Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Somerset
Ecological Appraisal
February 2021
Quality Management Client: Gladman Developments Ltd Project: Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross, Somerset Report Title: Ecological Appraisal Project Number: ECO-5551 File Reference: 5551 EcoAp vf1 /AS/JC Date: 16/02/2021
Copyright The copyright of this document remains with Aspect Ecology. All rights reserved. The contents of this document therefore must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part for any purpose without the written consent of Aspect Ecology.
Confidentiality This report may contain sensitive information relating to protected species. All records of Badger setts must remain confidential. Where this report is circulated publicly or uploaded to online planning portals, reference to Badger setts must be redacted and any maps pertaining to the locations of Badger setts removed from the document.
Legal Guidance The information set out within this report in no way constitutes a legal opinion on the relevant legislation (refer to the relevant Appendix for the main provisions of the legislation). The opinion of a legal professional should be sought if further advice is required.
Liability This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Aspect Ecology no other party may use, or rely on the contents of the report. No liability is accepted by Aspect Ecology for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the advice in this report. The content of this report is partly based on information provided by third parties; Aspect accepts no liability for any reliance placed on such information. This report is subject to the restrictions and limitations referenced in Aspect Ecology’s standard Terms of Business.
Contact Details Aspect Ecology Ltd Hardwick Business Park I Noral Way I Banbury I Oxfordshire OX16 2AF t 01295 279721 e [email protected] w www.aspect-ecology.com Contents
Text:
Executive Summary ...... 1
1 Introduction ...... 2
2 Methodology ...... 3
3 Ecological Designations...... 11
4 Habitats and Ecological Features ...... 15
5 Faunal Use of the Site ...... 19
6 Mitigation Measures and Biodiversity Net Gains ...... 31
7 Conclusions ...... 36
Plans:
Plan 5551/ECO1 Site Location Plan 5551/ECO2 Ecological Designations Plan 5551/ECO3 Habitats and Ecological Features Plan 5551/ECO4 May 2019 Bat Activity Survey Results Plan 5551/ECO5 July 2019 Bat Activity Survey Results Plan 5551/ECO6 September 2019 Bat Activity Survey Results Plan 5551/ECO7 September 2020 Bat Activity Survey Results Plan 5551/ECO8 2019 Reptile Survey Results
Photographs:
Photographs 1-10
Appendices:
Appendix 5551/1 Evaluation Methodology Appendix 5551/2 Legislation Summary Appendix 5551/3 Bat Habitat Metric Assessment Confidential Appendix Badger Survey Results and Assessment (available on request)
Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
Executive Summary i) Introduction. Aspect Ecology was commissioned by Gladman Developments Ltd in December 2018 to undertake an Ecological Appraisal in respect of proposed development of land at Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross, Somerset. ii) Proposals. The proposals are for residential development of the site to provide up to 95 dwellings with associated access, infrastructure and open space. iii) Survey. The site was surveyed in December 2018 and September 2020 based on standard extended Phase 1 methodology. In addition, a general appraisal of faunal species was undertaken in 2019 and 2020 to record the potential presence of any protected, rare or notable species, with specific surveys conducted in respect of bats, Badger and reptiles. iv) Ecological Designations. The site itself is not subject to any statutory or non-statutory ecological designations. The nearest statutory designation of ecological interest is Edford Woods and Meadows Site of Special Scientific Interest located approximately 2.7km south- east of the site. A number of international designations of ecological importance are located within 20km of the site, the nearest of these being Mells Valley Special Area of Conservation, located 3km south-east of the site. The nearest non-statutory designation is Downside Abbey Park and Plantation Local Wildlife Site (LWS) located approximately 0.3km to the east of the site. Subject to the provision of sufficient replacement bat habitat, recreational space and a suitable drainage system within the application site, along with implementation of a sensitive lighting scheme, none of the ecological designations in the surrounding area are likely to be adversely affected by the proposals. v) Habitats. The site comprises two pastoral grassland fields bound by hedgerows and residential dwellings. The hedgerows form features of ecological importance of local level value, the vast majority of which are to be retained by the proposals and will be protected during construction. The small loss of hedgerow to facilitate access will be off-set by new, native species-rich hedgerow planting. The remaining habitats within the site are not considered to form important ecological features and their loss to the proposals is of negligible significance. vi) Protected Species. Bats utilise the site for commuting and foraging and several trees within, or in close proximity to the site have some suitability to support roosting bats. Long-term opportunities for bats will be maintained, if not enhanced, under the proposals through retention of trees and hedgerows, creation of new suitable foraging habitat and the implementation of a sensitive lighting scheme. A low population of Slow-worm is present within the site and it is likely that birds nest within suitable habitat at the site. Appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented due to the potential for the proposals to impact on these protected species. Long-term opportunities for protected species will be maintained under the proposals through the provision of enhanced and sensitively managed retained habitat. vii) Enhancements. The proposals present the opportunity to secure a number of biodiversity net gains, including new native shrub, tree and hedgerow planting, new wildflower grassland, new amphibian / reptile hibernacula, and more diverse nesting habitats for birds. viii) Summary. In summary, the proposals have sought to minimise impacts on biodiversity and subject to the implementation of appropriate avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures, it is considered unlikely that the proposals will result in significant harm.
February 2021 Page|1
Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
1 Introduction
1.1 Background and Proposals
1.1.1 Aspect Ecology was commissioned by Gladman Developments Ltd in December 2018 to undertake an Ecological Appraisal in respect of proposed development of land at Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross centred at grid reference ST 6464 5088 (see Plan 5551/ECO1), hereafter referred to as ‘the site’.
1.1.2 Aspect Ecology was commissioned to carry out a suite of ecological surveys between 2018 and 2019 at the site in addition to further land to the south and south-west hereafter referred to as ‘the wider survey area'.
1.1.3 The proposals are for residential development of the site to provide up to 95 dwellings, predominantly located at the north of the site, with associated access and infrastructure. A large area of open space is to be provided at the south of the site.
1.2 Site Overview
1.2.1 The site is located to the south of the village of Chilcompton, Somerset. The site is bound to the north and west by residential dwellings. Open grassland fields bound the site to the south. Rock Road (B356) bounds the site to the east, beyond which lies a mix of residential dwellings, grassland fields and woodland.
1.2.2 The site itself comprises two livestock grazed grassland fields bound by a mix of hedgerows, stock fencing and the curtilage of adjacent residential properties.
1.3 Purpose of the Report
1.3.1 This report documents the methods and findings of the baseline ecology surveys and desktop study carried out in order to establish the existing ecological interest of the site, and subsequently provides an appraisal of the likely ecological effects of the proposals. The importance of the habitats and species present is evaluated. Where necessary, avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures are proposed so as to safeguard any significant existing ecological interest within the site and where appropriate, opportunities for ecological enhancement are identified with reference to national conservation priorities and local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs).
February 2021 Page|2 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
2 Methodology
2.1 Desktop Study
2.1.1 In order to compile background information on the site and its immediate surroundings, Somerset Environmental Records Centre (SERC) was contacted in December 2018 with data requested on the basis of a search radius of 2km.
2.1.2 Information on statutory designations was obtained from the online Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) database, which utilises data provided by Natural England, with an extended search radius (20km). In addition, the MAGIC database was searched to identify the known presence of any Priority Habitats within or adjacent the site. Relevant information is reproduced on Plan 5551/ECO2, where appropriate.
2.1.3 In addition, the Woodland Trust database was searched for any records of ancient, veteran or notable trees within or adjacent to the site.
2.2 Habitat Survey
2.2.1 The site was surveyed in September 2020 in order to ascertain the general ecological value of the land contained within the boundaries of the site and to identify the main habitats and ecological features present. A Phase 1 habitat survey was previously undertaken of the wider survey area in December 2018.
2.2.2 The site was surveyed based on standard Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology1, whereby the habitat types present are identified and mapped, together with an assessment of the species composition of each habitat. This technique provides an inventory of the basic habitat types present and allows identification of areas of greater potential which require further survey. Any such areas identified can then be examined in more detail through Phase 2 surveys. This method was extended, in line with the Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal2 to record details on the actual or potential presence of any notable or protected species or habitats.
2.2.3 Using the above method, the site was classified into areas of similar botanical community types, with a representative species list compiled for each habitat identified. The nomenclature used for plant species is based on the Botanical Society for the British Isles (BSBI) Checklist.
2.3 Faunal Surveys
2.3.1 General faunal activity, such as mammals or birds observed visually or by call during the course of the surveys was recorded. Specific attention was also paid to the potential presence of any protected, rare or notable species, and specific consideration was given to bats, Badger and reptiles as described below.
1 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010, as amended) ‘Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: A technique for environmental audit.’ 2 Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) (2013) ‘Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal.’
February 2021 Page|3 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
Bats3
Visual Inspection Surveys
2.3.2 Trees. Trees were assessed for their suitability to support roosting bats based on the presence of features such as holes, cracks, splits or loose bark. Suitability for roosting bats was rated based on relevant guidance4 as:
• Negligible; • Low; • Moderate; or • High.
2.3.3 Any potential roost features identified were also inspected for any signs indicating possible use by bats, e.g. staining, scratch marks, bat droppings, etc.
Activity Surveys
2.3.4 Walked transect surveys were undertaken in May, July and August 2019, with an update survey undertaken in September 2020 to ascertain the level of usage of the site and wider survey area by foraging or commuting bats. This survey method involves walking planned transect routes with key listening points, specifically covering habitats/features with particular potential for commuting or foraging bats. Echometer EM3, EM Touch and/or Anabat Scout handheld bat detectors were employed alongside BatBox Duet detectors to aid identification of any bats observed. Each transect was walked starting at sunset, for 3 hours, with a 5-minute stop at each listening point.
2.3.5 This survey work was carried out during suitable weather conditions, as set out in Table 2.1 below.
Table 2.1. Dusk walked transect survey details. Start & end times & time of Date Equipment used Weather sunset Start time: 21.01 Bat Box Duet, Echo Meter 20/05/2019 End time: 00.01 Dry, 5% cloud, BF2, 13°C EM3 Sunset: 21.01 Comments: Survey undertaken by 2 surveyors under direction of licence holder 2017-32562-CLS-CLS. Start time: 21.24 Bat Box Duet, Echo Meter 10/07/2019 End time: 00.24 Dry, 30% cloud, BF1, 17°C EM3 Sunset: 21.24 Comments: Survey undertaken by 2 surveyors under direction of licence holder 2017-32562-CLS-CLS. Start time: 18.58 Bat Box Duet, Echo Meter 27/09/2019 End time: 22.00 Dry, 80% cloud, BF3, 13°C EM3 Sunset: 18.58 Comments: Survey undertaken by 2 surveyors under direction of licence holder 2017-32562-CLS-CLS. Start time: 19.37 09/09/2020 End time: 22.37 Anabat Scout Dry, 10% cloud, BF2, 17°C Sunset: 19.37 Comments: Survey undertaken by 2 surveyors under direction of licence holder 2017-32562-CLS-CLS. BF0 = calm, BF12 = hurricane force
3 Surveys based on: English Nature (2004) ‘Bat Mitigation Guidelines’ and Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) ‘Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn).’ Bat Conservation Trust 4 Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) ‘Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn).’ Bat Conservation Trust
February 2021 Page|4 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
2.3.6 Automated static detector surveys were also carried out during which Song Meter 2 (SM2) or Song Meter 4 (SM4) detectors were positioned at two locations within the site in May, July, September and October 2019 and September 2020 to record any bat activity. Detector SD1 was located at the centre of the site within hedgerow H2 and detector SD2 was situated along the eastern boundary of the site (see Plan 5551/ECO4). The detectors were set to switch on approximately 30 minutes before sunset and switch off approximately 30 minutes after sunrise. The weather conditions during the static detector surveys are provided in Table 2.2 below.
Table 2.2. Automated detector survey details. Weather Conditions Survey Date Wind (BF) Temp(c) Cloud Cover (%) Precipitation 20/05/2019 2 7 80 Light Rain 21/05/2019 2 19 30 Light Rain 22/05/2019 2 17 50 Light Rain 23/05/2019 1 15 70 Light Rain 24/05/2019 3 12 80 Moderate Rain 25/05/2019 3 11 60 Light Rain 26/05/2019 4 12 0 Dry 10/07/2019 2 21 5 Dry 11/07/2019 2 21 5 Dry 12/07/2019 2 25 75 Moderate Rain 13/07/2019 2 25 70 Moderate Rain 14/07/2019 1 25 80 Moderate Rain 15/07/2019 1 20 75 Light Rain 11/09/2019 1 20 0 Dry 12/09/2019 2 17 0 Dry 13/09/2019 2 17 80 Light Rain 14/09/2019 2 15 75 Light Rain 15/09/2019 2 15 80 Dry 16/09/2019 3 19 0 Dry 09/10/2019 2 10 5 Dry 10/10/2019 3 10 5 Dry 11/10/2019 3 10 0 Dry 12/10/2019 2 11 0 Dry 13/10/2019 3 16 0 Dry 14/10/2019 3 16 0 Dry 02/09/2020 2 16 80 Light Rain 03/09/2020 1 16 75 Light Rain 04/09/2020 1 16 75 Moderate Rain 05/09/2020 1 16 70 Moderate Rain 06/09/2020 2 19 75 Moderate Rain 07/09/2020 1 15 80 Light Rain 08/09/2020 1 16 85 Light Rain 09/09/2020 1 16 5 Dry BF0 = calm, BF12 = hurricane force
Analysis of Bat Survey Recordings
2.3.7 All bat calls were analysed using Analook W v4.4a to verify the species recorded during the survey work. Where recordings could not be reliably attributed to species (such as for Myotis species) or where overlaps between otherwise distinguishable species occur (such as in Pipistrelle bat calls around 40kHz or 50kHz) calls were identified to genus level; in the
February 2021 Page|5 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
case of calls which could not be distinguished between Nyctalus sp. and Serotine, these have been labelled as unidentified ‘big bat’ species.
Badger (Meles meles)5
2.3.8 A detailed Badger survey was carried out in December 2018 and September 2020. The survey comprised two main elements. The first element involved searching for evidence of Badger setts. For any setts that were encountered, each sett entrance was noted and mapped. The following information was recorded:
• Number and location of well used / active entrances; these are clear from any debris or vegetation and are obviously in regular use and may, or may not, have been excavated recently; • Number and location of inactive entrances; these are not in regular use and have debris such as leaves and twigs in the entrance or have plants growing in or around the edge of the entrance; and • Number of disused entrances; these have not been in use for some time, are partly or completely blocked and cannot be used without considerable clearance. If the entrance has been disused for some time all that may be visible is a depression in the ground where the hole used to be and the remains of the spoil heap.
2.3.9 The second element involved searching for signs of Badger activity such as well-worn paths and push-throughs, snagged hair, footprints, latrines and foraging signs, so as to build up a picture of any use of the site by Badger.
Reptiles6
2.3.10 Given the presence of potentially suitable reptile habitat within the site, a specific survey was undertaken to establish the presence / likely absence of common reptile species between March and May 2019.
2.3.11 A total of 135 50cmx50cm sheets of thick roofing felt were placed within suitable areas across the site and wider survey area to act as artificial refugia, which represents a density of 14 refugia per hectare. The refugia, or ‘tins’, provide shelter and heat up more quickly than their surroundings in the morning and can remain warmer than their surroundings in the late afternoon. Being ectothermic (cold blooded), reptiles use them to bask under and raise their body temperature, which allows them to forage earlier and later in the day. Therefore, checking the refugia at appropriate times of the day (morning and evening) enables the presence / likely absence of common reptiles to be determined.
2.3.12 The refugia remained undisturbed for 14 days to allow reptiles to find and start using them. Following this initial bedding-in period, refugia were checked at appropriate times of the day on seven occasions during suitable weather conditions, as set out below in Table 2.3.
5 Based on: Mammal Society (1989) ‘Occasional Publication No. 9 – Surveying Badgers’ 6 Surveys based on: Froglife Advice Sheet 10 (1999) ‘Reptile Survey - an introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation.’
February 2021 Page|6 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
Table 2.3. Reptile survey dates and weather conditions. Weather Conditions Survey Date Wind (BF) Temp(c) Cloud Cover (%) Precipitation 23/03/2019 3 10 5 N 01/04/2019 2 10 0 N 08/04/2019 4 9 100 N 17/04/2019 2 13 60 N 23/04/2019 1 21 95 N 14/05/2019 2 20 5 N 24/05/2019 2 19 85 N BF0 = calm, BF12 = hurricane force
2.3.13 In addition, reptiles basking in the open or partial cover were actively searched for in suitable locations across the site through direct observation. Existing natural objects (e.g. logs and rocks) and artificial refugia (e.g. debris, tyres, etc.) were also searched, where present, for reptiles or evidence of reptiles (e.g. sloughed skin).
2.4 Survey Constraints and Limitations
2.4.1 All of the species that occur in each habitat would not necessarily be detectable during survey work carried out at any given time of the year, since different species are apparent during different seasons. The latest Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken within the optimal season therefore allowing a robust assessment of habitats and botanical interest across the site.
2.4.2 Attention was paid to the presence of any invasive species listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). However, the detectability of such species varies due to a number of factors, e.g. time of year, site management, etc., and hence the absence of invasive species should not be assumed even if no such species were detected during the Phase 1 survey.
2.4.3 The automated static detector placed at location SD2 failed to record during the September 2019 and September 2020 survey and no data was recovered from this static detector for these months. Nonetheless, given the data obtained in other months, a robust assessment of the number of bat species using the site as well as the patterns of bat activity has been undertaken, despite the loss of data from this static detector.
2.5 Ecological Evaluation Methodology
2.5.1 The evaluation of ecological features and resources is based on professional judgement whilst also drawing on the latest available industry guidance and research. The approach taken in this report is based on that described by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM, 2018)7, which involves identifying ‘important ecological features’ within a defined geographical context (i.e. international, national, regional, county, district, local or site importance). For full details refer to Appendix 5551/1.
2.6 National Policy Approach to Biodiversity in the Planning System
2.6.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)8 describes the Government’s national policies on ‘conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ (Chapter 15). NPPF is
7 CIEEM (2018) ‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine’, ver. 1.1, Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester 8 Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2019) ‘National Planning Policy Framework’
February 2021 Page|7 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
accompanied by Planning Practice Guidance on ‘Biodiversity, ecosystems and green infrastructure’ and ODPM Circular 06/20059.
2.6.2 NPPF takes forward the Government’s strategic objective to halt overall biodiversity loss10, as set out at Paragraph 170, which states that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
‘minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures’
2.6.3 The approach to dealing with biodiversity in the context of planning applications is set out at Paragraph 175:
‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:
a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;
b) development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and
d) development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity.
2.6.4 The above approach encapsulates the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ described in British Standard BS 42020:201911, which involves the following step-wise process:
• Avoidance – avoiding adverse effects through good design; • Mitigation – where it is unavoidable, mitigation measures should be employed to minimise adverse effects; • Compensation – where residual effects remain after mitigation it may be necessary to provide compensation to offset any harm; and
9 ODPM (2006) ‘Circular 06/2005: Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – A Guide to Good Practice’ 10 DEFRA (2011) ‘Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services’ 11 British Standards Institution (2013) ‘Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development’, BS 42020:2019
February 2021 Page|8 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
• Enhancement – planning decisions often present the opportunity to deliver benefits for biodiversity, which can also be explored alongside the above measures to resolve potential adverse effects.
2.6.5 The measures for avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement should be proportionate to the predicted degree of risk to biodiversity and to the nature and scale of the proposed development (BS 42020:2019, section 5.5).
2.7 Local Policy
2.7.1 Mendip District Council adopted the current ‘Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies 2006- 2029’ in December 2014. This document sets out the Council's overall strategy and housing requirements for the district and also contains development management policies used to assess planning applications. Development Policies DP5, DP8 and DP16 of the Local Plan are of relevance to ecology and are reproduced below.
2.7.2 DP5: Biodiversity and Ecological Networks states that:
“The Council will use the local planning process to protect, enhance and restore Somerset’s Ecological Network within Mendip. 1. All development proposals must ensure the protection, conservation and, where possible, enhancement of internationally, nationally or locally designated natural habitat areas and species. 2. Proposals with the potential to cause adverse impacts on protected and / or priority sites, species or habitats are unlikely to be sustainable and will be resisted. Exceptions will only be made where: a) the impacts cannot be reasonably avoided, b) offsetting / compensation for the impacts can be secured, c) other considerations of public interest clearly outweigh the impacts, in line with relevant legislation. Offsets as mitigation or compensation required under criterion b) will be calculated using Somerset County Council’s Biodiversity Offsetting methodology.”
2.7.3 DP6: Bat Protection states that:
‘Planning applications for developments on sites within the Bat Consultation Zone will require a ‘test of significance’ under the Habitat Regulations to be carried out. Applicants must provide, with their application, all necessary information to enable compliance with the Habitats Regulations (or their successor), including and necessary survey work, reports and avoidance / mitigation measures.’
2.7.4 DP8: Environmental Protection states that:
“All development proposals should minimise, and where possible reduce, all emissions and other forms of pollution. 1. Development (either cumulatively or individually) will be required to demonstrate that it does not give rise to unacceptable adverse environmental impacts on: • ambient noise levels; • air quality; • the quality of water resources, whether surface river or groundwater; • biodiversity;
February 2021 Page|9 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
• light pollution; • land quality and ground stability; • residential amenity; and • public health and safety. 2. Development proposals must include an assessment appropriate to the type and extent of impact and any associated risks to the satisfaction of the relevant environmental body. Any proposed solutions or mitigation measures should comply with relevant EU and British Standards, Environment Agency guidance and national limits or guidelines and take account of any locally adopted standards and supplementary guidance…”
2.7.5 DP16: Open Space and Green Infrastructure states that: “…
2. All new residential development will make a contribution towards the provision of new open space, including accessible natural greenspace, to meet the needs of the growing population. 3. Where appropriate, the required open space contribution will take the form of on-site provision. Such on-site provision will require appropriate long term management arrangements to be agreed between the Council and the developer. Where on-site provision is not appropriate, or deemed to be more suitably provided elsewhere, a financial contribution toward off-site provision or enhancements will be required. The level of contributions for off-site provision and management arrangements will be calculated in accordance with a guidance note which will be produced by the Council…”
February 2021 Page|10 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
3 Ecological Designations
3.1 Statutory Designations
Description
3.1.1 The statutory designations of ecological importance that occur within the local area are shown on Plan 5551/ECO2. The site itself is not subject to any statutory ecological designations. The nearest statutory designation is Emborough Quarries Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) located approximately 2.1km to the west of the site which is designated for its paleontological interest and is not considered further. The next nearest statutory designation is Edford Woods and Meadows SSSI located approximately 2.7km south-east which is designated due to the wide range of semi-natural ancient woodland and unimproved meadows present.
3.1.2 In addition, the site lies within 20km of several designations of international importance, including Mells Valley Special Area of Conservation (SAC), underpinned by Mells SSSI, St. Dunstan’s Well Catchment SSSI, Old Ironworks SSSI and Vallic Vale SSSI, located 3.1km south-east of the site, Mendip Woodlands SAC, underpinned by Ebbor Gorge SSSI, Asham Wood SSSI, Cheddar Wood SSSI, located 6.9km south-east of the site, Chew Valley Lake Special Protection Area (SPA), underpinned by Chew Valley Lake SSSI, located 10km north- west of the site, North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC, underpinned by the Wookey Hole SSSI, located 11km west of the site and Bath and Bradford Avon Bats SAC, underpinned by Box Mine SSSI, Brown’s Folly SSSI, Combe Down and Bathampton Down Mines SSSI and Winsley Mines SSSI, located 15.2km to the north-east. Mells Valley SAC is designated on the basis of supporting an exceptional maternity roost for Greater Horseshoe Bat and the site lies within the Bat Consultation Zone ‘Band C’, for this designation, but outside of its Ecological Zone of Influence and any juvenile bat sustenance zones.
3.1.3 Somerset Levels & Moors Ramsar / Special Protection Area (SPA) is located approximately 18.5km west of the site. The site falls outside the SPA catchment which is located, at its closest point, approximately 4.5km to the south-west of the site. This Ramsar and SPA is designated on the basis of being a wetland of international importance that regularly supports over 20,000 waterfowl, including populations of European importance for several resident and migratory species.
3.1.4 Natural England has developed Impact Risk Zones (IRZs) as an initial tool to help assess the risk of developments adversely affecting SSSIs, taking into account the type and scale of developments. The site is located within the Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) for Edford Woods & Meadows SSSI and St Dunstan’s Wells Catchment SSSI (which underpins Mells Valley SAC). This IRZ applies to all planning applications outside or extending beyond existing settlements / urban areas affecting greenspace, farmland, semi-natural habitats or landscape features such as trees, hedges, streams and rural buildings / structures. The LPA is recommended to consult Natural England in regard to risks relating to development of the site. The LPA is also required to undertake its own Habitats Regulations Assessment should the proposed development be likely to adversely affect any of the nearby designations of international importance.
Evaluation
3.1.5 The site itself is not subject to any statutory ecological designations. However, IRZs for the Edford Woods and Meadows SSSI and the St Dunstan’s Wells Catchment SSSI are relevant as the site lies outside an existing settlement and the development will affect farmland and
February 2021 Page|11 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
semi-natural habitats. Nonetheless, Edford Woods and Meadows SSSI, is well separated from the site, and, due to the scale and nature of the proposals is unlikely to be affected.
3.1.6 St Dunstan’s Wells Catchment SSSI partially underpins Mells Valley SAC, which is identified in the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for Mendip District Council (January 2011)12 as potentially being negatively affected by the loss of flight lines and feeding areas used by Horseshoe Bats from the SAC as a result of development within the District.
3.1.7 Accordingly, the HRA defines an ‘Ecological Zone of Influence’ for Horseshoe Bats around the SAC which identifies the suitable connected flyways, feeding areas and known areas of activity of Horseshoe Bats within the district. Mendip DC has also produced further guidance13 which describes Bat Consultation Zones (BCZ). BCZ have been incorporated into Policy DP6 of the Local Plan which requires a ‘test of significance’ under the Habitats Regulations to be carried out for any planning applications for development occurring in this zone. The site lies within the BCZ and will therefore require a test of significance to be carried out. Guidance provided by the LPA identifies that the site lies within ‘Band C’ of the BCZ, indicating that bats from the SAC may be present in the local area at a low density and may therefore make some limited use of the site for commuting/foraging. Accordingly, a Bat Habitat Metric Assessment was undertaken to calculate the value of the habitats within the site to Horseshoe Bats and to assess the area of replacement habitat required within the site to safeguard the integrity of the Mells Valley SAC. The results of the Bat Habitat Metric Assessment show that, subject to the provision of a minimum of 0.62ha of optimal Greater Horseshoe Bat foraging and commuting habitat, in addition to the inclusion of a sensitive lighting scheme and ‘bat dark corridors’ (see Chapter 6), it is unlikely there will be any adverse effect on the integrity of the Mells Valley SAC as a result of development of the site. Consequently, the proposals have been designed to include over 0.62ha of suitable bat habitat within the open space proposed for the south of the site, including wildflower grassland, broadleaved woodland and new hedgerow planting, which will ensure the integrity of the SAC is safeguarded (see Appendix 5551/3 for full details).
3.1.8 Mendip Woodlands SAC has been identified in the HRA as potentially being negatively affected by increased cumulative recreational activity resulting from development within the surrounding area. However, the HRA concludes that the nearest component, Asham Wood, located 6.9km south-east has no major threats apparent and is in a fully favourable site condition. Ebbor Gorge SSSI, Rodney Stoke SSSI and Cheddar Wood SSSI, located 11.2km, 14.1km and 19.8km west of the site respectively, are unlikely to be significantly affected by development within the District as they already have existing management that should be able to incorporate an increase in recreational activity. Consequently, given the relatively small size of the development, the separation of the site from the components of the SAC and subject to the provision of on-site open space (required in accordance with Local Policy DP16), no significant adverse effects are anticipated on the integrity of the Mendip Woodlands SAC.
3.1.9 North Somerset & Mendip Bats SAC is identified in the HRA as potentially being negatively affected by recreational disturbance of the grassland and bat roost sites by dog-fouling of grassland and the loss of flight lines and feeding areas used by Horseshoe Bats from the SAC, respectively. Nonetheless, the HRA concludes that the grassland and especially the caves within the SAC are relatively inaccessible and therefore unlikely to suffer from increases in dog fouling or disturbance respectively. Regarding the loss of bat foraging and commuting habit, the site lies well outside the ecological zone of influence identified for the
12 Somerset County Council (2011) ‘Habitat Regulations Assessment: Local Development Framework Core Strategy’ 13 L Burrows (2019) ‘North Somerset and Mendip Bats Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Guidance on Development – Version 2.1’, Somerset Ecology Services
February 2021 Page|12 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
SAC and so is unlikely to be of importance for bats from North Somerset & Mendip Bats SAC. Consequently, no likely significant effects on the North Somerset & Mendip Bats SAC are anticipated as a result of development of the site. Nevertheless, the mitigation measures implemented to safeguard the Mells Valley SAC would also serve to safeguard any bats associated with the North Somerset & Mendip Bats SAC.
3.1.10 The Somerset Levels & Moors Ramsar/SPA and Chew Valley Lake SPA are identified in the HRA as being vulnerable to increased cumulative recreational activity resulting from development within the surrounding area that would cause disturbance of the bird populations for which these areas are designated. Nevertheless, the HRA concludes that recreational disturbance is only a low-level issue given the existence of effective management plans and the asynchronous timing of peak recreational activity in the summer and peak bird populations in the winter. In addition, the HRA observes that the majority of recreational users that cause the greatest disturbance (e.g. dog walkers) only travel a short distance to reach the Ramsar/SPAs, such that the site lies outside the indicative Zones of Influence (5km) around these designations. Consequently, given the separation between the site and the Ramsar/SPAs and the availability of other nearby open spaces (including that provided on-site under Policy DP16), no significant adverse effects on the integrity of the Ramsar/SPAs are anticipated as a result of development of the site.
3.1.11 Natural England has recently contacted Mendip District Council in regard to the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar Site, stating that the vast majority of the ditches within the Ramsar Site and the underpinning SSSIs are classified as being in unfavourable condition due to excessive Phosphorus (P) derived from diffuse water pollution sources and / or point sources within the fluvial catchment which are currently 2 to 3 times higher than the critical load. Natural England considers that any development proposals which provide a net increase of Phosphorous into the catchment are likely to have a significant effect on the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar Site. Natural England has prepared a plan detailing the catchment area of the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar Site. The site is located outside this catchment area. Furthermore, the sewage treatment works which will process foul water from the site and the watercourse to which the sewage treatment works will discharge, are located outside (more than 4km) the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar Site catchment area. The proposals will not therefore result in any additional nutrient (Phosphorous) load being discharged to the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar catchment and the proposals are therefore highly unlikely to affect the integrity of this designation.
3.1.12 Overall, whilst the site itself is not subject to any statutory ecological designations, development of the site could potentially have adverse impacts on the integrity of the nearby designations, in particular the Mells Valley SAC due to the loss of potential Greater Horseshoe Bat foraging / commuting habitat. Consequently, appropriate mitigation measures, centred on the retention of the hedgerows with replacement hedgerows provided where necessary, together with the creation of associated areas of suitable foraging habitat / open space within ‘dark corridors’, will be included within the scheme design (the total extent of which has been be calculated in accordance with LPA guidance, see Chapter 5). Subject to the implementation of these measures no adverse effects are anticipated on the integrity of the Mells Valley SAC or any other nearby designations of international importance.
3.1.13 All other statutory ecological designations in the surrounding area are physically well separated from the site by open countryside and existing development and given the nature and scale of the proposals these designations are unlikely to be affected.
February 2021 Page|13 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
3.2 Non-statutory Designations
Description
3.2.1 The site itself is not subject to any non-statutory ecological designations. The nearest non- statutory designation is Downside Abbey Park and Plantation Local Wildlife Site (LWS) located approximately 0.3km to the east of the site. The LWS is designated for the important assemblage of veteran trees present. The next nearest non-statutory designation is Middle Wood LWS located approximately 0.8km to the south and designated on the basis of the presence of mixed broadleaved woodland.
Evaluation
3.2.2 The site itself is not subject to any non-statutory designations. Nonetheless, Downside Abbey Park and Plantation Local Wildlife Site (LWS) has the potential to be adversely affected by the proposals through increased recreational usage given its close proximity to the site. This is unlikely to be significant however, as the Abbey comprises private land and is not open to the public. Furthermore, the provision of open space within the site as an offset to safeguard the bat SAC, would likely absorb the majority of recreational activity from the development. Therefore, given the nature and scale of the proposals, it is considered unlikely that the proposals would adversely affect this LWS or any other non- statutory designation in the surrounding area.
3.3 Priority Habitats, Ancient Woodland and Notable Trees
Description
3.3.1 There are no records of any ancient woodland, notable or veteran trees or any Priority Habitat within or adjacent to the site.
3.4 Summary
3.4.1 In summary, the site itself is not subject to any statutory or non-statutory ecological designations and, subject to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures (as described above), it is unlikely that any such designations in the surrounding area will be significantly affected by the proposals.
February 2021 Page|14 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
4 Habitats and Ecological Features
4.1 Background Records
4.1.1 No specific records of any protected, rare or notable plant species from within or immediately adjacent to the site are included within the information returned from Somerset Environmental Records Centre (SERC). A number of records of Priority Species were returned from SERC including Marsh Stitchwort Stellaria palustris dated 2001, none of which originate within or adjacent to the site. No evidence for the presence of any Priority Species within the site was recorded during the survey work undertaken.
4.2 Overview
4.2.1 The habitats and ecological features present within the site are described below and evaluated in terms of whether they constitute an important ecological feature and their level of importance, taking into account the status of habitat types and the presence of rare plant communities or individual plant species of elevated interest. The likely effects of the proposals on the habitats and ecological features are then assessed. The value of habitats for the fauna they may support is considered separately in Chapter 5 below.
4.2.2 The following habitats / ecological features were identified within / adjacent to the site:
• Improved Grassland; • Hedgerows; and • Trees and Scrub
4.2.3 The locations of these habitat types and features are illustrated on Plan 5551/ECO3 and described in detail below.
4.3 Priority Habitats
4.3.1 Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 places duties on public bodies to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in the exercise of their normal functions. In particular, Section 41 of the NERC Act requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of habitats which are of principal importance for conservation in England. This list is largely derived from the ‘Priority Habitats’ listed under the former UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), which continue to be regarded as priority habitats under the subsequent country-level biodiversity strategies.
4.3.2 Of the habitats within the site the hedgerows are considered to qualify as Priority Habitats and therefore constitute important ecological features. This is discussed further in the relevant section below.
4.4 Improved Grassland
Description
4.4.1 The majority of the site comprises two fields (F1 and F2) of short-sward, improved grassland which is subject to grazing by both cattle and sheep on a rotational basis. The majority of the fields are bound by hedgerows with some small sections of wall and fencing forming the curtilage of adjacent residential properties to the north and south.
February 2021 Page|15 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
4.4.2 Species present in the grassland include Yorkshire Fog Holcus lanatus, Perennial Ryegrass Lolium perenne, Cocksfoot Dactylis glomerata, Annual Meadow-grass Poa annua, Common Mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum, White Clover Trifolium repens, Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg., Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens, Spear Thistle Cirsium vulgare, Shepherd’s Purse Capsella bursa-pastoris, Common Chickweed Stellaria media, Greater Plantain Plantago major, Groundsel Senecio vulgaris, Creeping Thistle Cirsium arvense and Cranesbill Geranium sp. The grassland sward supports an average of approximately 5 species per m2 with an average herb cover of approximately 5%.
Evaluation
4.4.3 Overall, the grassland supports a low diversity of common and widespread species and based on the type and abundance of species present it can be classified as improved grassland14. As such, the grassland within the site does not constitute an important ecological feature. Improved grassland is not uncommon in the local area and higher quality areas of grassland are present in the surrounding area. The loss of grassland to the proposals is therefore of minor ecological significance. Nevertheless, the proposals incorporate the retention and enhancement of approximately half of field F2, which will form part of approximately 1.72ha of species-rich wildflower grassland to be created within the site (see Chapter 6) that will more than compensate for the loss of existing species-poor grassland.
4.5 Hedgerows
Description
4.5.1 Four hedgerows are present within the site located at the boundaries of the fields. The hedgerows are described in Table 4.1 below.
Table 4.1. Hedgerow descriptions. Avg. Ground flora Associated Comments Likely to No. H W Woody species per (including structure / & climbers features qualify# 30m* management) Ground Ivy, Ivy, Nettle, Cow Blackthorn, <2 Recently subject to H1 2m 1-2m Parsley, Cleavers, - N Hawthorn face management Bramble, Dandelion Nettle, Cleavers, Blackthorn, Bramble, Ground Wire and post H2 2m 3-4m Hawthorn, Hazel, <3 Elder, Dogs Face managed N fence Holly Mercury, Groundsel Hawthorn, Evidence of Nettle, Cleavers, Wire and post H3 2.5m 2m Blackthorn, Holly, <3 previous laying. N Bramble fence Hazel Face managed Nettle, Cleavers, Blackthorn, Bramble, Ground Wire and post H4 3m 3m Hawthorn, Hazel, <3 Elder, Garlic Face managed N fence Holly Mustard, Hedge Woundwort Woody species (as listed under Schedule 3 of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997) and woodland ground flora species (as listed under Schedule 2 of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997) underlined, y = young, sm = semi-mature, m = mature, pv = possible veteran, B = bank, W = wall, br = bridleway, f/p = footpath, b/w = byway, (D) = dominant species * estimated average number of woody species (as listed under Schedule 3 of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997) in any one 30m stretch.
14 Natural England (2010) ‘Higher Level Stewardship – Farm Environment Plan (FEP) Manual’, 3rd Edition
February 2021 Page|16 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
# likely to qualify – as ‘important’ under the wildlife and landscape criteria of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 Evaluation
4.5.2 From a preliminary appraisal, none of the hedgerows within the site are considered to be species-rich and none are likely to qualify as ecologically ‘important’ under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, based on the number of woody species and associated features.
4.5.3 All of the hedgerows within the site are likely to qualify as a Priority Habitat based on the standard definition15, which includes all hedgerows (>20m long and <5m wide) consisting predominantly (≥80%) of at least one native woody species. It has been estimated that approximately 84% of countryside hedgerows in GB qualify as a Priority Habitat under this definition15.
4.5.4 On this basis, the hedgerows within the site constitute important ecological features, although, given the relatively limited network present and poor species diversity, are only of importance at the local level.
4.5.5 The proposals incorporate the retention of the majority of hedgerows within the site, with the only losses occurring to the entirety of hedgerow H3 and two small sections of H2 to facilitate the construction of access roads and a pedestrian access. Retained hedgerows will be protected during the construction phase of the proposals as per the recommendations included at Chapter 6 below. Furthermore, the proposals incorporate new planting which will link with and strengthen the existing / retained hedgerows which will aim to enhance the value of these features for biodiversity. New species-rich native hedgerow planting is proposed along the northern and southern boundary of the site as part of the landscape proposals, providing enhanced connectivity along these boundaries.
4.6 Trees and Scrub
Description
4.6.1 A number of trees were recorded within the site, largely associated with the hedgerows. Standard trees within the hedgerows were predominantly noted to range from semi- mature to mature in age and include Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, Ash Fraxinus excelsior and Pedunculate Oak Quercus robur.
4.6.2 Discrete areas of scattered Bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. scrub are present within the site, largely associated with the site boundaries.
Evaluation
4.6.3 The mature trees recorded within the site are generally of a substantial size and a number are likely to be of considerable age. Accordingly, the more mature trees recorded within the site are of some ecological interest in their own right. However, none of the trees within the site are considered to be approaching veteran or ancient status and as such, they do not form important ecological features.
4.6.4 The scrub within the site is comprised of Bramble, a common and widespread species, and does not form an important ecological feature. Any loss of this habitat to the proposals is of negligible ecological significance.
15 Based on: Biodiversity Reporting and Information Group (2011) ‘UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority Habitat Descriptions’, ed. Ant Maddock
February 2021 Page|17 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
4.6.5 It is understood that the trees within the site and adjacent to its boundaries are fully retained under the proposals and as such, subject to recommended safeguards set out at Chapter 6 below, the trees within the site will be retained and protected under the proposals, whilst new planting will combine with the existing trees to provide new opportunities for wildlife.
4.7 Habitat Evaluation Summary
4.7.1 On the basis of the above, the hedgerows within the site are considered to form important ecological features. Other habitats present within the site include improved grassland, scrub and trees which do not form important ecological features.
February 2021 Page|18 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
5 Faunal Use of the Site
5.1 Overview
5.1.1 During the survey work, general observations were made of any faunal use of the site with specific attention paid to the potential presence of protected or notable species. Specific survey work was undertaken in respect of bats, Badgers and reptiles, with the results described below.
5.2 Priority Species
5.2.1 Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 places duties on public bodies to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in the exercise of their normal functions. In particular, Section 41 of the NERC Act requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of species which are of principal importance for conservation in England. This list is largely derived from the ‘Priority Species’ listed under the former UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), which continue to be regarded as priority species under the subsequent country-level biodiversity strategies.
5.2.2 During the survey work undertaken, the Priority Species Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrelle Pygmaeus, Noctule Nyctalus noctula, Greater Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, Lesser Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus hipposideros and Slow-worm Anguis fragilis, were recorded within / associated the site. This is discussed further below.
5.3 Bats
5.3.1 Legislation. All British bats are classed as European Protected Species under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) and are also listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). As such, both bats and their roosts (breeding sites and resting places) receive full protection under the legislation (see Appendix 5551/2 for detailed provisions). If proposed development work is likely to result in an offence a licence may need to be obtained from Natural England which would be subject to appropriate measures to safeguard bats. Given all bats are protected species, they are considered to represent important ecological features. A number of bat species are also considered S41 Priority Species.
5.3.2 Background Records. No specific records of bats from within or adjacent to the site were returned from the desktop study. Information received from the SERC returned records of Lesser Horseshoe Bat, Greater Horseshoe Bat, Brown Long-eared Bat Plecotus auritus, Daubenton’s Bat Myotis daubentonii, Noctule, Serotine Eptesicus serotinus, Natterer’s Bat Myotis nattereri and Pipistrelle bat species Pipistrelle sp. within 3km of the site. The closest records pertain to the same grid reference located approximately 0.38km north of the site boundary, with the most recent of these records including observations of a number of Daubenton’s Bat, two Noctule, Bat and a single Natterer’s Bat all from October 2014.
February 2021 Page|19 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
5.3.3 Survey Results
Visual Inspection Surveys
Trees
5.3.4 A number of semi-mature and mature trees are present on site and a single mature Ash tree (T5) at the northern boundary is considered to offer moderate potential for roosting bats due to the presence of three large rot holes.
Dusk Surveys
Activity surveys (foraging /commuting)
5.3.5 The grassland and hedgerows within the site offer potential opportunities for foraging bats as they are likely to support a reasonable biomass of invertebrate prey. In addition, the hedgerows form linear corridors that could act as navigational aids for commuting bats and provide connectivity to similar off-site habitats in the surrounding area. As such, bat activity surveys were undertaken at the site and wider survey area in May, July and September 2019 as well as September 2020.
5.3.6 Manual walked transect surveys. The detailed activity survey results are illustrated on Plans 5551/ECO4 – Plan 5551/ECO7, with summary tables provided below.
Table 5.1. Results of the dusk walked transect on 20th May 2019. Approximate % of Total Passes Species Number of Passes Recorded Recorded Common Pipistrelle 7 17 Soprano Pipistrelle 1 2 Myotis sp. 7 17 Noctule 4 15 Big Bat 20 49 Total 41 100
Table 5.2. Results of the dusk walked transect on 10th July 2019. Approximate % of Total Passes Species Number of Passes Recorded Recorded Common Pipistrelle 41 48 Soprano Pipistrelle 5 6 Noctule 4 5 Big Bat 35 41 Total 85 100
Table 5.3. Results of the dusk walked transect on 27th September 2019. Approximate % of Total Passes Species Number of Passes Recorded Recorded Common Pipistrelle 46 68 Soprano Pipistrelle 20 30 Brown Long-eared Bat 1 1 Greater Horseshoe Bat 1 1 Total 68 100
February 2021 Page|20 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
Table 5.4. Results of the dusk walked transect on 9th September 2020. Approximate % of Total Passes Species Number of Passes Recorded Recorded Common Pipistrelle 14 70 Soprano Pipistrelle 1 5 Serotine 1 5 Myotis sp. 3 15 Greater Horseshoe Bat 1 5 Total 20 100
5.3.7 As shown by the above results, during the dusk and dawn surveys in May 2019, Big Bat species were the most commonly recorded, accounting for 49% of all registrations. Common Pipistrelle, Myotis sp. and Noctule were recorded to a lesser extent accounting for 17%, 17% and 15% respectively and a single pass by Soprano Pipistrelle was recorded during this survey. In the July 2019 survey Common Pipistrelle were the most commonly recorded species accounting for 48% of total registrations, closely followed by Big Bats which accounted for 41% of total registrations. During the July 2019 dusk survey, Soprano Pipistrelle and Noctule were recorded to a lesser extent accounting for 6% and 5% of registrations, respectively. During the dusk survey conducted in September 2019 and the dusk survey conducted in September 2020, Common Pipistrelle were the most commonly recorded species accounting for 68% of total registrations in September 2019 and 70% in September 2020. In September 2019, Soprano Pipistrelle was the second most recorded species accounting for 30% of total registrations. Single passes were recorded for both Brown Long-eared Bat and Greater Horseshoe Bat in September 2019. In September 2020, Myotis sp. was the second most commonly recorded species after Common Pipistrelle accounting for 15% of total registrations. Single passes by Serotine, Soprano Pipistrelle and Greater Horseshoe Bat were recorded during the duck activity survey in September 2020.
5.3.8 During the walked transects, the highest levels of bat activity were recorded at the north- west and west of the site with activity also recorded along the central hedgerow (see Plans 5551/ECO4 – Plan 5551/ECO7). Limited activity was recorded at the east of the site adjacent to the road. The majority of activity was limited to commuting passes, suggesting that the foraging potential of the site is limited.
5.3.9 Remote Detector Surveys. The results of the automated static bat surveys are summarised in Tables 5.5 to 5.9 below.
Table 5.5. Automated static bat survey summary for location SD1 (hedgerow H2). Location SD1: Central Hedgerow Survey Date Number of registrations by species# Pip 45 Pip 55 ‘Big Bat’ Noctule Serotine BLE Myotis GHS LHS 20th May 2019 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 21st May 2019 4 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 22nd May 2019 1 1 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 23rd May 2019 78 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 24th May 2019 77 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25th May 2019 23 2 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 26th May 2019 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 27th May 2019 11 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 10th July 2019 22 2 0 5 1 2 19 0 0 11th July 2019 33 0 0 13 9 2 6 0 0 12th July2019 19 0 0 16 5 1 32 1 0 13th July 2019 8 1 0 19 3 0 6 1 0 14th July 2019 28 4 0 33 2 0 3 0 0
February 2021 Page|21 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
15th July 2019 15 1 0 1 0 0 12 0 0 10th September 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11th September 2019 18 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9th October 2019 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 10th October 2019 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11th October 2019 87 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 12th October 2019 50 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 13th October 2019 94 0 0 0 0 1 12 0 4 2nd September 2020 27 7 1 3 3 1 1 4 189 3rd September 2020 11 1 0 5 1 0 2 7 70 4th September 2020 5 5 0 7 3 2 2 4 27 5th September 2020 32 3 0 2 3 0 0 0 1 Total registrations 669 52 6 114 40 11 103 17 331 Approximate % of 49.7 3.86 0.45 8.47 2.97 0.82 7.65 1.26 24.59 total registrations Key: Myotis- Myotis sp. Pip 45- Common Pipistrelle Pip 55- Soprano Pipistrelle GHS – Greater Horseshoe Bat ‘Big Bat’ - Noctule, Leislers or Serotine BLE - Brown Long-eared bat LHS – Lesser Horseshoe Bat # - Figures shown are the total no. of registrations recorded during the dusk to the proceeding dawn period for each date shown, i.e. a recording ’night’ for the 20th May will be registrations recorded from ~18.00 on the 20/05 till 07.00 on the morning of the 21/05.
Table 5.6. Automated static bat survey summary for location SD2 (hedgerow H4). Location SD2: Eastern Hedgerow # Survey Date Number of registrations by species ‘Big Pip 45 Pip 55 Noctule Serotine BLE Myotis GHS LHS Bat’ 20th May 2019 0 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 1 21st May 2019 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 22nd May 2019 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 1 23rd May 2019 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 24th May 2019 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 25th May 2019 3 0 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 26th May 2019 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 10th July 2019 100 1 7 4 4 12 0 0 1 11th July 2019 180 1 1 38 6 6 5 0 3 12th July2019 45 0 5 38 8 12 4 0 0 13th July 2019 85 7 0 84 23 3 2 0 4 14th July 2019 59 4 0 47 12 15 3 0 5 15th July 2019 5 1 6 9 7 8 2 0 6 Total 486 16 28 234 72 58 18 2 24 registrations Approximate % of total 51.81 1.71 2.99 24.95 7.68 6.18 1.92 0.21 2.56 registrations Key: Myotis- Myotis sp. Pip 45- Common Pipistrelle Pip 55- Soprano Pipistrelle GHS – Greater Horseshoe Bat
February 2021 Page|22 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
‘Big Bat’ - Noctule, Leislers or Serotine BLE - Brown Long-eared bat LHS – Lesser Horseshoe Bat # - Figures shown are the total no. of registrations recorded during the dusk to the proceeding dawn period for each date shown, i.e. a recording ’night’ for the 20th May will be registrations recorded from ~18.00 on the 20/05 till 07.00 on the morning of the 21/05.
Table 5.7. Average number of passes per night at both static detector locations. Average registrations per night Survey Date ‘Big Pip 45 Pip 55 Noctule Serotine BLE Myotis GHS LHS Bat’ SD1 May 2019 28.3 1 0.7 1.4 1.4 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.7 July 2019 25 1.6 0.0 17.4 4.0 1.0 9.8 0.4 0.0 September 2019 3.6 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 October 2019 50.6 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.6 0.0 1.0 September 2020 15.0 3.2 0.2 3.4 2.0 0.6 1.0 3.0 58.0 SD2 May 2019 1.7 0.3 1.3 2 1.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 July 2019 94.8 2.8 3.8 44.0 12.0 11.2 3.2 0.0 3.8
Table 5.8. Level of usage of the site by Lesser Horseshoe Bat. Usage by Lesser Horseshoe Bat* Survey Date SD1 SD2 May 2019 Commuting Commuting July 2019 Absent Commuting September 2019 Commuting - October 2019 Commuting - September 2020 Foraging - * Call sequences with a negative minute on either side (i.e. a minute in which the species was not recorded) are judged to be commuting contacts, whereas contacts in two consecutive minutes or more are judged to be foraging contacts. Foraging’ is defined as 6 or more such minutes over any three nights in the five nights on any one automated detector during the recording period16.
Table 5.9. Level of usage of the site by Greater Horseshoe Bat. Usage by Greater Horseshoe Bat* Survey Date SD1 SD2 May 2019 Absent Commuting July 2019 Commuting Absent September 2019 Absent - October 2019 Absent - September 2020 Commuting - * Call sequences with a negative minute on either side (i.e. a minute in which the species was not recorded) are judged to be commuting contacts, whereas contacts in two consecutive minutes or more are judged to be foraging contacts. ‘Foraging’ is defined as 6 or more such minutes over any three nights in the five nights on any one automated detector during the recording period15.
5.3.10 Summary. Over all survey periods and across both detector locations, a range of bat species were recorded with Common Pipistrelle accounting for 50.6% of all registrations. The next most frequently recorded species were Lesser Horseshoe Bat and Noctule accounting for 15.7% and 15.2% of all registrations respectively. Other species recorded include Serotine
16 L Burrows (2019) ‘North Somerset and Mendip Bats Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Guidance on Development – Version 2.1’, Somerset Ecology Services
February 2021 Page|23 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
(4.9%), Brown Long-eared Bat (3.0%), Soprano Pipistrelle (3.0%), big bat species (1.5%) and Greater Horseshoe Bat (0.8%).
5.3.11 The average number of bat passes per night (see Table 5.8) at location SD1 generally fell within 0-10 passes with the exception of Common Pipistrelle for which the average number of passes was between 15 and 51. Noctule registered an average of 17 passes per night in July 2019 at location SD1 and Lesser Horseshoe recorded an average of 58 passes per night in September 2020. At location SD2, the average number of passes per night for all species generally fell within the range of 0-12 passes with the exception of Common Pipistrelle and Noctule, for which averages of 95 and 44 passes per night respectively were recorded during July 2019. Overall, 40% more bat registrations were recorded at hedgerow H2 at the centre of the site, compared to hedgerow H4 at the eastern boundary of the site.
5.3.12 Both Lesser Horseshoe Bats and Greater Horseshoe Bats were found to utilise the site and wider survey area primarily for commuting (see Table 5.8 and 5.9) with Lesser Horseshoe only recorded as foraging at location SD1 during the survey conducted in September 2020.
5.3.13 Evaluation and Assessment of Likely Effects
Roosting
Trees
5.3.14 It is understood that all trees within the site, including those described above with potential bat roost features, are to be retained under the proposals, such that in the event that bats are present within the trees they will remain unaffected. As such, subject to the implementation of the recommendations outlined at Chapter 6 below in relation to lighting, it is considered that roosting bats will be fully safeguarded under the proposals.
Foraging / Commuting
5.3.15 As noted above, the hedgerows, trees and grassland within the site offer foraging / commuting habitat for bats and indeed foraging and commuting bats were recorded during all of the manual walked activity surveys and static detector surveys undertaken. Recorded activity was dominated by Big Bat species and Common Pipistrelle. Common Pipistrelles are one of the most common bat species in the UK and are widely distributed, while the Big Bat species, namely Noctule, Serotine and Leisler’s are relatively common, uncommon and ‘scarce’ respectively. Frequent passes by Soprano Pipistrelle (common), Lesser Horseshoe Bat and occasional passes by Greater Horseshoe Bat (both rare and largely restricted to the South-west), Myotis (common) and Brown Long-eared Bat (common).
5.3.16 The vast majority of bat activity recorded at the site was focused along the hedgerows at the site boundaries and the central hedgerow. The proposals retain, buffer and enhance the vast majority of these hedgerows. A mixture of woodland and grassland habitat lies to the south and east of the site. This may provide a suitable foraging resource for local bats and may therefore account for the higher frequency of bat call registrations recorded at the static detector located at the central boundary of the site.
5.3.17 Lesser Horseshoe Bats were recorded during every survey month except July 2019 and Greater Horseshoe Bats were recorded in every month except September 2019 and October 2019. These species are considered rare in the UK and they are largely restricted to the south-west of England and Wales, albeit population trends indicate their numbers have been increasing in recent years. Greater Horseshoe Bats are also key interest features of the nearby Mells Valley SAC, and Lesser Horseshoe Bat are also present at this designation.
February 2021 Page|24 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
5.3.18 The vast majority of the Greater Horseshoe Bat registrations comprised single isolated calls, which in accordance with the North Somerset and Mendip SAC Guidance on Development (v2.1 May 2019) indicates that this species utilises the habitats within / adjacent the site primarily for commuting rather than foraging (Table 5.9). The average number of registrations per night were low for Greater Horseshoe Bats with the maximum average recorded being 3 recorded at location SD1 in September 2020. This indicates that the habitats within the site are of some value to commuting Greater Horseshoe Bats, in particular the central hedgerow within the site.
5.3.19 A higher number of Lesser Horseshoe Bat compared to Greater Horseshoe Bat registrations were recorded at both locations in all months. The results indicate, as per the guidance, that a small number of Lesser Horseshoe Bats are occasionally utilising areas of the site for foraging as well as commuting (Table 5.8). The highest average number of registrations per night for Lesser Horseshoe Bats was 58 at location SD1 (central hedgerow) in September 2020. It is therefore likely that a number of Lesser Horseshoe Bats utilise the habitats within the site, in particular the hedgerows for commuting and a small number of Lesser Horseshoe Bats utilise the habitats within the site for occasional foraging.
5.3.20 The static detector results indicate that Horseshoe Bats are potentially commuting through the site, predominantly utilising the central hedgerow H2, as well as utilising hedgerow H4 along the eastern boundary. Overall, it is considered that the site is not of elevated value for these species and that, at most, the site is used by low numbers of commuting individuals and very occasionally used by a few foraging Lesser Horseshoe Bat individuals. As such, subject to the retention of suitable habitats, the proposed development is highly unlikely to have any adverse effect on the integrity of the Mells Valley SAC with respect to its Greater Horseshoe Bat interest feature. The vast majority of the hedgerows along the eastern boundary and at the centre of the site are to be retained with the only losses occurring to small sections of the central hedgerow and eastern boundary hedgerow to facilitate access. The vast majority of the hedgerow length removed will be compensated for by the inclusion of new continuous hedgerow planting at the eastern and southern site boundaries thus maintaining commuting links across the site for Horseshoe Bats. As part of the proposals, 1.81ha of public open space will be created, including 1.58ha of new optimal foraging habitat (i.e. 1.3ha wildflower grassland and 0.28ha broad leaved woodland) located at the south of the site, and a sensitive lighting scheme will be implemented to safeguard the boundary commuting corridors (see Chapter 6 below). Accordingly, it is considered that Greater and Lesser Horseshoe Bats will be unaffected by the proposals and there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the Mells Valley SAC.
5.3.21 The combination of habitat types present within the site is common in the surrounding landscape. Taking this into account, together with the levels of activity and species recorded during the surveys, and its proximity to Mells Valley SAC, the site itself is considered to be of local to district level value to foraging / commuting bats. As the SAC species and/or Priority Species Greater Horseshoe Bat, Lesser Horseshoe Bat, Brown Long-eared Bat, Noctule and Soprano Pipistrelle were recorded foraging / commuting within the site, bats are considered to constitute an important ecological feature of the site.
5.3.22 Subject to the implementation of the measures outlined at Chapter 6 below, along with other ecological enhancements, it is considered that the conservation status of local bat populations will be fully safeguarded under the scheme. Indeed, there will be a qualitative improvement in foraging habitat under the proposals.
5.3.23 No artificial bat roosting boxes are recommended to be installed as part of the proposals. Artificial roosting boxes are typically favoured by Common and Soprano Pipistrelle, which may compete for the same foraging resources as local Greater and Lesser Horseshoe Bats.
February 2021 Page|25 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
Avoiding the installation of artificial roosting boxes will therefore lessen any potential foraging competition between Horseshoe Bats and Pipistrelle bats, as Pipistrelle bats may be encouraged to the local area by the installation of additional artificial roosts.
5.4 Badger
5.4.1 Legislation. Badger receive legislative protection under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (see Appendix 5551/2 for detailed provisions), and as such should be assessed as an important ecological feature. The legislation aims to protect the species from persecution, rather than being a response to an unfavourable conservation status, as the species is in fact common over most of Britain. It is the duty of planning authorities to consider the conservation and welfare impacts of development upon Badger and issue permissions accordingly.
5.4.2 Licences can be obtained from Natural England for development activities that would otherwise be unlawful under the legislation. Guidance on the types of activity that should be licensed is laid out in the relevant best practice guidance. 17, 18
5.4.3 Survey Results and Evaluation. Survey results and evaluation in respect of Badger are set out in a Confidential Appendix separate to this report.
5.5 Other Mammals
5.5.1 Legislation. A number of other UK mammal species do not receive direct legislative protection relevant to development activities but may receive protection against acts of cruelty (e.g. under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996). In addition, a number of these mammal species are S41 Priority Species and should be assessed as important ecological features.
5.5.2 Background Records. No specific records of other mammals from within or adjacent to the site were returned from the desktop study. A single record of Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus (Priority Species) was returned from within the search area around the site, including from 3.1km to the south-west of the site and dated from 1995.
5.5.3 Survey Results and Evaluation. No evidence of any other protected, rare or notable mammal species was recorded within the site. Evidence for the presence of Fox Vulpes vulpes was recorded within the site. Fox remain common in both a local and national context, and as mentioned above do not receive specific legislative protection in a development context. As such, these species are not a material planning consideration and the loss of potential opportunities for these species to the proposals is of negligible significance.
5.5.4 The desktop study returned background records of Hedgehog within the surrounding area. Hedgehog is a Priority Species, albeit this species remains common and widespread in England. The site offers potential opportunities for this species, particularly in the form hedgerows although overall the habitats present are unlikely to be of importance in a local context. The vast majority of the hedgerows are retained with additional hedgerow planting and the creation of wildflower grassland and broadleaved woodland will be provided as part of the proposals. In any event, abundant similar opportunities are present within the local area and there is no evidence to suggest the proposals will significantly affect local populations of this species. However, it is recommended that precautionary safeguards are
17 English Nature (2002) ‘Badgers and Development’ 18 Natural England (2011) ‘Badgers and Development: A Guide to Best Practice and Licensing’, Interim Guidance Document
February 2021 Page|26 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
put in place to minimise the risk of harm to Hedgehog in the event this species is present during the site clearance / construction phase, as detailed in Chapter 6 below.
5.6 Amphibians
5.6.1 Legislation. All British amphibian species receive a degree of protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Great Crested Newt is protected under the Act and is also classed as a European Protected Species under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). As such, both Great Crested Newt and habitats utilised by this species are afforded protection (see Appendix 5551/2 for detailed provisions). Great Crested Newt is also a S41 Priority Species, as are Common Toad Bufo bufo, Natterjack Toad Epidalea calamita, and Pool Frog Pelophylax lessonae. As such, these species should be assessed as important ecological features.
5.6.2 Background Records. No specific records of Great Crested Newt from within or adjacent to the site were returned from the desktop study.
5.6.3 Evaluation and Assessment of Likely Effects. No potential breeding habitat for Great Crested Newt is present within the site. The hedgerow bases provide potentially suitable terrestrial habitat for foraging / commuting amphibians, whilst the remainder of the site comprises short-sward grazed grassland which provides sub-optimal terrestrial habitat for amphibians. According to OS mapping, a single pond is located approximately 130m north- east of the site. No access was gained to this pond, however, given the limited suitable terrestrial habitat within the site and as the adjacent Stockhill road and residential properties are likely to act as a dispersal barrier between this pond and the site, it is considered highly unlikely that Great Crested Newt are present within the site. Indeed, no Great Crested Newt were observed within suitable terrestrial habitat during the reptile survey undertaken (see below). No specific reasonable avoidance measures for Great Crested Newt are therefore required although safeguards will be adopted to protect more common amphibians such as Common Toad (Priority Species) during any clearance of suitable habitat (see Chapter 6 below).
5.6.4 As part of the proposals, the majority of the more suitable habitat within the site will be retained and protected. New habitat will also be created, including species-rich wildflower grassland, woodland and hibernacula, which will provide additional terrestrial habitat for local amphibians, should any be present in the local area. Overall, the conservation status of local amphibian populations will be fully safeguarded if not enhanced under the scheme.
5.7 Reptiles
5.7.1 Legislation. All six species of British reptile are listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), which protects individuals against intentional killing or injury. Sand Lizard Lacerta agilis and Smooth Snake Coronella austriaca receive additional protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended); refer to Appendix 5551/2 for detailed provisions. All six reptile species are also S41 Priority Species. As such, all reptile species should be assessed as important ecological features.
5.7.2 Background Records. Information returned from the SERC returned records for Grass Snake Natrix natrix and Slow-worm with the closest record for a single Slow-worm approximately 0.6km to the north-west of the site and dated from 2014.
5.7.3 Survey Results. Specific survey work for reptiles was undertaken within the wider survey area, the results of which are summarised in Table 5.10 below and illustrated on Plan 5551/ECO5.
February 2021 Page|27 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
Table 5.10. Reptile survey results summary. Common Lizard Slow Worm Grass Snake Visit Date Other Species Adult Juv. Adult Juv. Adult Juv. 1 25/03/2019 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 01/04/2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 08/04/2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 17/04/2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 23/04/2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 14/05/2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 24/05/2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Count 0 1 0
5.7.4 Evaluation and Assessment of Likely Effects. A peak count of one adult Slow-worm was recorded during the survey work at the site, with the single individual recorded in the centre of the site along the central hedgerow (see Plan 5551/ECO5). The majority of the site comprises grazed short-sward improved grassland which provides sub-optimal habitat for reptiles. The areas of longer sward grassland associated with the bases of hedgerows provide some potential, albeit narrow foraging/commuting and refuge habitat. The site measures approximately 4.65ha and therefore the peak count equates to a population of approximately 0.22 Slow-worm per hectare, which would be classed as a low population under the standard guidance19. As such, it is considered that the population of reptiles supported by the site is of importance at the local level only.
5.7.5 The vast majority of the hedgerows are to be retained under the proposals and, subject to the implementation of safeguards during the construction phase (see Chapter 6 below), along with the creation of large areas of long-sward, species-rich wildflower grassland, it is considered likely that the local conservation statics of reptiles will be maintained if not enhanced post-development.
5.8 Birds
5.8.1 Legislation. All wild birds and their nests receive protection under Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) in respect of killing and injury, and their nests, whilst being built or in use, cannot be taken, damaged or destroyed. Species included on Schedule 1 of the Act receive greater protection and are subject to special penalties (see Appendix 5551/2 for detailed provisions).
5.8.2 Conservation Status. The conservation importance of British bird species is categorised based on a number of criteria including the level of threat to a species’ population status20. Species are listed as Green, Amber or Red. Red Listed species are considered to be of the highest conservation concern being either globally threatened and or experiencing a high/rapid level of population decline (>50% over the past 25 years). A number of birds are also S41 Priority Species. Red and Amber listed species and priority species should be assessed as important ecological features.
5.8.3 Background Records. Information from the data search included records for several bird species in the vicinity of the site, including the Red Listed species Song Thrush Turdus philomelos, Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella, House Sparrow Passer domesticus, Tree
19 Herpetofauna Groups of Britain and Ireland (1998) ‘Evaluating local mitigation/translocation programmes: Maintaining Best Practice and lawful standards’ 20 Eaton MA, Aebischer NJ, Brown AF, Hearn RD, Lock L, Musgrove AJ, Noble DG, Stroud DA and Gregory RD (2015) ‘Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man’ British Birds 108, pp.708-746
February 2021 Page|28 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
Sparrow Passer montanus, Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata and Redwing Turdus iliacus. With the exception of Redwing, all of these bird species are also Priority Species. None of the records originate from within the site itself with the closest record being for a Song Thrush located approximately 0.07km to the north-east of the site, dated 2004.
5.8.4 Survey Results. Several common species of bird were observed within the site and wider survey area during the survey work undertaken including: Green Woodpecker Picus viridis, Blackbird Turdus merula and Robin Erithacus rubecula.
5.8.5 Evaluation. None of the birds recorded are listed as having any special conservation status and the habitats present within the site are also common in the surrounding area. The proposals will result in the loss of hedgerow H3 and two small gaps created in hedgerow H2 to facilitate site access and this could potentially affect any nesting birds that may be present at the time of works. Accordingly, a number of safeguards in respect of nesting birds are proposed, as detailed in Chapter 6 below. In the long-term, new foraging and nesting opportunities will be available for birds in the form of new hedgerow and woodland creation as well as the provision of a number of nest boxes, as described in Chapter 6 below.
5.9 Invertebrates
5.9.1 Legislation. A number of invertebrate species are listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). In addition, Large Blue Butterfly Maculinea arion, Fisher’s Estuarine Moth Gortyna borelii lunata and Lesser Whirlpool Ram’s-horn Snail Anisus vorticulus receive protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended); refer to Appendix 5551/2 for detailed provisions. A number of invertebrates are also S41 Priority Species. Where such species are present, they should be assessed as important ecological features.
5.9.2 Background Records. No specific records of invertebrates were returned from within or adjacent to the site. A number of records of Priority Species including Dingy Skipper Eryniss tages and Grizzled Skipper Prygus malvae were returned within information received from SERC, with the closest located approximately 0.2km south-east of the site, dated to 2015.
5.9.3 Survey Results and Evaluation. No evidence for the presence of any protected, rare or notable invertebrate species was recorded within the site. The site is dominated by grazed species-poor improved grassland bound by species-poor hedgerows which are likely to support only a limited diversity of invertebrates. The site has discrete patches of scrub but otherwise contains relatively few micro-habitats that would typically indicate elevated potential for invertebrates21, such as a variable topography with areas of vertical exposed soil, areas of species-rich semi-natural vegetation; variable vegetation structure with frequent patches of tussocks combined with short turf; free-draining light soils or walls with friable mortar. Accordingly, given the habitat composition of the site and lack of adjacent sites designated for significant invertebrate interest, it is considered unlikely that the proposals will result in significant harm to any protected, rare or notable invertebrate populations.
5.10 Summary
5.10.1 On the basis of the above, a summary of the evaluation of fauna is provided below:
21 Natural England (2010) ‘Higher Level Stewardship – Farm Environment Plan (FEP) Manual’, 3rd Edition
February 2021 Page|29 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
Table 5.11. Evaluation summary of fauna forming important ecological features. Supported by or Species / Group Level of Importance associated with the site Bats – Roosting Potential habitat in the form of trees Local (if present)
Bats – Foraging / Commuting Confirmed presence on site Local to District
Reptiles Confirmed presence on site Local
Birds Confirmed presence on site Local
5.10.2 Other fauna supported by the site include non-priority species of mammals, birds and invertebrates. However, these species do not form important ecological features and are not considered to be of importance beyond the context of the site.
February 2021 Page|30 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
6 Mitigation Measures and Biodiversity Net Gains
6.1 Mitigation
6.1.1 Based on the habitats, ecological features and associated fauna identified within / adjacent to the site, it is proposed that the following mitigation measures (MM1 – MM11) are implemented under the proposals. Further, detailed mitigation strategies or method statements can be secured via suitably worded planning conditions, as recommended by relevant best practice guidance (BS 42020:2019).
Greater Horseshoe Bats and the Mells Valley SAC
6.1.2 The survey work undertaken indicates that the site supports commuting and low-level foraging activity by Lesser Horseshoe Bat and low-level commuting activity by Greater Horseshoe Bat. Greater Horseshoe Bats are a key interest feature of the Mells Valley SAC. In order to maintain the favourable conservation status of Greater Horseshoe Bat in the local area and to maximise the ecological benefit of retained habitats for Horseshoe Bats and other Priority bat species recorded at the site, a number of measures have been designed into the scheme, in accordance with LPA guidance22, as set out below.
6.1.3 MM1 – Retention and Buffering of Existing Hedgerows and Trees. The existing hedgerows and trees provide commuting / foraging habitat and connectivity to the wider landscape for Horseshoe Bats and will be retained as far as practicable. Hedgerows H1 and H4 will be retained in their entirety to maintain connectivity around the site boundaries. The entirety of hedgerow H3 will be lost as well as small losses to hedgerow H2 to facilitate access. The lost lengths of hedgerow will be replaced with new species-rich native hedgerow planting at the site boundaries which currently lack hedgerows, namely the entire northern boundary, the boundary at the north-western corner of the site, the southern boundary of field F2 and the boundary at the east of the site associated with residential curtilages. Connectivity across the site will therefore be maintained if not enhanced. The hedgerows should be managed sensitively to encourage tall (>3m) dense growth, which is of greatest value to Horseshoe Bats, and will incorporate long-sward wildflower grassland margins (6m wide where practicable).
6.1.4 MM2 – Connectivity. Construction of the access road with visibility splays will require the loss of the entirety of hedgerow H3 at the north-eastern boundary of the site. The vast majority of the hedgerow length removed will be reinstated further within the site to ensure suitable visibility for road users is provided whilst ensuring the final gap created is less than 10m, thereby maintaining the bat commuting corridor along this boundary. The new hedgerow will be species-rich (>7 native species) and managed sensitively to encourage tall (>3m) dense growth, which is of greatest value to Horseshoe Bats, and will incorporate long- sward wildflower grassland margins (6m wide where practicable). Two short sections of hedgerow H2, each no wider than 10m, will also be lost to facilitate internal access (road and footpath). The resulting gaps in the flight line along this hedgerow should be minimised by the planting of trees adjacent to the roadway / walkway to create a flight ‘hop-over’. The access points through the hedgerows, as well as the hedgerows themselves, should be unlit (<0.5 lux) to avoid potentially severing the flight line along these hedgerows (see MM5 below).
22 L Burrows (2019) ‘North Somerset and Mendip Bats Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Guidance on Development – Version 2.1’, Somerset Ecology Services
February 2021 Page|31 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
6.1.5 MM3 – Habitat Offset Provision. An area of high value foraging / commuting habitat will be provided to compensate the loss of suitable habitat within the development area. This new habitat will comprise species-rich grassland, native broadleaved woodland and species- rich hedgerow planting. The grassland will be managed to produce a long sward to support an abundance of micro- and macro-moths, which are one of the main prey items hunted by Horseshoe Bats. The grassland seed mix will include moth food plants such as Dock Rumex sp., Hawkweeds Hieracium sp., Plantains Plantago sp., Chickweed Stellaria media, Fat Hen Chenopodium album and Mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum as well as a number of other herbaceous plants and grasses, whilst nectar-rich scrub species such as Bramble will be maintained within the retained hedgerows. The new hedgerows will be managed sensitively to encourage tall (>3m) dense growth, which is of greatest value to Horseshoe Bats, and will incorporate long-sward grassland margins (6m wide where practicable). The new woodland planting will comprise a variety of native trees, shrubs and rough grassland, with trees and shrubs planted in naturalistic non-linear patterns. Once established, the woodland will not be coppiced. The majority of the new wildflower grassland and woodland will be located at the south of the site as part of a continuous area of grassland and not be subject to artificial lighting as per MM5, such that it is accessible to the Horseshoe Bat population. The woodland will predominantly be located at the south-east corner of the site to complement existing adjacent woodland further to the east. The total area of offset habitat required has been calculated in accordance with the Somerset Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) detailed in LPA guidance23, and will inform the HRA to be undertaken by the LPA. The HEP indicates that a minimum habitat offset of a minimum of 0.62ha of foraging habitat will be required in addition to the replacement hedgerow planting of 430m. The existing scheme design provides 1.3ha of wildflower grassland, 0.28ha of broadleaved woodland and 530m of hedgerow, exceeding the calculated habitat requirements (see Appendix 5551/3). This total offset can be accommodated by the scheme within the approximately 1.81ha of open space provision within the site.
6.1.6 MM4 – Habitat Management Plan (HMP). It is recommended that an HMP for the scheme is produced at the detailed design stage. The plan would detail a strategy for the creation and establishment of new habitats, specifications for landscape planting and ecological enhancements of retained habitats and detail the mechanisms and prescriptions for the long-term management of green space within the site. In so doing, the HMP would seek to maximise the biodiversity value of all new and retained habitats in perpetuity of the scheme.
6.1.7 MM5 – Sensitive Lighting. Areas identified as providing mitigation for potential effects on Horseshoe Bats must be subject to very low levels of artificial lighting, i.e. light spill from areas of built development should be below 0.5 lux throughout the mitigation area. Retained and newly created hedgerows within development areas should also not be subject to levels of artificial lighting above 0.5 lux where practicable, so as to maintain their utility to other less light-sensitive bat species and other nocturnal fauna. A range of measures should be incorporated into both the construction phase and the completed development to minimise any impacts from artificial lighting, with consideration given to the following key factors:
• Sensitive construction practices – No routine night-time working should be undertaken during the construction phase of the development. Security lighting during construction should be minimised and be located and of a design to avoid /
23 L Burrows (2019) ‘North Somerset and Mendip Bats Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Guidance on Development – Version 2.1’, Somerset Ecology Services
February 2021 Page|32 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
minimise light spill on to any potential commuting feature that may be used by Horseshoe Bat species; • Light exclusion zones – No lighting should be used in Horseshoe Bat mitigation areas or indeed other areas likely to be used by bats. Light exclusion zones or ‘dark corridors’ will provide interconnected areas free of artificial illumination to allow bats to move around the site; • Variable Lighting Regimes – VLRs can be employed, which involve switching off/dimming lights for periods during the night, for example when human activity is generally low (e.g. 12.30 – 5.30am). The use of VLRs may be particularly beneficial during the active bat season (April to October). Motion sensors can also be used to limit the time lighting is operational; • Light barriers – new planting (e.g. hedgerows and trees) or fences, walls and buildings can be strategically positioned to reduce light spill; • Spacing and height of lighting units – increasing spacing between lighting units will minimise the area illuminated and allow bats to fly in the dark refuges between lights. Reducing the height of lighting will also help decrease the volume of illuminated space and give bats a chance to fly over lighting units (providing the light does not spill above the vertical plane). Low level lighting options should be considered for any parking areas and pedestrian / cycle routes, e.g. bollard lighting, handrail lighting or LED footpath lighting; • Light intensity – light intensity (i.e. lux levels) should be kept as low as possible to reduce the overall amount and spread of illumination. The type of light should also be considered, for example lights with high ultraviolet content (e.g. metal halide or mercury lights) should be avoided or fitted with UV filters; and • Directionality – to avoid light spill lighting should be directed only to where it is needed. Particular attention should be paid to avoid the upward spread of light so as to minimise trespass and sky glow.
Hedgerows and Trees
6.1.8 MM6 – Hedgerow and Tree Protection. All hedgerows and trees to be retained within the proposed development shall be protected during construction in line with standard arboriculturalist best practice (BS5837:2012) or as otherwise directed by a suitably competent arboriculturalist. This will involve the use of protective fencing or other methods appropriate to safeguard the root protection areas of retained trees / hedgerows.
Reptiles and Amphibians
6.1.9 MM7 – Destructive Search. To minimise the risk of harm to reptiles and amphibians, the existing management regime should continue or be intensified leading up to development. A destructive search prior to the commencement of works is also proposed. The destructive search will involve cutting any long sward grassland and hedgerow sections to be removed within the development footprint to a short height (~15cm) so as to encourage reptiles and amphibians to disperse to suitable areas of retained/nearby habitat, whilst also allowing for a fingertip search of the area. This exercise should be carried out under the supervision of a competent ecologist during the active reptile season where practicable (generally March/April to September/October, depending on prevailing weather). Any potential refuge features, e.g. piles of rubble, heavy logs, brash piles, will be fingertip-searched by an ecologist prior to being carefully disassembled. Any reptiles or amphibians encountered
February 2021 Page|33 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
during the destructive search will be carefully rescued by the supervising ecologist and relocated to suitable nearby habitat.
Nesting Birds
6.1.10 MM8 – Timing of Works. To avoid a potential offence under the relevant legislation, no clearance of suitable vegetation should be undertaken during the bird-nesting season (1st March to 31st August inclusive). If this is not practicable, any potential nesting habitat to be removed should first be checked by a competent ecologist in order to determine the location of any active nests. Any active nests identified would then need to be cordoned off with a suitably buffer (typically 5m) and protected until the end of the nesting season or until the birds have fledged. These checking surveys would need to be carried out no more than three days in advance of vegetation clearance.
Badger and Other Mammals
6.1.11 MM9 – MM11. See Confidential Appendix for recommended safeguards.
6.2 Biodiversity Net Gains
6.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) encourages new developments to maximise the opportunities for biodiversity through incorporation of enhancement measures. The proposals present the opportunity to deliver ecological enhancements at the site for the benefit of local biodiversity, thereby making a positive contribution towards the broad objectives of national conservation priorities and the local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). The recommendations and enhancements summarised below are considered appropriate given the context of the site and the scale and nature of the proposals. Through implementation of the following ecological enhancements (EE1 – EE8), the opportunity exists for the proposals to deliver a number of biodiversity net gains at the site.
Habitat Creation
6.2.2 EE1 – New Hedgerow. New lengths of species-rich hedgerow (≥7 species per 30m section) will be planted at the north, north-east, north-west and south-east of the site and adjacent the access road at the north-east of the site. This will provide additional foraging and commuting habitat to a range of fauna. The hedgerows will comprise native species suitable to the local area. Native shrub species of particular benefit would likely include fruit and nut bearing species which would provide additional food for wildlife, such as Blackthorn, Hawthorn, Crab Apple Malus sylvestris, Hazel, Dogwood and Elder.
6.2.3 EE2 – New Trees / Shrubs. A number of new trees and shrubs will be planted within the site which in combination with the new hedgerow planting will provide a net gain in foraging habitat to a range of fauna. It is recommended that where practicable, new planting within the site be comprised of native species of local provenance, including trees and shrubs appropriate to the local area. Suitable species for inclusion within the planting could include native trees such as Oak, Rowan Sorbus aucuparia, Birch Betula pendula, Beech Fagus sylvatica, Hornbeam Carpinus betulus and Field Maple, whilst native shrub species of particular benefit would include those listed above for EE1. Where non-native species are proposed, these should include species of value to wildlife, such as varieties listed on the RHS’ ‘Plants for Pollinators’ database, providing a nectar source for bees and other pollinating insects.
6.2.4 EE3 – Wildflower Grassland. Areas of wildflower grassland will be created within the south of the site and areas of open space such that, in combination with enhanced management
February 2021 Page|34 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
of the retained grassland and the new native landscape planting, opportunities for biodiversity will be maximised under the proposals. Consideration should be given to the laying of wildflower turfs, comprising locally appropriate native species, to establish wildflower grassland. This would ensure rapid establishment of these habitats and reduce the timeframe for delivering the range of ecological benefits that are proposed.
Hedgehog
6.2.5 EE4 – Hedgehog Cut-outs & Nest Domes. To maintain connectivity throughout the site for Hedgehog and other small mammals and to allow access to suitable foraging habitat contained within residential gardens, small holes (13cmx13cm) should be provided within garden fences or under gates. It is also recommended that Hedgehog nest domes be installed within sheltered areas, such as the existing or newly created hedgerows to provide suitable nesting and hibernation sites for this species. The Hedgehog nest domes should be positioned out of direct sunlight, in areas of dense vegetation.
Amphibians and Reptiles
6.2.6 EE5 – Habitat Enhancement. As noted above under EE1-EE3, a number of new habitats will be created under the proposals in addition to the retention of existing habitats of elevated ecological value. This will promote a more heterogeneous habitat structure that should provide increased cover for amphibians and reptiles. The expected increase in floristic diversity is also likely to increase the invertebrate biomass within the grassland, therefore providing enhanced foraging for amphibians and reptiles. Additionally, a number of hibernacula will be created within suitable habitat at the site. These should have south- facing aspects where vegetation is kept short but with denser vegetation on the north side to provide shelter and protection from predators.
Birds
6.2.7 EE6 – Bird Boxes. A number of bird nesting boxes are to be incorporated within the proposed development, thereby increasing nesting opportunities for birds at the site. Ideally, the bird boxes will have greater potential for use if sited on suitable, retained trees, situated as high up as possible. The precise number and locations of boxes should be determined by a competent ecologist, post-planning once the relevant final development design details have been approved.
Invertebrates
6.2.8 EE7 – Habitat Piles. A proportion of any deadwood arising from vegetation clearance works should be retained within the site in a number of wood piles located within areas of new planting or areas of wildflower grassland in order to provide potential habitat opportunities for invertebrate species, which in turn could provide a prey source for a range of other wildlife. In addition, the provision and management of new native landscape planting will likely provide additional opportunities for invertebrates at the site in the long term.
6.2.9 EE8 – Nectar Source. The wildflower mix will include various Bents Agrostis spp., Hawkweeds (Hieracium/Hypochoeris) and Bird’s-foot-trefoil Lotus cornulatus which will provide a larval food source and adult nectar source, respectively, for Dingy Skipper (Priority Species).
February 2021 Page|35 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Ecological Appraisal
7 Conclusions
7.1 Aspect Ecology has carried out an Ecological Appraisal of the proposed development, based on the results of a desktop study, Phase 1 habitat survey and a number of detailed protected species surveys.
7.2 Mells Valley Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is located approximately 3km south-east of the site. In order to safeguard the integrity of the SAC and maintain the favourable conservation status of Greater Horseshoe Bat a full season bat activity survey was undertaken (with an update survey also undertaken) and based on the results, a number of mitigation measures are proposed, including maintaining connectivity, implementation of a sensitive lighting scheme and provision of a suitable area of high value offset habitat within the site to be managed in perpetuity of the scheme. Following implementation of these measures, the proposals are not considered likely to result in any residual significant adverse effects on this or any other statutory or non-statutory ecological designation.
7.3 The Phase 1 habitat survey has established that the site is dominated by habitats not considered to be of ecological importance, whilst the proposals have sought to retain those features identified to be of value. Where it has not been practicable to avoid loss of habitats, new habitat creation has been proposed to offset losses, in conjunction with the landscape proposals.
7.4 The habitats within the site support several protected species, including species protected under both national and European legislation. Accordingly, a number of mitigation measures have been proposed to minimise the risk of harm to protected species, with compensatory measures proposed, where appropriate, in order to maintain the conservation status of local populations.
7.5 In conclusion, the proposals have sought to minimise impacts and subject to the implementation of appropriate avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures, it is considered unlikely that the proposals will result in significant harm to biodiversity. On the contrary, the opportunity exists to provide a number of biodiversity net gains as part of the proposals.
February 2021 Page|36
Plan 5551/ECO1
Site Location
Plan 5551/ECO2
Ecological Designations
Plan 5551/ECO3
Habitats and Ecological Features
This page has been left intentionally blank
Plan 5551/ECO4
May 2019 Bat Activity Survey Results
This page has been left intentionally blank
Plan 5551/ECO5
July 2019 Bat Activity Survey Results
This page has been left intentionally blank
Plan 5551/ECO6
September 2019 Bat Activity Survey Results
This page has been left intentionally blank
Plan 5551/ECO7
September 2020 Bat Activity Survey Results
This page has been left intentionally blank
Plan 5551/ECO8
2019 Reptile Survey Results
This page has been left intentionally blank
Photographs
Appendix 5551/1
Evaluation Methodology
Evaluation Methodology
1. The evaluation of ecological features and resources is based on professional judgement whilst also drawing on the latest available industry guidance and research. The approach taken in this report is based on that described by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) ‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland’ (2018)1.
Importance of Ecological Features
2. Ecological features within the site/study area have been evaluated in terms of whether they qualify as ‘important ecological features’. In this regard, CIEEM guidance states that “it is not necessary to carry out detailed assessment of features that are sufficiently widespread, unthreatened and resilient to project impacts and will remain viable and sustainable”.
3. Various characteristics contribute to the importance of ecological features, including:
• Naturalness; • Animal or plant species, sub-species or varieties that are rare or uncommon, either internationally, nationally or more locally, including those that may be seasonally transient; • Ecosystems and their component parts, which provide the habitats required by important species, populations and/or assemblages; • Endemic species or locally distinct sub-populations of a species; • Habitat diversity; • Habitat connectivity and/or synergistic associations; • Habitats and species in decline; • Rich assemblages of plants and animals; • Large populations of species or concentrations of species considered uncommon or threatened in a wider context; • Plant communities (and their associated animals) that are considered to be typical of valued natural/semi-natural vegetation types, including examples of naturally species- poor communities; and • Species on the edge of their range, particularly where their distribution is changing as a result of global trends and climate change.
4. As an objective starting point for identifying important ecological features, European, national and local governments have identified sites, habitats and species which form a key focus for biodiversity conservation in the UK, supported by policy and legislation. These are summarised by CIEEM guidance as follows:
Designated Sites
• Statutory sites designated or classified under international conventions or European legislation, for example World Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves, Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar sites), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA);
1 CIEEM (2018) ‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine’, Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester Page 1 of 3
• Statutory sites designated under national legislation, for example Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), National Nature Reserves (NNR) and Local Nature Reserves (LNR); • Locally designated wildlife sites, e.g. Local Wildlife Sites (LWS). Biodiversity Lists
• Habitats and species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England and Wales (largely drawn from UK BAP priority habitats and priority species), often referred to simply as Priority Habitats / Species; • Local BAP priority species and habitats.
Red Listed, Rare, Legally Protected Species
• Species of conservation concern, Red Data Book (RDB) species; • Birds of Conservation Concern; • Nationally rare and nationally scarce species; • Legally protected species.
5. In addition to this list, other features may be considered to be of importance on the basis of local rarity, where they enable effective conservation of other important features, or play a key functional role in the landscape.
Assigning Level of Importance
6. The importance of an ecological feature should then be considered within a defined geographical context. Based on CIEEM guidance, the following frame of reference is used:
• International (European); • National; • Regional; • County; • District; • Local (e.g. Parish or Neighbourhood); • Site (not of importance beyond the immediate context of the site).
7. Features of ‘local’ importance are those considered to be below a district level of importance, but are considered to appreciably enrich the nature conservation resource or are of elevated importance beyond the context of the site.
8. Where features are identified as ‘important’ based on the list of key sites, habitats and species set out above, but are very limited in extent or quality (in terms of habitat resource or species population) and do not appreciably contribute to the biodiversity interest beyond the context of the site, they are considered to be of ‘site’ importance.
9. In terms of assigning the level of importance, the following considerations are relevant:
Page 2 of 3
Designated Sites
10. For designated sites, importance should reflect the geographical context of the designation (e.g. SAC/SPA/Ramsar sites are designated at the international level whereas SSSIs are designated at the national level). Consideration should be given to multiple designations as appropriate (where an area is subject to differing levels of nature conservation designations).
Habitats
11. In certain cases, the value of a habitat can be measured against known selection criteria, e.g. SAC selection criteria, ‘Guidelines for the selection of biological SSSIs’ and the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. However, for the majority of commonly encountered sites, the most relevant habitat evaluation will be at a more localised level and based on relevant factors such as antiquity, size, species-diversity, potential, naturalness, rarity, fragility and typicalness (Ratcliffe, 1977). The ability to restore or re-create the habitat is also an important consideration, for example in the case of ancient woodland.
12. Whether habitats are listed as priorities for conservation at a national level in accordance with Sections 41 and 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006, so called ‘Habitats of Principal Importance’ or ‘Priority Habitats’, or within regional or local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) is also relevant, albeit the listing of a particular habitat under a BAP does not in itself imply any specific level of importance.
13. Habitat inventories (such as habitat mapping on the MAGIC database) or information relating to the status of particular habitats within a district, county or region can also assist in determining the appropriate scale at which a habitat is of importance.
Species
14. Deciding the importance of species populations should make use of existing criteria where available. For example, there are established criteria for defining nationally and internationally important populations of waterfowl. The scale within which importance is determined could also relate to a particular population, e.g. the breeding population of common toads within a suite of ponds or an otter population within a catchment.
15. When determining the importance of a species population, contextual information about distribution and abundance is fundamental, including trends based on historical records. For example, a species could be considered particularly important if it is rare and its population is in decline. With respect to rarity, this can apply across the geographic frame of reference and particular regard is given to populations where the UK holds a large or significant proportion of the international population of a species.
16. Whether species are listed as priorities for conservation at a national level in accordance with Sections 41 and 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006, so called ‘Species of Principal Importance’ or ‘Priority Species’, or within regional or local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) is also relevant, albeit the listing of a particular species under a BAP does not in itself imply any specific level of importance.
17. Species populations should also be considered in terms of the potential zone of influence of the proposals, i.e. if the entire species population within the site and surrounding area were to be affected by the proposed development, would this be of significance at a local, district, county or wider scale? This should also consider the foraging and territory ranges of individual species (e.g. bats roosting some distance from site may forage within site whereas other species such as invertebrates may be more sedentary).
Page 3 of 3
Appendix 5551/2
Legislation Summary
LEGISLATION SUMMARY
1. In England and Wales primary legislation is made by the UK Parliament, and in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament, in the form of Acts. The main piece of legislation relating to nature conservation in the UK is the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
2. Acts of Parliament confer powers on Ministers to make more detailed orders, rules or regulations by means of secondary legislation in the form of statutory instruments. Statutory instruments are used to provide the necessary detail that would be too complex to include in an Act itself1. The provisions of an Act of Parliament can also be enforced, amended or updated by secondary legislation.
3. In summary, the key pieces of legislation relating to nature conservation in the UK are:
• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) • Protection of Badgers Act 1992 • Hedgerows Regulations 1997 • Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act for England and Wales 2000 • Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 • Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017
4. A brief summary of the relevant legislation is provided below. The original Acts and instruments should be referred to for the full and most up to date text of the legislation.
5. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The WCA Act provides for the notification and confirmation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) identified for their flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features. The Act contains strict measures for the protection and management of SSSIs.
6. The Act also refers to the treatment of UK wildlife including protected species listed under Schedules 1 (birds), 5 (mammals, herpetofauna, fish, invertebrates) and 8 (plants).
7. Under Section 1(1) of the Act, all wild birds are protected such that is an offence to intentionally:
• Kill, injure or take any wild bird; • Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst in use* or being built; • Take or destroy an egg of any wild bird.
The nests of birds that re-use their nests as listed under Schedule ZA1, e.g. Golden Eagle, are protected against taking, damage or destruction irrespective of whether they are in use or not.
8. Offences in respect of Schedule 1 birds are subject to special, i.e. higher, penalties. Schedule 1 birds also receive greater protection such that it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly:
• Disturb any wild bird included in Schedule 1 while it is building a nest or while it is in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young; • Disturb dependent young of such a bird.
1 http://www.parliament.uk/business/bills-and-legislation/secondary-legislation/statutory-instruments/ Page 1 of 3
9. Under Section 9(1) of the Act, it is an offence to:
• Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild animal included in Schedule 5.
10. In addition, under Section 9(4) it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly:
• Obstruct access to, any structure or place which any wild animal included in Schedule 5 uses for shelter or protection; or • Disturb any wild animal included in Schedule 5 while occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose.
11. Under Section 13(1) it is an offence:
• To intentionally pick, uproot or destroy any wild plant listed in Schedule 8; or • Unless the authorised person, to intentionally uproot any wild plant not included in Schedule 8.
12. The Act also contains measures (S.14) for preventing the establishment of non-native species that may be detrimental to native wildlife, prohibiting the introduction into the wild of animals (releases or allows to escape) and plants (plants or causes to grow) listed under Schedule 9.
13. Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The Act aims to protect the species from persecution, rather than being a response to an unfavourable conservation status, as the species is in fact common over most of Britain. It should be noted that the legislation is not intended to prevent properly authorised development. Under the Act it is an offence to:
• Wilfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat* a Badger, or attempt to do so; • To intentionally or recklessly interfere with a sett# (this includes disturbing Badgers whilst they are occupying a sett, as well as damaging or destroying a sett or obstructing access to it).
the intentional elimination of sufficient foraging area to support a known social group of Badgers may, in certain circumstances, be construed as an offence
A sett is defined as “any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use by a Badger”. Natural England advice (June 2009) is that a sett is protected so long as such signs remain present, which in practice could potentially be for some time after the last actual occupation by Badger. Interference with a sett includes blocking tunnels or damaging the sett in any way
14. Licences can be obtained from the Statutory Nature Conservation Organisation (SNCO) for development activities that would otherwise be unlawful under the legislation, provided there is suitable justification. The SNCO for England is Natural England.
15. Hedgerows Regulations 1997. ’Important’ hedgerows (as defined by the Regulations) are protected from removal (up-rooting or otherwise destroying). Various criteria specified in the Regulations are employed to identify ‘important’ hedgerows for wildlife, landscape or historical reasons.
16. Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act for England and Wales 2000. The CRoW Act provides increased measures for the management and protection of SSSIs and strengthens wildlife enforcement legislation. Schedule 12 of the Act amends the species provisions of the WCA 1981, strengthening the legal protection for threatened species. The Act also introduced a duty on Government to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity and maintain lists of species and habitats for which conservation steps should be taken or promoted, in accordance with the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Page 2 of 3
17. Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Section 41 of the NERC Act requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of habitats and species that are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. The S41 list is used to guide decision-makers such as local planning authorities, in implementing their duty under Section 40 of the Act, to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in England, when exercising their normal functions. 56 habitats and 943 species of principal importance are included on the S41 list. These are all the habitats and species in England that were identified as requiring action in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP).
18. Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). The Regulations enact the European Union's Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) in the UK. The Habitats Directive was designed to contribute to the maintenance of biodiversity within member states through the conservation of sites, known in the UK as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), containing habitats and species selected as being of EC importance (as listed in Annexes I and II of the Habitats Directive respectively). Member states are required to take measures to maintain or restore these natural and semi-natural habitats and wild species at a favourable conservation status.
19. The Regulations also require the compilation and maintenance of a register of European sites, to include SACs and Special Protection Areas (SPAs)2 classified under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the Birds Directive). These sites constitute the Natura 2000 network. The Regulations impose restrictions on planning decisions likely to significantly affect SPAs or SACs.
20. The Regulations also provide protection to European Protected Species of animals that largely overlaps with the WCA 1981, albeit the provisions are generally stricter. Under Regulation 43 it is an offence, inter alia, to:
• Deliberately capture, injure or kill any wild animal of a European Protected Species; • Deliberately disturb any wild animals of any such species, including in particular any disturbance likely to impair their ability to survive, to breed or reproduce, to rear or nurture their young, to hibernate or migrate, or which is likely to affect significantly their local distribution or abundance; • Deliberately take or destroy the eggs of such an animal; • Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal.
21. Similar protection is afforded to European Protected Species of plants, as detailed under Regulation 47.
22. The Regulations do provide a licensing system that permits otherwise illegal activities in relation to European Protected Species, subject to certain tests being fulfilled.
2 Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are protected sites classified in accordance with Article 4 of the EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC) (aka the Birds Directive), which came into force in April 1979. SPAs are classified for rare and vulnerable birds (as listed on Annex I of the Directive), and for regularly occurring migratory species. Page 3 of 3
Appendix 5551/3
Bat Habitat Metric Assessment
Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross, Somerset (ECO5551)
Bat Habitat Metric Assessment
Date: 16 February 2021
1. Introduction and Background
1.1. Gladman Developments Ltd is seeking planning permission for land at Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross, Somerset, hereafter referred to as ‘the site’. The site is proposed for development of up to 95 dwellings with associated access, infrastructure and open space.
1.2. The site lies within ‘Band C’ of the Mells Valley Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Bat Consultation Zone, as defined by the Mendip District Council Bat SAC Guidance on Development (version 2.1 May 2019) 1, indicating that the development proposals could potentially adversely affect commuting or foraging habitat used by bats from the SAC (i.e. Greater Horseshoe Bats) and therefore has the potential to adversely affect the Favourable Conservation Status of Greater Horseshoe Bats.
1.3. The County Ecologist has advised that should Greater Horseshoe Bats be present at the site, a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the proposals will be required in order assess the impact of the proposals on the integrity of the SAC and the Favourable Conservation Status of Greater Horseshoe Bat. An HRA must be undertaken by the competent authority, in this case Mendip District Council, however this is typically informed by information provided by the applicant. On this basis this document sets out the results of the bat survey work and subsequent Bat Habitat Metric Assessment to assist Mendip District Council.
1.4. A full season of bat activity surveys comprising walked transect surveys and automated static detector surveys, was conducted at the site in 2019, with one survey in spring (May) on survey in summer (July) and one survey in autumn (September). An update bat activity survey was also undertaken in September 2020. The bat activity surveys found low numbers of Greater Horseshoe Bat to be commuting2 through the site with comparatively higher numbers of Lesser Horseshoe Bat registrations indicating that both these species commutes and occasionally forage within the site. The unmitigated loss of habitats within the site therefore has the potential to adversely impact the integrity of the SAC and the Favourable Conservation status of Greater Horseshoe Bats. As such, in accordance with the SAC Guidance, Aspect Ecology has utilised the Somerset Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) Calculator (v6) to calculate the value of the habitats within the site to Horseshoe Bats. As a result, the area of replacement high quality habitat required in order to mitigate the loss of suitable habitats within the site and thereby safeguard the integrity of the Mells Valley SAC has also been calculated.
1.5. A summary of the results of the HEP calculation as well as a justification of the choice of habitat definitions, density band modifier, and delivery/temporal risk factors is provided below.
1 Mendip District Council (2019) Mendip District bat Special Areas of Conservation (SAC): guidance on development, Version 2.1 2 Definition of commuting: “Call sequences with a negative minute on either side (i.e. a minute in which the species was not recorded) are judged to be commuting contacts, whereas contacts in two consecutive minutes or more are judged to be foraging contacts. ‘Foraging’ is defined as 6 or more such minutes over any three nights in the five nights on any one automated detector during the recording period”; Mendip District Council (2019) Mendip District bat Special Areas of Conservation (SAC): guidance on development, Version 2.1
Aspect Ecology ● Hardwick Business Park ● Noral Way ● Banbury ● OX16 2AF ● Tel: 01295 279721 ● www.aspect-ecology.com Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Somerset
2. HEP Assessment
2.1. The information obtained from the Phase 1 habitat survey (pre-development – as set out within the February 2021 Ecological Appraisal) has been input into the most up-to-date version of the Somerset HEP Calculator. This enables the pre-development value of the habitats within the site to Horseshoe Bats to be measured in ‘habitat units’ and enables calculation of the area of replacement habitat required to offset the loss of existing habitats to the development proposals. The Habitats and Ecological Features Plan 5551/ECO3 showing existing on-site habitats has been appended for ease of reference.
2.2. The following sections reference, justify and discuss the habitat categories and their matrix, formation and management codes chosen from the Lesser Horseshoe Bat Habitat Suitability Index list provided in Appendix 2 of the SAC Guidance.
2.3. Horseshoe Bat Species
2.4. Lesser Horseshoe Bat activity recorded at the site was relatively higher than that of Greater Horseshoe Bat. It is therefore considered that development of the site is likely to have a greater impact on Lesser Horseshoe Bat than Greater Horseshoe Bat. Accordingly, Lesser Horseshoe Bat HSI score were selected for use in the HEP calculation, unless using the HSI score for Greater Horseshoe Bat would return a higher value. Given the similar habitat requirements of both Horseshoe Bat species and the lower level of impact anticipated on Greater Horseshoe Bat, it is considered that the replacement habitat provision calculated to safeguard Lesser Horseshoe Bat will also be more than sufficient to safeguard Greater Horseshoe Bat.
Existing Site Habitats (Pre-development)
2.5. Field F1 and Field F2 – ‘GI0 Improved grassland’ – Management ‘GM14 mixed grazing’. The grassland fields which comprise the vast majority of the site have been attributed to this category. The survey work undertaken by Aspect Ecology found the grassland to be species-poor improved grassland, with an average of approximately 5 species per m2, less than 10% herb cover and dominated by rye-grass. Evidence of grazing by cattle, horses and sheep was recorded during the surveys undertaken in 2019 and 2020.
2.6. Hedgerows H1 and H3 – ‘LF11Z Non-important hedgerows, Uncut without standards’. The hedgerows located at the south-western (H1) and north-eastern (H3) boundaries are species- poor hedgerows without standard trees. The hedgerows are unlikely to qualify as ecologically ‘important’ under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, based on the number of woody species and associated features. As such the hedgerows have been attributed to the category ‘LF11Z non- important hedgerows’. Both hedgerow H1 and H3 are managed as ‘LM22 uncut hedge without standards’. Both hedgerows appear to be subject to infrequent top and face-management resulting in dense hedgerows approximately 2m – 3m in height and 1m – 2m wide. Hedgerow H1 is approximately 102m long and connects to a hedgerow at each end. There are no standard trees within hedgerow H1. Hedgerow H3 is approximately 73m long, does not connect to any further hedgerows and contains no standard trees along its length.
2.7. Hedgerows H2 and H4 – ‘L11Z Non-important hedgerows, Uncut with standards’. The hedgerow at the centre of the site (H2) and at the eastern boundary (H4) comprise species-poor hedgerows. The hedgerows are unlikely to qualify as ecologically ‘important’ under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, based on the number of woody species and associated features. As such, the hedgerows have been attributed to the category ‘LF11Z non-important hedgerows’. Both hedgerow H2 and H4 have been attributed to the management category ‘LM21 uncut with standards’. Both hedgerows appear to be subject to infrequent box management resulting in
5551 BN1 Bat Habitat Metric Assessment dv1 2 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Somerset
dense hedgerows approximately 2m – 3m tall and 2m – 4m wide. Hedgerow H2 is approximately 171m long and continues off-site to the south, connecting with H1 and an additional hedgerow off-site to the south. Hedgerow H4 is approximately 71m long and does not connect with any further off-site hedgerows. Both hedgerow H2 and H4 contain several semi-mature to mature standard trees along their length.
2.8. Hedgerows H1 and H4 are fully retained under the proposals and therefore do not require replacement habitat creation. Accordingly, whilst they have been included in the HEP to ensure all habitats within the site are accounted for, they have been omitted from the calculation of replacement habitat required by manually inputting their Habitat Unit scores as ‘0’.
2.9. The result of the HEP calculation shows that 11.21 habitat units are to be lost to the proposed development. The HEP calculation therefore shows that the creation of 0.62ha of optimal Lesser Horseshoe Bat foraging habitat is required to compensate for the loss of the on-site habitats.
Habitat Creation (Post-development)
2.10. When creating new habitats it is not possible to create them instantaneously or guarantee completely successful establishment. Therefore, to account for these temporal and delivery risks it is necessary to create larger areas of compensatory habitat than theoretically required in order to ensure that creation of at least the minimum requirement is achieved. The HEP calculations account for this by applying temporal and delivery risk modifiers when calculating the value of new habitats, based on how long it will take each new habitat to reach target condition and how hard it is to establish. In so doing, the HEP calculates the value of the replacement habitat in ‘equivalent hectares’ of optimal habitat so that the likely net gain / deficit in optimal habitat at the site can be calculated. The habitats and areas required to achieve at least 0.62ha of optimal habitat post-development are set out below, along with justification for the temporal and delivery risk factors chosen.
2.11. Species-rich long sward grassland with scattered scrub and trees. A minimum 0.7ha area of species-rich wildflower grassland will be created as part of the proposals by retaining and enhancing existing grassland at the south of the site. The existing scheme layout allows for up to 1.3ha of species-rich wildflower grassland creation at the south of the site and at hedgerow margins. The grassland will be managed to produce a long sward to support an abundance of Noctuid moths, one of the main prey items hunted by Greater Horseshoe Bat in addition to micromoths, gnats and midges which are favoured by Lesser Horseshoe Bat. The grassland seed mix will include moth food plants such as Dock Rumex sp., Hawkweeds Hieracium sp., Plantains Plantago sp., Chickweed Stellaria media, Fat Hen Chenopodium album and Mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum as well as a number of other herbs and grasses. The new grassland will be located adjacent the retained hedgerows and not subject to artificial lighting, such that it is accessible to the Horseshoe Bat population. For the purposes of the HEP replacement habitat calculation, it is assumed that the grassland will take up to five years to reach target condition. In addition, the delivery risk for this habitat is assessed as ‘low’, on the assumption that the existing species- poor grassland habitat where the new wildflower grassland is to be created can be largely retained and enhanced.
2.12. Woodland. Approximately 0.28ha of native broadleaved woodland will be created at the south of the site as part of the proposals. The new woodland will comprise a variety of native trees, shrubs and rough grassland, with trees and shrubs planted in naturalistic non-linear patterns. Once established, the woodland will not be coppiced. The new woodland will be located adjacent to hedgerows and wildflower grassland and not subject to artificial lighting, such that it is accessible to Horseshoe Bats. For the purposes of the HEP calculation, it is assumed that the
5551 BN1 Bat Habitat Metric Assessment dv1 3 Chilcompton, Naish’s Cross Somerset
woodland will take approximately 15 years to reach target condition and that the delivery risk for this habitat is ‘medium’.
2.13. Hedgerows. Approximately 530m of new hedgerows are to be created as part of the proposals. The new hedgerows will comprise entirely of native species, with sufficient diversity to be considered species-rich (more than 7 species per 30m). The new hedgerows will receive ongoing sensitive management to encourage tall dense growth, which is of greatest value to Horseshoe Bats. The hedgerows will be located at the western, northern and southern boundaries, connecting with the existing retained hedgerows, and not subject to artificial lighting, such that they are accessible to the Horseshoe Bat population. For the purposes of the HEP replacement habitat calculation, it is assumed that the hedgerows will take up to 10 years to reach target condition and that the delivery risk for this habitat is ‘low’.
HEP Gain / Deficit Score
2.14. The HEP calculator shows that the proposed new habitat creation provides a total of 1.16 Equivalent Hectares, resulting in an overall net gain for the proposals of +0.54 Equivalent Hectares.
3. Summary & Conclusion
3.1. In order to mitigate the loss of suitable habitat for Horseshoe Bats within the site and thereby safeguard the integrity of the Mells Valley SAC, a Somerset Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) calculation has been carried out. The HEP calculator shows that 0.62ha of optimal Greater Horseshoe Bat foraging and commuting habitat will need to be provided by the proposed development in order to achieve no net loss. As detailed above, the Development Framework Plan includes sufficient new habitat creation to provide a total of 1.16ha Equivalent Hectares, comprising 1.3ha of wildflower grassland, approximately 0.28ha of woodland planting and approximately 530m of hedgerow, which will reach target condition within 5-10 years. As such, the proposals will provide a net gain in Greater Horseshoe Bat habitat of 0.54 Equivalent Hectares. The proposals include a total of 1.81ha of public open space and therefore ample space for the compensatory bat habitat to be provided.
3.2. In conclusion, subject to the final scheme design and construction footprint, the proposals will be able to deliver over the HEP calculated requirements for habitat thereby providing a net gain in Horseshoe Bat habitat at the site and thus safeguarding the Favourable Conservation Status of Greater Horseshoe Bat and the integrity of the Mells Valley SAC. As such, it is considered that the development fully accords with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), and that there is no reason, in terms of European designations, that the proposed development cannot proceed, subject to planning.
Appendices:
Appendix 1 – Completed HEP Calculator
Appendix 2 – 5551/ECO3 Habitats and Ecological Features Plan
5551 BN1 Bat Habitat Metric Assessment dv1 4
Appendix 1
Completed HEP Calculator
Existing Habitat
Management / Land Primary Habitat Matrix Formation use Field No Habitat Code Score Code Score Code Score Code Score HSI Score Density Band Score Hectares Habitat Units Species / Notes Band F1 Improved Grassland, grazed GI0 3 0 1.00 GM14 0.80 2.40 1.0 1.873 4.50 C F2 Improved Grassland, grazed GI0 3 0 1.00 GM14 0.80 2.40 1.0 2.6766 6.42 C
H1 Non-important Hedgerows, Uncut without standards LF11Z 5 0 1.00 LM22 0.80 4.00 1.0 0.0153 0.00 Habitat units set to 0 as habitat retained C
H2 Non-important Hedgerows, Uncut with standards LF11Z 5 0 1.00 LM21 0.90 4.50 1.0 0.0513 0.23 C H3 Non-important Hedgerows, Uncut without standards LF11Z 5 0 1.00 LM22 0.80 4.00 1.0 0.0146 0.06 C
H4 Non-important Hedgerows, Uncut with standards LF11Z 5 0 1.00 LM21 0.90 4.50 1.0 0.0213 0.00 Habitat units set to 0 as habitat retained C 0.00 C 0.00 C 0.00 C 0.00 C 0.00 C 0.00 C 0.00 C 4.6521 Habitat Units 11.21 Equivalent Hectares Required 0.62
Value from 'Replacement Habitat' worksheet Equivalent Hectares Provided 1.16
Note: Where there is significant residual replacement habitat that cannot be accommodated within the proposed If required, Value from Receptor Habitat Equivalent Hectares of Existing Habitat on Receptor 0.00 development site off site enhancement will be needed. The amount required will be increased by the value of the Worksheet existing habitat on the receptor site (see A5.54 in the Technical Guidance) If deficit then further input is required into either Gain/ Deficit 0.54 'Replacement Habitat' and/or Off-site Replacement Habitat' worksheets until an equal or gain is provided. (Non-significant amounts of loss need to be agreed with planning authority ecologist) Replacement Habitat Primary Habitat Matrix Formation Management / Spatial Risk Replacement Development Site Band Habitat IHS Code Score Code Score Code Score Code Score HSI Score Hectares Delivery Risk Temporal Risk Site Band Score Score Equivalent Hectares Species-rich long sward grassland with scattered scrub and trees 6 0 1.00 1.00 6.00 1.300 0.92 0.84 1.0 1.0 5.98 Woodland WB0 6 0 WF1 1.00 WG4 0.50 3.00 0.280 0.67 0.59 1.0 1.0 0.33 Hedgerows 6 0 1.00 1.00 6.00 0.129 1.00 0.84 1.0 1.0 0.65 1.709 Value of Habitat Provided in Hectares 1.161
Appendix 2
5551/ECO3 Habitats and Ecological Features Plan
This page has been left intentionally blank