALPs) have been prepared to bring the London Plan in line with the national housing standards and car parking policy. The alterations were published on 14th March 2016.
The policies of relevance to ecology are:
Policy 2.18 Green Infrastructure: The Multifunctional Network of Open and Green Spaces Strategic A) The Mayor will work with all relevant strategic partners to protect, promote, expand and manage the extent and quality of, and access to, London’s network of green infrastructure. This multifunctional network will secure benefits including, but not limited to, biodiversity; natural and historic landscapes; culture; building a sense of place; the economy; sport; recreation; local food production; mitigating and adapting to climate change; water management; and the social benefits that promote individual and community health and well- being. B) The Mayor will pursue the delivery of green infrastructure by working in partnership with all relevant bodies, including across London’s boundaries, as with the Green Arc Partnerships and Lee Valley Regional Park Authority. The Mayor has published supplementary guidance on the All London Green Grid to set out the strategic objectives and priorities for green infrastructure across London.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 44 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
C) In areas of deficiency for regional and metropolitan parks, opportunities for the creation of green infrastructure to help address this deficiency should be identified and their implementation should be supported, such as in the Wandle Valley Regional Park.
Planning Decisions D) Enhancements to London’s green infrastructure should be sought from development and where a proposal falls within a regional or metropolitan park deficiency area it should contribute to addressing this need. E) Development proposals should: a. incorporate appropriate elements of green infrastructure that are integrated into the wider network b. encourage the linkage of green infrastructure including the Blue Ribbon Network, to the wider public realm to improve accessibility for all and develop new links, utilising green chains, street trees, and other components of urban greening
LDF Preparation F) Boroughs should: a. set out a strategic approach to planning positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of green infrastructure by producing green infrastructure strategies that cover all forms of green and open space and the interrelationship between these spaces. These should identify priorities for addressing deficiencies and should set out positive measures for the design and management of all forms of green and open space. Delivery of local biodiversity action plans should be linked to these strategies. b. ensure that in and through DPD policies, green infrastructure needs are planned and managed to realise the current and potential value of these to communities and to support delivery of the widest range of linked environmental and social benefits c. in London’s urban fringe support, through appropriate initiatives, the vision of creating and protecting an extensive and valued recreational landscape of well-connected and accessible countryside around London for both people and wildlife.
Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and Access to Nature Strategic A) The Mayor will work with all relevant partners to ensure a proactive approach to the protection, enhancement, creation, promotion and management of biodiversity in support of the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy. This means planning for nature from the beginning of the development process and taking opportunities for positive gains for nature through the layout, design and materials of development proposals and appropriate biodiversity action plans. B) Any proposals promoted or brought forward by the London Plan will not adversely affect the integrity of any European site of nature conservation importance (to include special areas of conservation (SACs), special protection areas (SPAs), Ramsar, proposed and candidate sites) either alone or in combination with other plans and projects. Whilst all development proposals must address this policy, it is of particular importance when considering the following policies within the London Plan: 1.1, 2.1-2.17, 3.1, 3.3, 3.7, 5.4A, 5.14, 5.15, 5.17, 5.20, 6.3, 6.9, 7.14, 7.15, 7.25 – 7.27 and 8.1. Whilst all opportunity and intensification areas must address the policy in general, specific locations requiring consideration are referenced in Annex 1.
Planning Decisions C) Development Proposals should: a. wherever possible, make a positive contribution to the protection, enhancement, creation and management of biodiversity b. prioritise assisting in achieving targets in biodiversity action plans (BAPs), and/ or improving access to nature in areas deficient in accessible wildlife sites c. not adversely affect the integrity of European sites and be resisted where they have significant adverse impact on European or nationally designated sites or on the population or conservation status of a protected species or a priority species or habitat identified in a UK, London or appropriate regional BAP or borough BAP. D) On Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation development proposals should: a. give the highest protection to sites with existing or proposed international designations (SACs, SPAs, Ramsar sites) and national designations (SSSIs, NNRs) in line with the relevant EU and UK guidance and regulations
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 45 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
b. give strong protection to sites of metropolitan importance for nature conservation (SMIs). These are sites jointly identified by the Mayor and boroughs as having strategic nature conservation importance c. give sites of borough and local importance for nature conservation the level of protection commensurate with their importance. E) When considering proposals that would affect directly, indirectly or cumulatively a site of recognised nature conservation interest, the following hierarchy will apply: 1 avoid adverse impact to the biodiversity interest 2 minimize impact and seek mitigation 3 only in exceptional cases where the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the bio diversity impacts, seek appropriate compensation.
LDF preparation F) In their LDFs, Boroughs should: a. use the procedures in the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy to identify and secure the appropriate management of sites of borough and local importance for nature conservation in consultation with the London Wildlife Sites Board. b. identify areas deficient in accessible wildlife sites and seek opportunities to address them c. include policies and proposals for the protection of protected/ priority species and habitats and the enhancement of their populations and their extent via appropriate BAP targets d. ensure sites of European or National Nature Conservation Importance are clearly identified. e. identify and protect and enhance corridors of movement, such as green corridors, that are of strategic importance in enabling species to colonise, re-colonise and move between sites.
Policy 7.21 Trees and Woodland Strategic A) Trees and woodlands should be protected, maintained, and enhanced, following the guidance of the London Tree and Woodland Framework (or any successor strategy). In collaboration with the Forestry Commission the Mayor has produced supplementary guidance on Tree Strategies to guide each borough’s production of a Tree Strategy covering the audit, protection, planting and management of trees and woodland. This should be linked to a green infrastructure strategy.
Planning decisions B) Existing trees of value should be retained and any loss as the result of development should be replaced following the principle of ‘right place, right tree’. Wherever appropriate, the planting of additional trees should be included in new developments, particularly large-canopied species.
LDF preparation C) Boroughs should follow the advice of paragraph 118 of the NPPF to protect ‘veteran’ trees and ancient woodland where these are not already part of a protected site. D) Boroughs should develop appropriate policies to implement their borough tree strategy.
Policy 7.28 Restoration of the Blue Ribbon Network Planning decisions A) Development proposals should restore and enhance the Blue Ribbon Network by: a. taking opportunities to open culverts and naturalise river channels b. increasing habitat value. Development which reduces biodiversity should be refused c. preventing development and structures into the water space unless it serves a water related purpose. d. protecting the value of the foreshore of the Thames and tidal rivers e. resisting the impounding of rivers f. protecting the open character of the Blue Ribbon Network.
LDF preparation B) Within LDFs boroughs should identify any parts of the Blue Ribbon Network where particular biodiversity improvements will be sought, having reference to the London River Restoration Action Plan.
Policy 7.30 London’s Canals and Other Rivers and Waterspaces Planning decisions
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 46 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
A) Development proposals along London’s canal network and other rivers and waterspace (such as reservoirs, lakes and ponds) should respect their local character and contribute to their accessibility and active water related uses, in particular transport uses, where these are possible. B) Development within or alongside London’s docks should protect and promote the vitality, attractiveness and historical interest of London’s remaining dock areas by: a. preventing their partial or complete in-filling b. promoting their use for mooring visiting cruise ships and other vessels c. encouraging the sensitive use of natural landscaping and materials in and around dock areas d. promoting their use for water recreation e. promoting their use for transport LDF preparation C) Within LDFs boroughs should identify any local opportunities for increasing the local distinctiveness and use of their parts of the Blue Ribbon Network.
Draft London Plan On 13th March, the Secretary of State (‘SoS’) issued a letter to the Mayor of London which directed a number of changes to be made to the Intend to Publish Draft London Plan (December 2019). Until the Mayor of London incorporates these directions, the Draft London Plan cannot be published for adoption. The SoS considers there are a number of the inconsistencies with national policy (NPPF, 2019) and missed opportunities to increase housing delivery across London. The directions given by the SoS are specific and focus on the following topics: - Small Sites: Concerns that this policy lacks credibility given the policies overall impact on housing requirements. - Industrial Land: The SoS is directing a more proportionate stance by removing the ‘no net loss’ requirement on existing industrial land sites while ensuring Boroughs bring forwards new industrial land. - The Mix of Housing: Concerns the plan will be at the detriment of family sized dwellings. - Optimising Density: Higher density developments should be consented in clusters that have already taken this approach, and gentle density is encouraged in around high streets and town centres.
This report has been completed following the direction from the SoS. Given the direction received from the SoS this report continues to make reference to those policies from the Intend to Publish London Plan which remain unaffected by the SoS directions. Where policies referenced within this report are impacted upon, reference has also been made to the currently adopted London Plan (2016, as amended).
Policies from the Intend to Publish London Plan of relevance to ecology are detailed below:
Policy G1 Green infrastructure A. London’s network of green and open spaces, and green features in the built environment such as green roofs and street trees, should be protected, planned, designed and managed as integrated features of green infrastructure. B. Boroughs should prepare green infrastructure strategies that integrate objectives relating to open space provision, biodiversity conservation, flood management, health and wellbeing, sport and recreation. C. Development Plans and Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks should: 1) identify key green infrastructure assets, their function and their potential function; 2) identify opportunities for addressing environmental and social challenges through strategic green infrastructure interventions.
Policy G5 Urban Greening A. Major development proposals should contribute to the greening of London by including urban greening as a fundamental element of site and building design, and by incorporating measures such as high-quality landscaping (including trees), green roofs, green walls and nature-based sustainable drainage. B. Boroughs should develop an Urban Greening Factor (UGF) to identify the appropriate amount of urban greening required in new developments. The UGF should be based on set factors, but tailored to local circumstances. In the interim, the Mayor recommends a target score of 0.4 for developments that are predominately residential, and a target score of 0.3 for predominately commercial development.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 47 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
Policy G6 Biodiversity and Access to Nature A. Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) should be protected. The greatest protection should be given to the most significant sites. B. In developing Development Plan policies, boroughs should: 1) use the relevant procedures to identify SINCs and green corridors. When undertaking comprehensive reviews of SINCs across a borough or when identifying or amending Sites of Metropolitan Importance boroughs should consult the London Wildlife Sites Board 2) identify areas of deficiency in access to nature (i.e. areas that are more than 1km walking distance from an accessible Metropolitan or Borough SINC) and seek opportunities to address them 3) seek opportunities to create habitats that are of particular relevance and benefit in an urban context 4) include policies and proposals for the protection and conservation of priority species and habitats and opportunities for increasing species populations 5) ensure sites of European or national nature conservation importance are clearly identified and appropriately assessed. C. Where harm to a SINC (other than a European (International) designated site) is unavoidable, the following approach should be applied to minimise development impacts: 1) avoid adverse impact to the special biodiversity interest of the site 2) minimise the spatial impact and mitigate it by improving the quality or management of the rest of the site 3) seek appropriate off-site compensation only in exceptional cases where the benefits of the development proposal clearly outweigh the biodiversity impacts. D. Biodiversity enhancement should be considered from the start of the development process. E. Proposals which create new or improved habitats that result in positive gains for biodiversity should be considered positively, as should measures to reduce deficiencies in access to wildlife sites.
Policy G7 Trees and Woodlands A. Trees and woodlands should be protected, and new trees and woodlands should be planted in appropriate locations in order to increase the extent of London’s urban forest – the area of London under the canopy of trees. B. In their Development Plans, boroughs should: 1) protect ‘veteran’ trees and ancient woodland where these are not already part of a protected site 2) identify opportunities for tree planting in strategic locations. C. Development proposals should ensure that, wherever possible, existing trees of quality are retained. If it is imperative that trees have to be removed, there should be adequate replacement based on the existing value of the benefits of the trees removed, determined by, for example, i-tree or CAVAT. The planting of additional trees should generally be included in new developments – particularly large-canopied species which provide a wider range of benefits because of the larger surface area of their canopy.
Policy SI17 Protecting London’s Waterways A. Development proposals that facilitate river restoration, including opportunities to open culverts, naturalise river channels, protect the foreshore and increase the heritage and habitats value, should be supported if appropriate. Development proposals to impound and constrain waterways should be refused. B. Development proposals should support and improve the protection of the distinct open character and heritage of waterways. C. Development proposals into the waterways, including permanently moored vessels and development into the waterways should generally only be supported for water-related uses. D. Development proposals along London’s canal network, docks, other rivers and water space (such as reservoirs, lakes and ponds) should respect their local character and environment and should contribute to their accessibility and active water-related uses. Development Plans should identify opportunities for increasing local distinctiveness. E. On-shore power at water transport facilities should be provided at wharves and residential moorings to help reduce air pollution.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 48 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
London Borough of Harrow Planning Policy http://www.harrow.gov.uk/homepage/40/local_development_plan
Core Strategy The Core Strategy was adopted on the 12th February 2012 and is a key part of the Local Plan. It sets out Harrow's strategic approach to managing growth and development to 2026. It contains strategic policies used in determining applications.
The Core Policy CS1 ‘Overarching Policy’ contains the following statements of relevance to ecology and biodiversity: • All new development must create and maintain accessible, safe and secure neighbourhoods in accordance with best practice standards. Where appropriate, development should also seek to promote and enhance biodiversity in accordance with the aims of the Harrow Biodiversity Action Plan and best practice. • Harrow’s open spaces and green grid will be managed as an interconnected, multifunctional environmental resource that contributes to biodiversity, adaptation to climate change, and to people’s health and wellbeing. The quantity and quality of the Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land, and existing open space shall not be eroded by inappropriate uses or insensitive development. The reconfiguration of existing open space may be permitted where qualitative improvements and/or improved access can be secured without reducing the quantity of the open space. The provision of new open space will be sought as part of major development proposals, and to deal with identified deficiencies, such as in the provision of play areas for both children and young people.
Development Management Policies The Development Management Local Plan sets out the Borough’s approach to managing development in Harrow through specific standards and policy criteria. These policies were adopted on the 4th July 2013. Those of relevance to ecology are:
Policy DM 11: Protection and Enhancement of River Corridors and Watercourses A. The design and layout of development on sites containing a main river or ordinary watercourse within the site boundary will be required to maintain an undeveloped buffer zone of 8 metres either side of a main river, 5 metres either side of an ordinary watercourse, or an appropriate width as may be agreed by the Environment Agency or Council.
B. Applications for major development on sites containing a main river or ordinary watercourse within the site boundary will be required to: a. have regard to the relevant provisions of the Thames River Basin Management Plan and the London River Restoration Action Plan; b. investigate and, where feasible, having regard to the current condition of the watercourse, secure the implementation of environmental enhancements to open sections of river or watercourse; and, c. investigate and, where feasible, secure the implementation of a scheme for restoring culverted sections of river or watercourse which must include an adequate buffer for flooding and maintenance purposes.
C. Where on-site enhancements or deculverting are financially viable but not feasible, the Council will seek a financial contribution towards relevant other projects for the enhancement or deculverting of other sections of the river or watercourse.
D. Proposals that would adversely affect the infrastructure of main rivers and ordinary watercourses, or which would fail to secure feasible enhancements or deculverting, will be resisted.
Policy DM 12: Sustainable Design and Layout A. The design and layout of development proposals should: a. utilise natural systems such as passive solar design and, wherever possible, incorporate high performing energy retention materials, to supplement the benefits of traditional measures such as insulation and double glazing; b. make provision for natural ventilation and shading to prevent internal overheating;
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 49 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
c. incorporate techniques that enhance biodiversity, such as green roofs and green walls (such techniques will benefit other sustainability objectives including surface water attenuation and the avoidance of internal and urban over-heating); and, d. where relevant, the design and layout of buildings should incorporate measures to mitigate any significant noise or air pollution arising from the future use of the development.
B. Proposals that fail to take reasonable steps to secure a sustainable design and layout of development will be resisted.
C. Appropriate alterations and adaptations that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing homes and non-residential buildings will be supported.
Policy DM 20: Protection of Biodiversity and Access to Nature A. Proposals that would be detrimental to locally important biodiversity or that would increase local deficiencies in access to nature will be resisted. Regard will be had to any relevant provisions in the Harrow Biodiversity Action Plan.
B. The design and layout of new development should retain and enhance any significant existing features of biodiversity value within the site. Potential impacts on Biodiversity should be avoided or appropriate mitigation sought. Where loss of a significant existing feature of biodiversity is unavoidable, replacement features of equivalent biodiversity value should be provided on site or through contributions towards the implementation of relevant projects in Harrow’s Biodiversity Action Plan.
C. Green corridors and green chains will be retained. Proposals that would prejudice their function as routes for the passage of wildlife through the urban environment will be resisted.
Policy DM 21: Enhancement of Biodiversity and Access to Nature A. Opportunities to enhance locally important habitats and to support locally important species will be sought in accordance with the Harrow Biodiversity Action Plan. Where possible, proposals should secure the restoration and re-creation of significant components of the natural environment as part of the design and layout of development. Particular attention will be paid to: a. green corridors and green chains, including the potential to extend or add to the network; b. gardens, including planting for wildlife, green roofs and green walls; c. landscaping, including trees, hedgerows of historical or ecological importance and ponds; d. allotments; and e. habitat creation, such as nesting and roosting boxes, especially when replacing an old building that provided certain habitats.
B. In areas identified as deficient in access to nature, a high priority will be afforded to opportunities to enhance access through on-site provision or contributions to the implementation of relevant Green Grid projects.
Policy DM 22: Trees and Landscaping A. The removal of trees subject to TPOs or assessed as being of significant amenity value will only be considered acceptable where it can be demonstrated that the loss of the tree(s) is outweighed by the wider public benefits of the proposal.
B. Development proposals will be required to include hard and soft landscaping that: a. Is appropriate to the character of the area; b. Is well laid out in terms of access, car parking and the living conditions of future occupiers and neighbours; c. Achieves a suitable visual setting for the building(s); d. Provides for sufficient space for new or existing trees and planting to grow; and e. Supports biodiversity. C. Proposals for works to trees in conservation areas and those the subject of tree preservation orders will be permitted where the works do not risk compromising the amenity value or survival of the tree.
D. The Council will require trees identified for retention to be protected during construction and to be retained or replaced where necessary following the completion of the development.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 50 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
APPENDIX 2 Overview of Relevant Species Specific Legislation
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 51 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
Bats Bats and the places they use for shelter or protection (i.e. roosts) receive European protection under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (Habitats Regulations 2017). They receive further legal protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981, as amended. This protection means that bats, and the places they use for shelter or protection, are capable of being a material consideration in the planning process.
Regulation 41 of the Habitats Regulations 2017, states that a person commits an offence if they:
• deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat; • deliberately disturb bats; or • damage or destroy a bat roost (breeding site or resting place).
Disturbance of animals includes in particular any disturbance which is likely to impair their ability to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young, or in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong.
It is an offence under the Habitats Regulations 2017 for any person to have in his possession or control, to transport, to sell or exchange or to offer for sale, any live or dead bats, part of a bat or anything derived from bats, which has been unlawfully taken from the wild.
Whilst broadly similar to the above legislation, the WCA 1981 (as amended) differs in the following ways:
• Section 9(1) of the WCA makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure or take any protected species. • Section 9(4)(a) of the WCA makes it an offence to intentionally or recklessly* damage or destroy, or obstruct access to, any structure or place which a protected species uses for shelter or protection. • Section 9(4)(b) of the WCA makes it an offence to intentionally or recklessly* disturb any protected species while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection.
*Reckless offences were added by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000.
As bats re-use the same roosts (breeding site or resting place) after periods of vacancy, legal opinion is that roosts are protected whether or not bats are present.
The following bat species are Species of Principal Importance for Nature Conservation in England: Barbastelle Bat Barbastella barbastellus, Bechstein’s Bat Myotis bechsteinii, Noctule Bat Nyctalus noctula, Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, Brown Long-eared Bat Plecotus auritus, Greater Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and Lesser Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus hipposideros.
All bat species which occur within the county are priority species on the London Local BAP
The reader should refer to the original legislation for the definitive interpretation.
Badgers Badgers and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 is based primarily on the need to protect badgers from baiting and deliberate harm or injury, badgers are not protected for conservation reasons. The following are criminal offences:
• To intentionally or recklessly interfere with a sett. Sett interference includes disturbing badgers whilst they are occupying a sett, as well as damaging or destroying a sett or obstructing access to it.
• To wilfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger, or to attempt to do so.
A badger sett is defined in the legislation as:
• ‘Any structure or place that displays signs indicating current use by a badger’.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 52 Rayners Lane Station Car Park, Harrow RT-MME-130823-03 Ecological Impact Assessment
‘Current use’ is not synonymous with current occupation and a sett is defined as such (and thus protected) as long as signs of current usage are present. Therefore, a sett is protected until such a time as the field signs deteriorate to such an extent that they no longer indicate ‘current usage’.
Badger sett interference can result from a multitude of operations including excavation and coring, even if there is no direct damage to the sett, such as through the disturbance of badgers whilst occupying the sett. Any intentional or reckless work that results in the interference of badger setts is illegal without a licence from Natural England30. In England a licence must be obtained from Natural England before any interference with a badger sett occurs.
The reader should refer to the original legislation for the definitive interpretation.
Nesting Birds The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 places a duty on public bodies to take measures to preserve, maintain and re-establish habitat for wild birds.
Nesting and nest building birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act WCA 1981 (as amended).
Subject to the provisions of the act, if any person intentionally: • kills, injures or takes any wild bird; • takes, damages or destroys the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built; or • takes or destroys an egg of any wild bird, he shall be guilty of an offence.
Some species (listed in Schedule 1 of the WCA) are protected by special penalties. Subject to the provisions of the act, if any person intentionally or recklessly: • disturbs any wild bird included in Schedule 1 while it is building a nest or is in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young; or • disturbs dependent young of such a bird, he shall be guilty of an offence.
Several bird species are Species of Principal Importance for Nature Conservation in England, making them capable of being material considerations in the planning process.
Hedgehog Hedgehogs receive some protection under Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); this section of the Act lists animals which may not be killed or taken by certain methods, namely traps and nets, poisons, automatic weapons, electrical devices, smokes/gases and various others. Humane trapping for research purposes requires a licence.
Hedgehogs are a Species of Principal Importance for Nature Conservation in England and are thus capable of being material considerations in the planning process.
Reptiles All of the UK’s native reptiles are protected by law. The two rarest species – sand lizard (Lacerta agilis) and smooth snake (Coronella austriaca) – benefit from the greatest protection; however these two species are not known to occur within London. Common lizard (Zootoca vivipara), slow-worm (Anguis fragilis), adder (Vipera berus) and grass snake (Natrix natrix) are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended from intentional killing or injuring.
In England and Wales, this Act has been amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW), which adds an extra offence, makes species offences arrestable, increases the time limits for some prosecutions and increases penalties. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 places a duty on Government Departments to have regard for the conservation of biodiversity and maintains lists of species and habitats which are of principal importance for the purposes of conserving biodiversity in England and Wales. All native reptile species are included on these lists.
This is a simplified description of the legislation. In particular, the offences mentioned here may be absolute, intentional, deliberate or reckless. Note that where it is predictable that reptiles are likely to be killed or injured by activities such as site clearance, this could legally constitute intentional killing or injuring.
Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 53