PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL A PPRAISAL
CLIENT: SHEPWAY DISTRICT COUNCIL
PRINCES PARADE HYTHE, KENT
REF: 3609_RP_001
STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
DOCUMENT CREATED: 28/09/2015
LLOYD BORE LTD 33 ST GEORGES PLACE CANTERBURY KENT CT1 1UT
Tel: 01227 464 340 Fax: 01227 464 341
[email protected] www.lloydbore.co.uk
1 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 2. INTRODUCTION ...... 4 Instruction ...... 4 Scope of works ...... 4 Assessment objectives ...... 4
3. SITE LOCATION ...... 5
4. METHOD ...... 6 Survey method ...... 6 Desk study ...... 6 Assessment and evaluation ...... 6 Zone of influence ...... 7 Survey limitations ...... 7
5. RESULTS ...... 8 Designated sites...... 8 Habitats of principal importance...... 8 Other habitats ...... 8 Invertebrates (including white-clawed crayfish) ...... 9 Great crested newts and other amphibians ...... 9 Reptiles ...... 9 Birds ...... 9 Water voles ...... 10 Hazel dormouse ...... 10 Badger ...... 10 Otter ...... 10 Bats ...... 10 Other mammals ...... 10
6. PHOTOGRAPHS ...... 11
7. HABITAT PLAN ...... 12 8. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 13 Designated sites...... 13 Habitats of principal importance...... 13 Flora ...... 14
28/09/2015 2 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
Invertebrates (including white-clawed crayfish) ...... 14 Great crested newts and other amphibians ...... 14 Reptiles ...... 15 Birds ...... 15 Water voles ...... 15 Hazel dormouse ...... 15 Badger ...... 16 Otter ...... 16 Bats ...... 16 Other mammals ...... 16
9. ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENT MEASURES ...... 17
10. REFERENCES ...... 18
11. APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF WILDLIFE LEGISLATION AND NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY ...... 20
12. APPENDIX 2 - HABITAT PLAN (LARGER VERSION) ...... 24
Author David W. Smith BSc (Hons), PhD, MCIEEM
28/09/2015 3 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S.1 There are no existing development proposals and further survey work is required. Therefore this report is only intended to inform the emerging development proposals and should not be submitted to planning.
S.2 Further surveys should be conducted prior to planning submission. The precise scope of the works may vary dependent on the response to an Environmental Impact Assessment scoping report. At this initial stage, surveys should include:-
• A detailed botanical survey. This should focus on the semi-improved maritime grassland between the site and Princes Parade, as well as the marginal vegetation associated with the Royal Military Canal. Sample areas within the main site should also be subject to further work, although these are likely to be of much lower botanical value. Surveys should be conducted in June or July; • A habitat assessment of the site by a specialist invertebrate ecologist. This work should be conducted in the period mid-April to the end of May;
• Assuming a formal Environmental Impact Assessment is required, further survey work of the Royal Military Canal for common toad is recommended. This is a Species of Principal Importance and as such their presence (or otherwise) may be a material consideration in planning. If toad is present it will be important to establish the ecological value of the adjacent canal for breeding toad, and therefore the potential value of the development site for toad;
• A reptile survey to establish whether reptiles are present on site and if so, the associated species and size of population. These should be conducted in the period April to September (inclusive), and ideally in the optimum survey months of April, May or September;
• A breeding bird survey. This should use territory mapping techniques to establish the value of the site for breeding birds. A minimum of five survey visits should be conducted between the start of April and end of June. The surveys should also determine whether kingfisher, which is listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, is breeding adjacent to the site on the Royal Military Canal;
• Bat activity surveys of the Royal Military Canal to assess its value for foraging and commuting bats. This may comprise bat transects and/or the use of static recorders between May and September. The initial scope of works is likely to require monthly surveys between May and September; and
• A walkover of the site between December and February (inclusive) to look for signs of burrowing mammals. This will address the survey limitations associated with the initial survey because at this time of year the vegetation will be less dense, and as a consequence it will be easier to record field signs of burrowing mammals.
S.3 This report contains further details of ecological avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measurements and as such it should be read in full.
28/09/2015 4 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
2. INTRODUCTION
INSTRUCTION 2.1. Lloyd Bore Ltd was instructed to conduct a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal of land at Princes Parade, Hythe, Kent. Approximate centre TR 18339 34792.
SCOPE OF WORKS 2.2. In accordance with the report guidance produced by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM, 2015), this Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has been produced to inform the project team of potential ecological risks, opportunities and the potential need for further survey work. 2.3. The instruction included a biological records search by the Kent Reptile and Amphibian Group, a site visit and a report to inform the emerging development proposals. At the time of the report, the biological records from the Kent and Medway Biological Records Centre (KMBRC) had not yet been received.
2.4. The scope of works did not include any specific protected species surveys, associated reports or production of mitigation documents.
ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES 2.5. The objectives of the survey and report are to:-
• Record the existing habitats on site;
• Identify habitats and/or structures that have potential to support legally protected species;
• Make recommendations, if required, for further protected species surveys, avoidance measures, mitigation or, if necessary, compensation measures;
• Identify statutory and non-statutory designated sites within the potential zone of influence of the proposed development;
• Determine the ecological value of the site where it is possible to do so; and
• Identify potential enhancement measures that could improve the ecological value of the site for priority habitats and species.
28/09/2015 5 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
3. SITE LOCATION
Fig. 1: Site location plan showing water bodies within 250m of the site boundary. Some of the water bodies indicated have been identified as residential garden ponds through the use of aerial images. Therefore, these may no longer be in existence.
28/09/2015 6 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
4. METHOD
SURVEY METHOD 4.1. The survey was conducted on 14th September 2015 by David W. Smith BSc (Hons), PhD, MCIEEM.
4.2. The site is south of the Royal Military Canal and north of Princes Parade. Hythe Imperial Golf Course lies to the west and Sandgate to the east.
4.3. The survey comprised a site walkover and ecological assessment of habitats. Vegetation was classified according to the standardised habitat descriptions (JNCC 2003; 2010). However, habitat descriptions were adapted when it was considered that these better described the habitats on site.
4.4. The survey included an assessment of the potential of the site to support legally protected species. ARG UK (2010) Advice note 5: Great crested newt habitat suitability index (ARG (UK), 2010) and Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines (BCT, 2012) have been used to assess the likelihood that animals will be present.
4.5. Any evidence or known occurrence of invasive plant species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981 (as amended), for example Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), were noted. However, the scrub was dense and therefore further botanical survey work, at a more optimum time of year, is recommended.
DESK STUDY 4.6. A data search was undertaken by the Kent and Medway Biological Records Centre (KMBRC) of land within 1km of the site. A search radius of 5km was used for the bat records data search. This data has not yet been received.
4.7. The Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website was used to obtain information about statutory designated sites of international value, such as Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Ramsar Sites, within 6km of the survey site. The search area radius was reduced to 2km for sites of national value, such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
4.8. The Kent Wildlife Trust (website) web map was used to obtain information about non-statutory designated sites, such as Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) within 1km of the survey site.
ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION 4.9. The ecological assessment has been conducted in broad accordance with the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal guidelines (CIEEM, 2013). The report broadly follows the CIEEM 2015 report guidance.
4.10. Where possible, the evaluation of ecological features has followed industry standard guidelines (IEEM, 2006).
4.11. Habitat criteria listed in best practice guidelines for individual species or species groups, such as Oldham et al., (2000), ARG (2010) and BCT (2012), have been used to assess the suitability of habitats to support protected and/or priority species.
4.12. Any trees present are classified according to BCT guidelines (2012) with regard their potential to support roosting bats.
4.13. Where best practice guidelines are unavailable or unclear, experienced ecologists have used their judgement to categorise the suitability of habitats to support protected or priority species.
28/09/2015 7 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
4.14. The need and scope for further protected species surveys has been determined on the basis of the suitability of the habitats to support protected species, the potential impacts of the proposed development and the nature of the legal protection afforded to the species most likely to be present.
4.15. Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 has been used to identify habitats and species considered to be of conservation priority on a national scale. These are also called Habitats or Species of Principal Importance. The value of these habitats and species are recognised in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and may be a material consideration in planning.
4.16. Although it does not offer any legal protection, The Birds of Conservation Concern 3 (2009) provides guidance on the conservation status of UK bird species. Thus it can be used to inform judgements on the ecological value of bird populations and the habitats that they rely on, particularly at a local level. Red status species are those species of highest conservation concern and green status species are those of low or no conservation concern. Amber status species are those species of some conservation concern.
4.17. A summary of relevant wildlife legislation and national planning policies can be found in Appendix 1.
4.18. Preliminary Ecological Appraisals are generally for internal project use, and should not be submitted to planning until the further survey work has been conducted.
ZONE OF INFLUENCE 4.19. The potential impact of a development is not always limited to the boundaries of the site concerned. The area over which a development may impact ecologically valuable receptors is known as the Zone of Influence (ZoI).
4.20. The ZoI is determined by the source/type of impact, a potential pathway for that impact and the location and sensitivity of the ecologically valuable receptor beyond the boundary.
4.21. The scale and nature of the development proposals are unknown at present and therefore the associated ZoI is unknown. As the development proposals emerge, the likely extent of the ZoI can be better determined.
SURVEY LIMITATIONS 4.22. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal provides an initial view of the likelihood of protected and priority species occurring on site. This is based on the suitability of the habitat, any previous surveys of the site and any direct evidence of presence. The initial survey does not constitute a full and definite survey of any protected species group and is only valid at the time the survey was undertaken. 4.23. The dense vegetation severely limited access to large areas of the site. However to address this limitation an additional walkover for burrowing mammals has been recommended between December and February (inclusive). In addition survey work has been recommended for other species groups. As a consequence this is not considered to be a significant limitation.
4.24. At the time of the report, the records from the biological records centre had not yet been received.
4.25. Only biological records within the last 10 years have been used unless they are likely to be of particular value in the assessment of the sites potential ecological value.
4.26. The survey and ecological appraisal are considered to provide a robust assessment of the site’s ecological conditions and therefore suitable to fulfil the aims of the report.
28/09/2015 8 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
5. RESULTS
DESIGNATED SITES
Statutory protected sites
5.1. The Folkestone to Etchinghill Escarpment SAC and SSSI is approximately 3.4km north of the site.
5.2. Whilst Kent Wildlife Trust raised a concern about the site's position in relation to Dungeness and Sandwich Bay Special Protection Areas (SPA), the site is not likely to function as a stopover point for the associated bird species.
5.3. Seabrook Stream SSSI is c 1.5km to the north of the site.
Non-statutory protected sites
5.4. The Royal Military Canal LWS is adjacent and north of the development site. 5.5. Paraker Wood and Seabrook Stream LWS is also within 1km of the development site.
HABITATS OF PRINCIPAL IMPORTANCE 5.6. There are no Habitats of Principal Importance within the development site.
5.7. The Royal Military Canal is immediately adjacent to the site, and is a Habitat of Principal Importance. The canal is also classified as a main water course by the Environment Agency.
OTHER HABITATS 5.8. The site is dominated by a matrix of tall ruderal vegetation, low bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg) scrub and patches of taller scrub that is dominated by willow (Salix sp) and elder (Sambucus nigra). Common nettle (Urtica dioica) dominates large areas of the tall ruderal vegetation. In combination, these habitats are likely to smoother and outcompete plant species of great botanical value.
5.9. No evidence of open, bare friable soil was observed, and therefore the site is likely to be of negligible value for scarce annual plant species that might usually be associated with maritime grasslands.
5.10. A narrow strip of semi-improved maritime grassland approximately 6m in width lies between the main site and Princes Parade. Some of the grass strip is well managed, whilst the edge closer to the tall ruderal vegetation and low level scrub is less intensively managed. As a consequence the sward is taller in this area. Kent Wildlife Trust in their letter dated 23rd July 2013 has suggested further survey work is conducted of this maritime grassland habitat. 5.11. Kent Wildlife Trust also suggests that fixed sand dune habitat occurs adjacent to and potentially within the site.
5.12. There is a well-managed grass footpath approximately 3-4m in width between the site and the Royal Military Canal. There is a strip of dense marginal vegetation approximately 2-3m in width between the footpath and canal.
5.13. A hard standing footpath runs north-south through the centre of the site. This path spans the Royal Military Canal via a footbridge (see Photo 1). Another footbridge crosses the canal to the west of this (see Photo 2).
5.14. There is a dry ditch on the southern boundary of the site, and the topography of the main site varies considerably across its area.
28/09/2015 9 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
INVERTEBRATES (INCLUDING WHITE-CLAWED CRAYFISH) 5.15. The habitats on site are likely to be of low ecological value for invertebrates. The vegetation is tall and dense, with little variation in structure or composition. However the site's geographic location and its close proximity to the sea and the Royal Military Canal may increase its value for terrestrial invertebrates. 5.16. The site does not provide suitable habitat for white-clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes).
5.17. The adjacent Royal Military Canal is outside of the known Kent distribution of white-clawed crayfish (Kent Biodiversity Partnership, 2004) and therefore this species is unlikely to be present.
GREAT CRESTED NEWTS AND OTHER AMPHIBIANS 5.18. Data obtained from KRAG (2015) indicates that frog (Rana temporaria) and toad (Bufo bufo) have been recorded within c. 1km of the site. Furthermore toad has been recorded within the Royal Military Canal.
5.19. Data obtained from KRAG (2015) indicates the closest 'recent' record of great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) is located 2.38km from the site. There are closer historical records.
5.20. Using data obtained from the relevant OS map and online tools eight water bodies have been identified within 250m of the site (see Figure 1, Section 3).
5.21. The adjacent Royal Military Canal supports populations of fish and therefore this is unlikely to provide suitable breeding habitat for great crested newt. Furthermore, whilst the tall ephemeral and scrub habitat potentially provides high quality terrestrial habitat for amphibians, given the site's juxtaposition in relation to the sea, the Royal Military Canal and the urban conurbation of Hythe the likelihood of great crested newt occurring on site is considered to be low.
5.22. The Royal Military Canal may however provide breeding habitat for amphibians, such as common toad, that are better able to tolerate fish populations. In addition the terrestrial habitats within the site are potentially of high quality for common toad.
REPTILES 5.23. Data obtained from KRAG (2015) indicates slow worm (Anguis fragilis) and common lizard (Zootoca vivipara) have been recorded within 1km of the site. Grass snake (Natrix natrix) is also known to use the Royal Military Canal.
5.24. The site potentially provides moderate to high quality habitat for reptiles.
BIRDS 5.25. The site provides suitable breeding habitat for birds.
5.26. During the site visit house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and dunnock (Prunella modularis) were recorded using the site. A previous survey conducted by URS (2012) also recorded song thrush (Turdus philomelos). All these species are listed as Species of Principal Importance.
5.27. Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) was also recorded during the site visit on 22nd September 2015. This species is listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
28/09/2015 10 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
WATER VOLES 5.28. The marginal habitat associated with the Royal Military Canal provides potentially high quality suitable habitat for water vole (Arvicola amphibius). However, the potential presence of mink (Neovison vison) is likely to reduce the likelihood of water vole occurring adjacent to the site.
HAZEL DORMOUSE 5.29. The site is outside of the known Kent distribution of hazel dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) (Young et al., in prep). 5.30. Whilst the low level scrub provides potentially suitable habitat for dormice, the site is isolated from suitable habitat by Seabrook Road and the Royal Military Canal to the north, Princes Parade and the sea to the south, a golf course to the west and Sandgate to the east. Therefore dormice are unlikely to occur on site.
BADGER 5.31. No signs indicating the presence of badger (Meles meles) were found during the survey. However, the dense vegetation may have masked field signs of this species.
OTTER 5.32. Otter (Lutra lutra) is rare in Kent and the site is well beyond the known Kent distribution of this species (Young et al., in prep). Therefore they are unlikely to be present within the adjacent Royal Military Canal.
BATS 5.33. The site does not provide suitable habitat for roosting bats.
5.34. The adjacent footbridges, which are outside of the red line site boundary and not part of the development proposals, are considered to provide negligible to low bat roosting potential.
5.35. The Royal Military Canal may provide suitable foraging and commuting habitat for bats. Kent Wildlife Trust has indicated the site is used by foraging pipistrelle and Daubenton’s bats (Myotis daubentonii).
OTHER MAMMALS 5.36. The site may be used by common and widespread mammal species such as hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) and fox (Vulpes vulpes). 5.37. Hedgehog is a Species of Principal Importance.
28/09/2015 11 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
6. PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1: Foot bridge that connects to central pathway through the site.
Photo 2: Foot bridge that lies just to the west of the site.
28/09/2015 12 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
7. HABITAT PLAN
Fig. 2: Habitat plan. A larger version is provided in Appendix 2.
28/09/2015 13 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
8. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DESIGNATED SITES
Statutory protected sites
8.1. The planning application may require a supporting habitat regulations screening assessment to ensure the planning authority has the required information for them to fulfil their legal duties under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). 8.2. The screening assessment would also provide the required information to demonstrate that the development proposals are not likely to have an adverse effect on bird populations associated with the Dungeness and Sandwich Bay SPAs. 8.3. The development proposals are not likely to impact the Seabrook Stream SSSI.
Non-statutory protected sites
8.4. The Royal Military Canal is a LWS and therefore the emerging master plan should include a minimum buffer of 8m from the top of the bank of the canal. The precise location of the top of bank should be confirmed with the Environmental Agency. This is because the canal is also a main watercourse and the Environment Agency is likely to require a buffer of at least 8m between the top of bank and construction.
8.5. Kent Wildlife Trust has indicated that it considers a buffer of 8m is inadequate. Therefore, if the emerging proposal only provides an 8m buffer it is likely this will be challenged by the trust. However, it is considered that an 8m buffer could be justified.
8.6. The emerging development proposals should ensure the Royal Military Canal remains a dark corridor for bats. Further details are provided in the associated section below.
8.7. Standard Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines should be followed to minimise the risk of ecological impacts arising from fuel or chemical spillages on the adjacent Royal Military Canal.
8.8. The development proposals are not likely to adversely affect the Paraker Wood and Seabrook Stream LWS.
HABITATS OF PRINCIPAL IMPORTANCE 8.9. There are no Habitats of Principal Importance within the site. 8.10. The 8m buffer and other recommendations above will reduce the risk of impacts to the Royal Military Canal and associated habitats. However, the project will need to examine carefully any potential off- site works that are required to facilitate development and how these might also present risks to the Royal Military Canal.
8.11. Kent Wildlife Trust has expressed a potential concern about the potential impacts on fixed sand dune and maritime grassland habitats. These potential impacts will need to be examined within the wider project team and it is likely to require input from a hydro-geologist and/or a hydrological consultant.
8.12. Direct impacts on off-site areas should be relatively easy to accommodate through the use of propped heras fencing on the site boundary to ensure direct impacts beyond the site are avoided
28/09/2015 14 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
wherever possible. However, the project will need to examine carefully any potential off-site works that are required to facilitate development and how these might affect off-site habitats.
8.13. A further investigation of on-site and off-site land use history is likely to be required so that certain concerns expressed by Kent Wildlife Trust in 2013 are examined. Whilst the trust has expressed that the site and areas to it support fixed sand dune habitats, it is also known the site was used for mineral extraction and landfill. It is therefore important to establish the precise areas associated with particular historical land use types so that these matters can be addressed during a planning application.
8.14. The development proposals should aim to create additional Habitats of Principal Importance, including new native mixed species hedgerows.
FLORA 8.15. The botanical value of the majority of the site is likely to be low because the competitive species that dominate the tall ruderal habitat, low scrub and taller scrub are likely to outcompete species of greater botanical value. However, given the nature of the habitats on the edge of the site and comments received from Kent Wildlife Trust (2013), further botanical survey work will be required before a planning application is submitted. This is of particular importance if a formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required.
8.16. The further survey work will need to determine the potential botanical value of the maritime grassland on the edge of the site. The survey should also examine the botanical value of the main site because there might be pockets of vegetation that are of greater botanical value.
8.17. The surveys should also examine the botanical composition of the marginal vegetation adjacent to the Royal Military Canal.
8.18. Botanical surveys should be conducted between June and July.
INVERTEBRATES (INCLUDING WHITE-CLAWED CRAYFISH) 8.19. Given the types of habitat that occur within the site, it is likely the site is of low value for invertebrates. However, the site's geographic position may increase the site's potential value for invertebrates. Therefore, a site walkover by a specialist invertebrate ecologist is recommended to assess the potential value of the site for invertebrates. This will be of particular importance if a formal EIA is required.
8.20. Dependent on the above assessment, further survey work might be required.
GREAT CRESTED NEWTS AND OTHER AMPHIBIANS 8.21. Great crested newts are afforded protection by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
8.22. Great crested newts are most commonly found within 250m of water bodies (English Nature, 2001, 2004; Natural England, 2013). They are less likely to be found in habitats beyond 250m. 8.23. The likelihood of newts being present in terrestrial habitat decreases as the distance from a water body increases beyond 100m. Some work has suggested that newts are rarely found in terrestrial habitat beyond 150m (Jehle and Arntsen, 2000).
8.24. Whilst the site provides potentially suitable terrestrial habitat, it is relatively isolated from potentially suitable water bodies. Furthermore, the Royal Military Canal supports fish populations and as a
28/09/2015 15 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
consequence this is unlikely to provide suitable great crested newt breeding habitat. Therefore, further great crested newt surveys are not likely to be required.
8.25. Further surveys for common toad might be required if a formal EIA is required because it will be important to establish the baseline value of the adjacent Royal Military Canal for an amphibian that is listed as a Species of Principal Importance.
8.26. In the unlikely event a great crested newt is found on or adjacent to the site prior to or during works, they should cease immediately because of the nature of the legal protection afforded to this species and a suitably qualified ecologist should be contacted for advice.
REPTILES 8.27. All four common reptile species are protected from intentional and reckless killing and injury by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Furthermore, all of these species are listed as Species of Principal Importance. 8.28. Further surveys for reptiles are recommended. These should be conducted between April and September (inclusive). Ideally these should be conducted in the optimum survey months of April, May and September. Once artificial cover objects have been placed on site, at least seven survey visits should be completed.
8.29. Dependent on the results of surveys, further avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures might be required.
BIRDS 8.30. Nesting birds, their nests and eggs are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Species of Principal Importance also use the site.
8.31. Further breeding bird surveys are recommended in order to determine the ecological value of the site for breeding birds. This is particularly important if a formal EIA is required.
8.32. Surveys should also determine whether kingfisher, a Schedule 1 listed species, is breeding in close proximity of the site.
WATER VOLES 8.33. A water vole survey is recommended.
8.34. Two visits are likely to be required. The first between April and June, and the second between July and September. 8.35. The recommended 8m buffer will also minimise the risks to water voles, should they be present adjacent to the site.
HAZEL DORMOUSE 8.36. Dormice are afforded protection by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
8.37. No further surveys are recommended.
8.38. In the unlikely event a dormouse is found on site, works should cease immediately because of the legal protection afforded to this species and a suitably qualified ecologist should be contacted for advice.
28/09/2015 16 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
BADGER 8.39. Badgers are afforded protection by the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended). 8.40. A site walkover in the period December to early February is recommended. During this time the dense vegetation on site would have died back and as a consequence it will be easier to detect signs of badger and other mammals. Dependent on the survey results, further avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures might be required.
OTTER 8.41. The site is outside of the known Kent distribution for otter. Furthermore, the recommended 8m buffer will ensure the future potential value of the Royal Military Canal for otter is retained.
8.42. No further surveys are recommended.
BATS 8.43. Further bat activity surveys of the Royal Military Canal are recommended. Ideally, these should be conducted in the period mid-May to the end of August. Assuming a formal EIA will be required, the precise scope of surveys should be determined during the scoping stage of the EIA assessment process.
8.44. The third edition of the Bat Conservation Trusts survey guidelines is likely to be published shortly. The contents of which may also determine the precise scope of future survey work.
8.45. Where security and/or health and safety constraints allow, light spillage onto potential bat foraging habitat, and in particular the Royal Military Canal, should be minimised through the use of cowled, shielded or directed external lighting. The lighting strategy and master plan should ensure the Royal Military Canal is maintained as a dark corridor, which is turn will ensure its value to bats is maintained.
8.46. In general and where possible, lighting should follow the principles outlined in Bats and Lighting in the UK (BCT, 2009).
OTHER MAMMALS 8.47. The site may be of value to common and widespread mammals, such as hedgehog and fox.
8.48. All wild mammals receive some protection by the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 (as amended) and it includes offences of crushing and asphyxiation of any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering.
8.49. If any animal burrows (excluding active badger setts) are found during site clearance or construction works, careful excavation of animals from their burrows before works commence should be sufficient to avoid an offence.
8.50. The site walkover in the period December to early February will be better able to determine the use of the site by common and widespread mammals.
28/09/2015 17 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
9. ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENT MEASURES
9.1. The proposals provide an opportunity to provide native mixed species hedgerows or shrub planting along the development boundaries. A species mix could include hawthorn (50%), field maple (30%), hornbeam (10%), guelder rose (3%), dogwood (3%), spindle (2%) and dog rose (2%) (Smith and Day, 2012). This in turn would benefit Species of Principal Importance, such as hedgehog, house sparrow, and song thrush. 9.2. The 8m buffer should aim to provide sensitively managed grassland. This will benefit terrestrial invertebrates, which in turn will provide food for amphibians, birds, and mammals. Management should include an annual cut in early autumn. The grass cuttings should ideally be collected and placed in grass piles in sheltered sunny locations on the edge of the 8m buffer zone.
9.3. The project should consider delivering potential enhancements for bats through the inclusion of new bat roosting provision on the existing footbridges across the Royal Military Canal. It is understood this might not be possible if the footbridges are not in the ownership of the council.
28/09/2015 18 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
10. REFERENCES
ARG UK (2010) Advice note 5: Great crested newt habitat suitability index. Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the United Kingdom. BCT (2012). Bat surveys: Good Practice Guidelines 2nd edition. Bat Conservation Trust, London.
Bat Conservation Trust and the Institute of Lighting Engineers (2009). Bats and Lighting in the UK: Bats and the Built Environment Series. CIEEM (2013). Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.
CIEEM (2015). Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.
Eaton MA, Brown AF, Noble DG, Musgrove AJ, Hearn R, Aebischer NJ, Gibbons DW, Evans A and Gregory RD (2009). Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds, 102, 296-341. IEEM (2006). Guidelines for ecological impact assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.
English Nature (2001). Great crested newt mitigation guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough.
English Nature (2004). An assessment of the efficiency of capture techniques and the value of different habitats for the great crested newt Triturus cristatus. Report 576. English Nature, Peterborough.
Jehle, R and Arntzen, JW (2000). 'Post-breeding migrations of newts (Triturus cristatus and T. marmoratus) with contrasting ecological requirements. Journal of Zoology, London, 251,297-306.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2003). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey - a Technique for Environmental Audit. Reprinted by JNCC, Peterborough.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey - a Technique for Environmental Audit. Revised print, JNCC, Peterborough.
Kent Biodiversity Partnership (2004). White-clawed Crayfish Factsheet http://www.kentbap.org.uk/images/uploads/White-clawed_crayfish.pdf [Accessed 28/09/2015] Kent Wildlife Trust (website). Local wildlife sites web map. https://cms.esriuk.com/tunbridgewells/Sites/KWT_External/ [Accessed 28/09/2015]
Kent Wildlife Trust (2013). Letter regarding Princes Parade project from Debbie Salmon. Multi-agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) Interactive Map. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Available from: http://magic.defra.gov.uk. [Accessed: 12/06/2015] Natural England (2008). Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006: Section 41: Habitats and Species of Principal Importance in England. Available from: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectandmanage/habsandspeci esimportance.aspx
Natural England (2013). Template for method statement to support application under Regulation (53(2)(e) in respect of great crested newts Triturus cristatus (WML-A14-2)
28/09/2015 19 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
Oldham, R.S., Keeble, J., Swan, M.J.S and Jeffcote, M (2000). Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal, 10, 143-155.
Strachan R., Moorhouse T. and Gelling M. (2011). Water Vole Conservation Handbook Edition:3.
URS (2012). Baseline Environmental Report: Draft, Work-in-progress. Young, J. S., Ryan, H., Thompson, S., Newcombe, M. and Puckett, J. (2015). Mammals of Kent.
28/09/2015 20 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
11. APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF WILDLIFE LEGISLATION AND NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY
11.1. The level of protection afforded to protected species varies dependent on the associated legislation. A full list of protected species and their specific legal protection is provided within the Schedules and/or Sections of the associated legislation. Case law may further clarify the nature of the legal protection afforded to species.
11.2. The legal protection afforded to protected species overrides all planning decisions.
European Protected Species (EPS) - and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)
11.3. European Protected Species (EPS) are afforded the highest level of protection through the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). EPS are also afforded legal protection by parts of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
11.4. There are a number of relatively common and widespread EPS. These include great crested newt, all species of UK bat, dormice and otter.
11.5. There are other species of plant and animal that are also EPS, but generally these are more scarce / rare and are restricted to narrow geographies or specific habitat types. Examples of this latter group include natterjack toad (Epidalea calamita), sand lizard (Lacerta agilis) and smooth snake (Coronella austriaca).
11.6. In general, any person and/or activity that:-
• Damages or destroys a breeding or resting place of an EPS. (This is sometimes referred to as the strict liability or absolute offence);
• Deliberately captures, injures or kills an EPS (including their eggs);
• Deliberately disturbs an EPS, and in particular disturbance likely to impair animals ability to survive, breed or nurture young, their ability to hibernate and migrate and disturbance likely to have a significant effect on local distribution and abundance;
• Intentionally or recklessly disturbs an EPS while occupying a structure or place used for shelter and/or protection (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)); and
• Intentionally or recklessly obstructs access to any structure or place that an EPS uses for shelter or protection (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)).
• …may be guilty of an offence.
11.7. The legislation applies to the egg, larval and adult life stages of great crested newts and to bat roosts even when they are not occupied.
11.8. Maximum penalties are punishable with fines up to £5,000 per offence and up to 6 months imprisonment. Actions affecting multiple animals can be construed as separate offences and therefore penalties can be applied per animal impacted.
11.9. Under certain circumstances licences can be granted by the Statutory Nature Conservation Organisation (Natural England in England) to permit actions that would otherwise be unlawful.
11.10. There are some very specific defences associated with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). However these are unlikely to apply to construction related projects. The Sections of the Regulations provide further details of these defences.
28/09/2015 21 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
11.11. The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) includes defence for those aspects of the legislation that apply to an EPS. These defences are unlikely to apply to construction related projects and do not apply to those acts included in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). The Schedules of the Act provide further details of defences. 11.12. Local authorities have obligations under sections 40 and 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006 to have regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity in carrying out their duties. The majority of EPS are listed on Section 41 the NERC Act.
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)
11.13. The level of protection afforded to species listed on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) varies considerably.
11.14. ‘Fully protected species’, such as water vole, are afforded the highest level of protection. Any person who intentionally kills, injures, or takes ‘fully protected species’, or who intentionally or recklessly damages or destroys a structure or place used for shelter and/or protection, disturbs the animal whilst occupying a structure and/or place used for shelter and protection, or obstructs access to any structure and/or place used for shelter or protection is likely to have committed an offence.
11.15. Other species, such as common reptiles, are afforded less protection and for these species it may only be an offence to intentionally or recklessly kill or injure animals.
11.16. All active bird nests, eggs and young are protected from intentional destruction. Schedule 1 listed birds are also protected from intentional and reckless disturbance whilst breeding.
11.17. Schedule 9 of The Wildlife and Countryside Act lists plant species for which it is an offence for a person to plant, or otherwise cause to grow in the wild. Schedule 9 also lists animals for which it is an offence to release into the wild.
The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended)
11.18. The Protection of Badgers Act (1992) makes it an offence to wilfully kill, injure, take or ill-treat a badger and to interfere with a sett, including damage, disturbance and obstruction.
The Protection of Mammals Act 1996 (as amended)
11.19. The Protection of Mammals Act (1996) provides protection for all wild mammals against certain cruel acts with the intention of causing unnecessary suffering, including crushing and asphyxiation.
The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (as amended)
11.20. Section 41 (S41) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006) requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of habitats and species which are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. The S41 list is used to guide decision-makers, including local and regional authorities, in implementing their duty under Section 40 of the act to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in England when carrying out their normal functions.
11.21. S41 lists 56 habitats and 943 species of principal importance.
11.22. Section 42 of the NERC Act relates to Wales.
Environment Protection Act 1990 (as amended)
11.23. Japanese Knotweed is classed as ‘controlled waste’ and if taken off site it must be disposed of safely at a licensed landfill site. Soil containing rhizome material should also be regarded as contaminated and treated accordingly.
28/09/2015 22 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
Statutory Protected Sites
11.24. Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). Ramsar sites, which are designated under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (1971), are afforded the same level of protection as SPAs and SACs via national planning policy. 11.25. Sites of Species Scientific Interest (SSSI) are afforded protection by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
11.26. National Nature Reserves (NNRs) are declared by the statutory country conservation agencies under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (as amended) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). They are managed to conserve their habitats or to provide special opportunities for scientific study of the habitats communities and species represented within them. In addition they may be managed to provide public recreation that is compatible with their natural heritage interests (JNCC website).
11.27. Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) are declared by local authorities after consultation with the relevant statutory nature conservation agency under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (as amended). LNRs are declared and managed for nature conservation, and provide opportunities for research and education, or simply enjoying and having contact with nature (JNCC website).
Non-Statutory Protected Sites
11.28. Non-statutory sites may be given various titles, including Local Wildlife Sites (LWS), Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs), Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) and County Wildlife Sites (CWS).
11.29. These sites are not normally legally protected but are recognised in the planning system and are afforded some protection through planning policy.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
11.30. In addition to primary legislation, the government published the National Planning Policy Framework on 27 March 2012 to make the planning system less complex and more accessible. Within this, Chapter 11 is headed - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment (Sections 109 to 125).
11.31. Of particular relevance are the following statements: • That the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, amongst other things, ‘ minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, .....’ (Section 109); and
• Local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting protected wildlife…will be judged (Section 113). 11.32. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles (Section 118):
• If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequate mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; and
• Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged.
28/09/2015 23 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
11.33. The presumption in favour of sustainable development (para. 14 of the Framework) does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined (Section 119).
28/09/2015 24 3609_RP_001 | PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL PRINCES PARADE STATUS: FOR INFORMATION
12. APPENDIX 2 - HABITAT PLAN (LARGER VERSION)
(Please see below)
28/09/2015
Neptune House 63
26.7m 2 Stone
1 El Sub Sta CLIFF ROAD 37.5m 1 18.4m El Sub Sta
Habitat Plan 12 6 8.1m El Sub Sta 73
17 NAILDOWN CLOSE
15 13
Half Muddell 11
House VIEW FRANCE CLOSE
Merryfold Honeywood
22
1
18 Princes Parade, Hythe, Kent 1 Bridge House Asmara South Richmond Esperanza Stone Woodland Horizons House Marine Heights El Sub Sta House 10.4m Holcombe St Catherine's Ardlechna 32.3m Dingley Dell Belle-vue Mast
The Chapel CLIFF ROAD Reservoir
Shepway District Council Cliff Lodge (covered)
17 Seabrook 12 Ppg Church White Sta The Headland House Uppergumtree FB Rydal Mount 5.7m Kenwyn 141 1 20.3m 123 143 71 125 135 157 169
119 127 133 Huron Fountain Hotel Steps Spire Saint Appletreewick Hazel Brook 107 189 Saviour's Hospital Spinnaker Lodge Stony Ridge
83 Hillcrest
CLIFF ROAD 230
5.4m 242 244 6.0m 95 222 Charenton 218 Shelter
Conyer Lea Bernina 13.2m Chartriss 256
Linden 206
House 194 LB South Winds 258
Athenree
Tree Tops 182 PCs Seabrook 260
LB 1
Gas 272 Gathorne 170 Govn The Coach House 16 El Sub Sta 5.8m 14 Cautley House 13 Stream
12 4 158 GARDENS 1
SEABROOK Seabrook
Victoria Terrace
156 SEABROOK 4 Church of
Horizon VICTORIA GROVE 87 1 SEABROOK ROAD England 81 93a Primary
8 to 14 School 93 150
8 to 14 to 8 1 to 7 91 1 to 7 to 1
77 Steetley House 6 85 Evelyn 5
Court 7 9 8 Post Royal Military Road (Cycle track) 1
SEA ROAD 6.2m SEABROOK GROVE 8 Beacon Terrace Path
5.9m 4
1 Royal Military Canal
148 (disused) 140 114
112 130
112a 128a
110a
SEABROOK ROAD 126 110
Path 102 Posts 4.8m Path
Royal Military Road (Cycle track)
Playground
Seaview Bridge (Foot) Path Path (disused) PRINCES PARADE
Promenade 4.6m Royal Military Canal SI
Royal Military Road (Cycle track)
Path Path SI
Seabrook Lodge Bridge 6.8m (Foot)
Royal Military Canal (disused) SI Path Posts ShelterSI
PRINCES PARADE
4.8m SI Promenade
Shingle
Path 6.7m
Mean High Water
SI
Shingle
Mean Low Water SI LEGEND: 6.8m Posts
PRINCES PARADE Water
Shingle Mean High Water Empheral
Shingle
Mean Low Water Scrub (Indicative locations)
Tall Ruderal
SI Semi-Improved Grassland
Amenity Grassland