Sandford Farm Ecological Appraisal

January 2018

20 Soames Place Wokingham Berkshire RG40 5AT

Registered in England and Wales Company No: 08152615 Sandford Farm Ecological Appraisal

COMMISSIONED BY Colony Architects Ltd. 250 South Oak Way, Green Park, Reading, Berkshire, RG2 6UG

Sandford Farm Ecological Appraisal

January 2018

Report Ref: DFA18003

Derek Finnie Associates Ltd 20 Soames Place Wokingham Berkshire RG40 5AT

[email protected]

Sandford Farm Ecological Appraisal

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 3 1.1 Background ...... 3 2 METHODOLOGY ...... 4 2.1 Desk Study ...... 4 2.2 Habitat survey ...... 4 2.3 Fauna ...... 4 2.4 Reptile Survey ...... 5 2.5 Survey Constraints ...... 5 3 SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 6 3.1 Desk Study ...... 6 3.2 Phase 1 Habitat Survey ...... 7 3.3 Fauna ...... 8 4 EVALUATION...... 10 4.1 Definition of ecological value ...... 10 4.2 Evaluation of the ecological resource of the site ...... 11 5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ...... 12 5.1 Predicted Impacts ...... 12 5.2 Enhancements ...... 12 6 SUMMARY ...... 13 REFERENCES ...... 14

TABLES

Table 1. Summary of Local Wildlife Sites within 2km of the Site...... 6

FIGURES

Figure 1. Phase 1 Habitat Map ...... 15

Sandford Farm Ecological Appraisal

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Derek Finnie Associates Ltd was commissioned by Colony Architects to undertake an ecological assessment of an area of land off Perimeter Road, Woodley, herein referred to as the ‘Site’. The Site, which covers approximately 0.162ha, currently supports species poor semi-improved grassland with some scattered scrub and the occasional semi-mature tree (Figure 1).

1.1.2 Colony Architects is proposing to submit a planning application to redevelop the Site into a residential development for two dwellings. Therefore, an assessment of the biodiversity resource within the Site is required to inform the planning process, assess the likely impact of the proposed development and identify areas where biodiversity enhancements can be made with the proposal.

1.1.3 The following report presents the findings of an ecological data search as well as the results of an Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey, badger survey and reptile survey undertaken across the site in September 2017. It continues with an evaluation of the ecological resource encountered within the application site and assesses the likely ecological impacts as a result of the proposal.

Sandford Farm Ecological Appraisal

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Desk Study

2.1.1 Thames Valley Records Centre was contacted for information it may hold on specially protected species, or species of a raised conservation status within a 2km radius of the site. Information on non-statutory sites designated for their conservation value within a 2km of the proposed development site was also sought.

2.1.2 The Government’s Multi- Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) database was also reviewed for the presence and extent of statutory designated sites within a similar distance, extending to 5km for Natura 2000 sites.

2.1.3 A previous assessment of the Site, undertaken in 2012 by Matthew Smith Consultant Ecologist, was also reviewed.

2.2 Habitat survey

2.2.1 An ‘extended’ Phase 1 Habitat Survey was carried out on 15th September 2017; this followed the methodology presented by the JNCC (2010). The Phase 1 technique aims to classify each habitat into categories based on the assemblage of plant species present, with the dominant plant species for each habitat being noted. In some cases, sub-divisions or modifications of the standard categories can be made where this is useful in providing further detail.

2.2.2 An ‘extended’ form of the basic methodology was employed to determine whether any notable or protected species of fauna utilise the study area, in particular badgers, bats, amphibians, reptiles and birds. In the absence of direct evidence of these species, an assessment was made on the potential for the site to support such species.

2.3 Fauna

Badger survey 2.3.1 Potential badger Meles meles habitat had been identified from analysis of aerial photography of the wider area; hence specific searches were conducted for this species. All suitable areas within the site were searched for signs of use or occupancy by badgers during the September 2017 survey.

2.3.2 Surveys aimed to locate and record field sign evidence of badger activity, including paths, push-throughs, foraging signs, latrines, prints and setts.

2.3.3 The following criteria were used when classifying any setts found (after Thornton 1988):

Main Setts: These usually have a large number of holes with large spoil heaps and generally look well used. They usually have well defined paths to and from the sett and between sett entrances. Although normally the breeding sett is in continual use all year round, it is possible to find a main sett that has become disused because of excessive disturbance.

Sandford Farm Ecological Appraisal

Annexe Setts: These are generally close to a main sett, within 50m or so, and are usually connected to the main sett by one or more obvious, well-worn paths. They consist of several holes, but are not necessarily in use all the time, even if the main sett is very active.

Subsidiary Setts: Often these have only a few holes, are usually at least 50m from a main sett, and do not have an obvious path connecting them with another sett. They are not continuously active.

Outlier Setts: These usually only have one or two holes, often have little spoil outside the hole, have no obvious path connecting them with another sett, and are only used sporadically.

2.4 Reptile Survey

2.4.1 A total of 24 refugia consisting of a mix of heavy duty roofing felt and corrugated bitumen sheets, approximately 0.5m2 were placed on Site. To maximise the efficiency of the survey the refugia were concentrated in areas which appeared to be more likely to support reptiles; principally around the edges of the Site, although care was also taken to ensure those apparently less suitable areas were also sampled. As the Site covers approximately 0.162ha, a total of 24 refugia greatly exceeds a density of 10ha-1 recommended by Froglife (1999).

2.4.2 The refugia generally heat up quicker than the surrounding environment, which makes them attractive to reptiles that need to attain a certain body temperature to hunt effectively. Thus, careful inspection of the refugia results in a more effective way to locate these often-elusive animals.

2.4.3 The refugia were placed on Site on the 14th September 2017 and allowed to ‘bed in’ for a week before the survey proper began. The refugia were then checked on seven subsequent occasions between 21st September and 7th October on suitable days, which are classified as sunny, or partially sunny days, with little or no wind and an air temperature between 8oC and 19oC.

2.4.4 In addition to checking the artificial refugia, other suitable natural basking areas around the site were carefully inspected from a short distance using Leica 10x32 BGA binoculars. This ensured that a thorough coverage of the whole site was achieved.

2.5 Survey Constraints

2.5.1 Access was available to all areas of the site, with no constraints to the survey. September is an appropriate time to carry out an extended Phase 1 survey, although species which flower earlier in the year may have been missed or under recorded. However, this is unlikely to have altered the findings of the survey significantly and confidence in the results is therefore high.

2.5.2 The survey was undertaken in line with the latest sectoral guidance from the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) and BS 42020: 2013 Biodiversity – Code of Practice for Planning and Development.

Sandford Farm Ecological Appraisal

3 SITE DESCRIPTION

3.1 Desk Study

Statutory Sites

3.1.1 No part of the Site, or the immediate surrounding area, is subject to any statutory designation on ecological grounds. Lavells Lake LNR and Alders Moor LNR lie approximately 400m to the south and 500m to the north respectively. Lodge Wood and Sandford Mill SSSI is located some 320m to the east, on the opposite of the River Loddon from the Site. The Site is outside the SSSI Impact Risk Zone for a small scale residential development.

3.1.2 There are no Natura 2000 sites within 10km of the application site.

Non-statutory Sites

3.1.3 TVERC provided information on ten Local Wildlife Sites within 2km of the Site, as summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Local Wildlife Sites within 2km of the Site.

Site name Approx. distance Reason for Designation from Twyford Ravel Pits 1.8km This site consists of two gravel pits that lie on either side of one of the channels of the River Loddon. Sandpit Copse 1.6km A small area of ash and hazel woodland with alder dominating the wetter areas around the stream that flows through the site. Whistley Mill Farm Copse 1.8km This site is a small area of woodland that lies next to the River Loddon. Alders Moor 0.7km Alder Moors is an established semi- natural broad-leaved woodland; it is also designated a Local Nature Reserve. Sandford Fen Copse 0.5km This site is largely wet woodland with some open areas of marshy habitat. In the past the site was more open but without management the woodland has increasingly taken over the site. Berkshire Aviation Museum 0.7km The site comprises raised grass verges around the museum’s car park. Norris Copse Bird Sanctuary 0.6km This site consists of a small area of ancient woodland and an area of disused gravel pits Lavells Lake 0.5km This site is a Local Nature Reserve. It lies within lies within Dinton Pastures Country Park and is the most important site for birds in the Park. Dinton Patures Country Park 0.9km The site is based around a number of old gravel pits that are managed for recreation and nature conservation.

Sandford Farm Ecological Appraisal

Site name Approx. distance Reason for Designation from Loddon River 0.3km A seventeen kilometre stretch of the River Loddon running from Swallowfield to its confluence with the River Thames near Wargrave. This section of the river has a diversity of features such as adjacent marsh, islands, inlets, riffles, river cliffs and extensive and varied channel vegetation.

3.1.4 All of the sites listed in Table 1 are outside the Zone of Ecological Impact of the proposed development.

Species of a raised conservation status

3.1.5 TVERC did not return any records of specially protected, or species or a raised conservation status, for the Site itself. There are, however, numerous records of reptiles, principally slow worm and grass snake, for the land immediately to the east of the Site, which now forms part of a residential development which is nearing completion. These records all date from 2006 and 2008, prior to the commencement of construction activities.

3.1.6 A low population of slow worm Anguis fragilis was recorded during the 2012 assessment of the Site, with a maximum count of six individuals comprising one male, three females and two sub-adults. Slow worms were only recorded on four out of the seven survey visits, with all the records being on the eastern side of the Site. The 2012 assessment suggested that the animals may be moving onto the Site from the adjacent Sandford Farm development site. It is also possible that the population recorded within the Site is a remnant from a larger population that was present within the neighbouring development prior to the commencement of construction.

3.2 Phase 1 Habitat Survey

Habitats 3.2.1 The Site comprises a small area of species poor, semi-improved grassland, with areas of continuous scrub and the occasional scattered semi-mature tree. An outgrown hedgerow runs along the western boundary.

3.2.2 The following Phase 1 habitat types were recorded within the site:

 Scattered trees;  Hedgerow;  Continuous scrub; and  Species poor, semi-improved grassland.

3.2.3 Each habitat is depicted on Figure 1 and described in turn below, along with the more prominent species being given.

Sandford Farm Ecological Appraisal

Scattered trees

3.2.4 Scattered trees are found infrequently within the Site, principally along the western side, as well as towards the south. Here oak Quercus sp. was the mostly common recorded native species, with elm Ulmus sp. and cypress Cupressus sp. also being noted.

Hedgerow

3.2.5 An outgrown hawthorn Crataegus monogyna and blackthorn Prunus spinosa hedgerow runs along the length of the western boundary of the Site. The hedgerow is species poor, comprising only hawthorn and blackthorn in the main, although the occasional standard oak is present. A small section of cypress is also present close to the existing entrance t the Site.

3.2.6 A privet Ligustrum hedge can be found forming the north-eastern boundary to the Site.

Scrub

3.2.7 Scrub, dominated by bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. has begun to colonise the central area of semi-improved grassland. Photographs from the 2012 report show this habitat to be restricted to the periphery of the Site, but by 2017 it had colonised some of the more central areas, although it is evident that much of the bramble growth has been cut back in recent months.

Species poor, semi-improved grassland

3.2.8 Species poor, semi-improved grassland forms the majority of the Site and virtually all of the development area. Perennial rye grass Lolium perenne is abundant throughout, with cock’s foot Dactylis glomerata and creeping bent Agrostis capillaris also noted. Forbes are limited within the sward, with white clover Trifolium repens, ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata, greater plantain P. major, creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens, curled dock Rumex crispus, and common nettle Urtica dioica being recorded.

3.3 Fauna

Badger 3.3.1 No evidence of badger activity was encountered within the Site. A single hole is present towards the north of the Site but this has the characteristics of a fox Vulpes vulpes den.

Reptiles 3.3.2 No reptiles were found during the 2017 survey, despite previous surveys identifying a low population of slow worm within the Site. It is possible that the previous survey identified a remnant population that may have been present on the neighbouring development site prior to the commencement of construction activity, but is no longer present.

Other fauna 3.3.3 There are no waterbodies within the Site and there appear to be none in the immediate vicinity, so there is negligible potential for terrestrial phase protected amphibians to be present within the Site.

Sandford Farm Ecological Appraisal

3.3.4 The Site is likely to support a range of common, widespread bird species typically associated with this habitat type set within a semi-rural environment.

3.3.5 Bats may forage along the hedgerow that forms the western boundary of the Site and continues along Perimeter Road. However, the Site itself offers limited foraging opportunities with none of the trees are deemed of sufficient size to support potential roosting features.

Sandford Farm Ecological Appraisal

4 EVALUATION

4.1 Definition of ecological value

4.1.1 While some level of subjectivity is unavoidable when apportioning value to ecological features and resources, certain parameters and points of reference can be used to help ensure consistency. Those used in this appraisal are explained below.

4.1.2 Sites already possessing statutory or non-statutory nature conservation designations will have been subjected to some form of evaluation process in the past, and their importance defined at a geographical scale (e.g. international, national, local). For these, evaluation will generally reaffirm their qualifying attributes, or in some cases may identify where designation may no longer be appropriate.

4.1.3 Factors such as extent, naturalness, rarity, fragility and diversity are all relevant to the determination of ecological value, and for the evaluation of sites and habitat features outside designated sites, these and other criteria as described by Ratcliffe (1977), may be applied. Ratcliffe’s criteria are integral to the procedure for selecting both Sites of Special Scientific Interest and many non-statutory designation systems in the UK, and therefore remain an accepted standard for site evaluation.

4.1.4 In applying these criteria, attention may be drawn to the relative scarcity or abundance of features within the survey area and in the wider geographical context. Some criteria are however absolute and not relative to scale. Ancient woodland, for example, is fragile irrespective of whether it is being considered in an international or local context. Similarly, the value of an otherwise poor habitat may be elevated if it is central to the survival of a rare species.

4.1.5 Where evaluation is important for the purposes of informing decisions related to land-use planning and development control, the above approach needs to be supplemented by consideration of whether individual species are subject to legal protection, or whether habitats or species are present which have been identified as ‘priorities’ for biodiversity conservation in the UK. Planning authorities have a statutory duty to further biodiversity objectives and the presence of such resources may be material to the determination of development control decisions.

4.1.6 Further indications of conservation status for individual species are provided by reference to the Red Data Book system, the Vascular Plant Red Data List for Great Britain (Cheffings and Farrell 2006) or for birds by reference to the Birds of Conservation Concern (Eaton et al. 2015) This divides birds into three lists; Red List (birds of high conservation concern), Amber List (birds of moderate conservation concern) and Green List (not of conservation concern).

4.1.7 Scales of comparison varying from the international to the context of the local area may be used to define the measure of importance attached to individual features. The definition of geographic terms can vary, but in this evaluation the geographic frame of reference contained within the CIEEM guidelines (CIEEM 2016) is used.

Sandford Farm Ecological Appraisal

4.2 Evaluation of the ecological resource of the site

Designated Sites 4.2.1 No part of the application site, or the immediate surrounding area is covered by any form of conservation designation. The nearest statutory designated site is Lodge Wood and Sandford Mill SSSI is located some 320m to the east. The Site is outside the SSSI Impact Risk Zone for a small scale residential development.

4.2.2 Ten LWS are located within 2km of the Site, but these are all likely to be outside the Zone of Ecological Influence of such a small-scale development.

Habitats 4.2.3 The semi-improved grassland, which forms the majority of the Site, is species poor; it possesses limited biodiversity value due to the nature of the sward and hence has been assessed of being of negligible conservation value. The scattered trees do possess more intrinsic ecological value. They are semi-mature and native in origin and may provide some limited foraging and breeding sites for birds. Therefore, they have assessed to be of Site value.

4.2.4 The hedgerow that forms the western boundary of the Site is species poor, comprising only three species. Nevertheless, it is still assessed as being of Site value as it is likely to provide some connectivity to the wider countryside. None of the other habitats within the Site are assessed as having any ecological value.

Species 4.2.5 No rare or uncommon species were encountered throughout the survey and the Site has been assessed as having negligible potential to support rare or uncommon species.

4.2.6 The small slow worm population that had previously been recorded within the Site has been assessed as having gone locally extinct, possibly due to the neighbouring, larger development removing the core area of habitat.

Sandford Farm Ecological Appraisal

5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

5.1 Predicted Impacts

5.1.1 The construction of the development would result in the loss of the majority of the species poor and semi-improved grassland and scrub within the Site. These habitats have been assessed as having negligible value, hence the impact would be negligible resulting in a non-significant effect.

5.1.2 The development has been designed so as to retain the majority of the semi-mature trees and the western hedgerow, hence there would be no direct impact upon these features. However, it would be necessary to remove ten trees within the Site, principally due to the poor quality of the trees in question. Only two of these, T14 and T15 (see Arboricultural Impact Assessment, S J Stephens Associates January 2018 submitted with this application for more detail), have nay ecological value, however, this is still limited due to the size of the trees in question. Due to the proportion of trees being retained, the removal of T14 and T15 has been assessed as resulting in a negligible impact upon the tree resource within the Site.

5.1.3 A small section of hedgerow along the western boundary would need to be removed to allow for the construction of the access road into the Site. This hedgerow has been assessed as being of Site value. The removal of a small section of the hedgerow is unlikely to have significant impact upon the ecological function of this feature; there is an existing gap in the hedge for the current access which would be filled in resulting in a zero-net loss of hedgerow. Hence it has been assessed as having a negligible impact resulting in a non- significant effect.

5.2 Enhancements

5.2.1 Ecological enhancements within the Site have been considered throughout the design process and will include:

 Creation/enhancement of the woodland area towards the south of the Site;  Planting of new native trees in and around the Site as part of the landscape scheme;

5.2.2 Overall, the proposed enhancements and habitat creation proposed for the scheme would result in a positive gain in the biodiversity value of the Site.

Sandford Farm Ecological Appraisal

6 SUMMARY

6.1.1 An ecological assessment of an area of land off Perimeter Road, Woodley was undertaken during September and October 2017, including an Extended Phase 1 habitat survey, desk study data search, badger survey and reptile survey.

6.1.2 The Site was found to comprise species-poor, semi-improved grassland, developing scrub with the occasional scattered trees; the Site is bordered with hedgerows. No habitats of significant ecological value were encountered, nor was there any evidence of specially protected species, or species of a raised conservation status.

6.1.3 Surveys undertaken in 2012 identified a small population of slow worm within the Site which no longer appears to be present. The neighbouring land has been developed since the slow worm population was identified. It is possible the larger, neighbouring development has removed the core area of habitat resulting in the local extinction of the slow worm population.

6.1.4 Overall, the Site displayed limited ecological value and the development is predicted to result in net biodiversity gain through additional tree planting and the long term, sustainable management of retained habitats.

Sandford Farm Ecological Appraisal

REFERENCES

BCT 2016. Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines, 3rd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A. and Mustoe, S.H. 2000. Bird Census Techniques. Second Edition. Academic Press

Charter Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) 2016. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom and Ireland Second Edition. CIEEM, Winchester.

Cheffings, C.M. & Farrell, L. (eds), 2005. The Vascular Plant Red Data List for Great Britain. Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Eaton MA, Aebischer NJ, Brown AF, Hearn R, Lock L, Musgrove AJ, Noble DG, Stroud D, 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: 7080-746.

English Nature. 2001. Great crested newt mitigation guidelines. Peterborough, English Nature.

Froglife 1999. Reptile Survey. Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Froglife

JNCC 2010. Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey - A technique for environmental audit. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Ratcliffe. D.R. 1977 A Nature Conservation Review (Volumes 1 & 2). Cambridge University Press.

Thornton, P. S. (1988) Density and distribution of badgers in south-west England - a predictive model. Mammal Review. 18: 11-23.

Do not scale

Legend: Drawing No: Figure 1 SI Species poor, semi-improved grassland Scrub Title: Phase 1 Habitat Map

Scattered tree Date: January 2018 Hedgerow 20 Soames Place Site Boundary Client: Colony Architects Wokingham Berks RG40 5AT [email protected] Project: Sandford Farm