YORK HOUSE MAY 2017 Ecological Appraisal and Bat Building Inspection

YORK HOUSE_MAY 2017 Ecological Appraisal and Bat Building Inspection

21 February 2017

Fred Samaha Quantem Consulting LLP 3rd Floor Quality House Quality Court Chancery Lane London WC2A 1HP

Dear Fred,

York House, Islington – Ecological Appraisal and Bat Building Inspection

Thank you for commissioning EPR, on behalf of The Office Group (TOG) to carry out an Ecological Appraisal and Bat Building Inspection on York House, 207-221 Pentonville Road within the borough of Islington. I understand that the current proposals include the addition of two floors to the existing building, plus extensions to the basement, reception and to the rear of the building; hereby referred to as the “Proposed Works”.

York House is situated at National Grid Reference TQ306830 in the South West of the Islington Borough on Pentonville Road; approximately 480m east from Kings Cross St Pancras Train Station and 200m west from the Joseph Grimaldi Park. The surrounding land-use is a complex of office, retail and residential blocks within a largely urban setting of Islington, North London.

This letter provides a summary of the survey methods, results and recommendations following the Bat Building Inspection with consideration for the predicted likely Zone of Influence of the proposed refurbishment works. This letter covers the ecological issues related to the Proposed Works in respect of the potential to affect roosting bats and any other ecological receptors.

Zone of Influence

In order to identify the full extent of any potential ecological issues associated with the Proposed Works, I have considered the likely Zone of Influence (ZoI) of the proposals.

Considering the Proposed Works, most biophysical changes are likely to extend only to the building itself and immediately adjacent land; this has been identified as the Zone of Influence of the scheme. The principal potential for a negative impact on bats comes from the removal of any existing roof features, cladding or lead flashing, should they support roosting bats.

Relevant Guidance Legislation and Policy

Legislation and policy relevant to the ecological assessment of the Proposed Works is set out under Appendix 1 and summarised below.

In undertaking this assessment, I have had regard to best practice guidance, including that detailed within the Bat Conservation Trust’s (BCT) Bat Surveys, Good Practice Guidelines (BCT 2016).

In preparing my recommendations, due consideration has been given to biodiversity conservation legislation and national and international nature conservation priorities and planning policy, including:

 Legislation providing protection for sites and species, including the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (the ‘Habitats Regulations’) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended);  Biodiversity conservation priorities under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, and London Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP); and  Nature conservation policy under the local planning system, namely that detailed within the London Local Plan (2015) and Mayor’s Plan for London; including Policy 7.19; “Biodiversity and access to nature” as well as the Islington Borough Local Planning Policy: DM 6.5 “Landscaping, trees and biodiversity” and DM19.2 on “Biodiversity and Urban Greening” taken from the Islington Core Strategy (the adopted Local Plan document; see Appendix 1 for more details).

Methodology

The methods deployed for the completion of the Ecological Appraisal and Bat Building Inspection are set out under Appendix 2 to this document and described in further detail, where necessary below. The ecological appraisal and bat inspection comprised of a desktop study, followed by a site visit to complete an inspection of the building and map the habitats in the surrounding area. I visited the Site with my colleague Joshua Sowden (a Natural England licensed bat ecologist, Class Licence: 2016-24351-CLS-CLS) on Friday 20th January 2017. Weather conditions were sunny, clear and cold (3 degrees Celsius) at the time of survey.

Desktop Study

As part of desk study research, I have examined aerial photographs, recent and historic Ordnance Survey maps and other freely available online information sources such as the Government’s Multi- Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website, the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) and Greenspace Information for Greater London (GIGL) to identify any potential ecological receptors.

Statutory Sites A data search was conducted by GIGL to provide protected or notable habitats and species, and non-statutory designated sites for wildlife conservation within 2km of the site from the Site. There are two Local Nature Reserves located within a 2km radius of the Site; Camley Street Natural Park and Barnsbury Wood, approximately 600m away and 1km away respectively. There were no other European or national statutory designated sites identified within the search radius, so no detrimental impacts as a result of the Proposed Works are predicted on any conservation sites.

Non-Statutory Sites There was a total of 52 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) within the search area. The nearest SINC was part of London’s Canals (designated for Metropolitan Importance), which support a wide range of aquatic flora, a diverse fish community and breeding waterfowl. London’s network of canals fulfils an important function in allowing nature into heavily built-up environments. The nearest canal was approximately 200m West from the Site boundary, but due to the nature and scale of the Proposed Works and the urbanised environment in between them, no impacts are anticipated.

Protected and Notable species Due to the habitats present within the Zone of Influence of the proposals and their relative isolation within the urban area, the potential for protected or notable species to be present is limited, so I have confined my advice below to those species with the potential to be present and affected by the proposals.

Bats Activity records of five bat species have been recorded within a 2km of the Site. The nearest activity record was for a Common Pipistrelle and a Noctule Bat, both located approximately 446m North West from the Site. Other bat species which were also recorded within the 2km radius of the Site boundary included the Daubenton’s Bat, Leisler’s Bat and a Soprano Pipistrelle, which were all located over 500m away to the north or northwest. No bat records were identified within the Site boundary or the ZOI.

Birds There were also several protected and notable bird records returned from the desk study search which could use the building and rooftops to nest, including species such as the Starling, House Sparrow and Black Redstart. Starlings are listed as a London Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species as well as a species of local conservation concern. The nearest Starling record was located 479m to the North of the Site boundary. House Sparrow were recorded just 200m North-West from the Site and is protected under Section 41 (NERC Act), BAP Priority London as well as being a local species of conservation concern. The nearest Black Redstart record fell 785m North-West of the Site boundary which is also listed as a BAP London Priority Species and under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and the Countryside Act (1981) as amended. Relevant records are discussed further in the below text, as appropriate.

Ecological Appraisal

I undertook the initial Ecological Appraisal and investigated and mapped habitats within the potential Zone of Influence of your proposals, and made a note of any potential for features of ecological value to occur, that could be affected. A map showing the broad distribution of habitats that are present is provided as Map 2 enclosed with this letter. Target Notes (TNs) associated with Map 2 are provided within Appendix 3.

Habitat and Botany Other than York House itself and associated hardstanding, the only other notable habitat types were planted ornamental trees including Cherry, Silver Birch and London Plane tree planted along Pentonville Road (Photograph 7). Surrounding the trees, were also three small circular flower beds overgrown with ornamentals and some weeds such as Shepard’s Purse, Common Chickweed, Bindweed, Ragwort and Dandelion (Photograph 8); these habitats have been mapped on Map 2.

On the roof, there were a number of tall ruderal and ephemeral species recently colonised, including Clubmoss, Willowherb species, young Elder, Willow and Buddleia, as well as similar common ruderal species in the flowerbeds below including Ragwort, Woody Nightshade and Perennial Ryegrass, these have been shown on Map 3. These are typical species that rapidly colonise urban areas if left undisturbed.

The vegetation in the flowerbeds and on the rooftop, is of no intrinsic botanical value, but can be replaced post refurbishment of the building, ideally with native species to provide biodiversity enhancements. Further recommendations for biodiversity enhancement have been made below.

Nesting Birds & Recommended Actions Birds are protected while nesting under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended; see Appendix 1). The potential for nesting birds to be impacted during the Proposed Works should therefore be considered. The species most likely to nest within these features include Gulls, Pigeons or smaller urban species such as the Pied Wagtail. The most common bird to occur nesting on this type of tower block building in the London is the Feral Pigeon, which still warrant protection if they are nesting.

No birds were recorded on Site during the Ecological Appraisal survey, and no evidence was recorded of any birds nesting. There were however some external structures on the building that could provide suitable nesting areas for common and widespread bird species, e.g. Feral Pigeon. The flat roof extension in the courtyard (south of the building) shown in Photograph 9 is fairly sheltered and could accommodate nesting birds, as well as the concrete art structure on the eastern elevation shown in Photograph 10. From looking at the building is it unlikely it would be suitable for species such as Black Redstart or House Sparrow to nest, but there were some nesting opportunities for other common widespread urban bird species which have been identified above.

Should it be necessary to complete works affecting these features within the nesting season, I would recommend that a nesting bird check be completed prior to works. The check will entail a site visit by a suitably-qualified ecologist, within 24 hours prior to the commencement of works. If nesting activity is identified during the check, a suitable buffer zone (e.g. up to 5 meters) will be introduced around the area, within which no disturbing works should proceed until any young have fledged the nest, and it becomes inactive. These recommendations for birds have been summarised in Table 1 below.

Bat Building Inspection

As part of the Bat Building Inspection, the potential for habitats within the Zone of Influence to support bats was also considered (including in respect of potential roosting locations or habitat that may be used by commuting/foraging bats). York Hose is surrounded by other large industrial multi-stored buildings and associated hardstanding, including Pentonville Road to the north, with pavement either side and Lorenzo Street to the East of York House.

A specific external inspection of York House was completed with respect to its potential to support roosting bats, following methods set out under Appendix 2. Results of the Ecological Appraisal and Bat Building Inspections are shown on Map 2 Habitats and Features (External) and Map 3 Habitats and Features on the roof. Target note descriptions are given under Appendix 3.

Bat Building Inspection of York House York House is a large office tower block of six stories high. It was likely constructed in the early 1980s comprising of red-brick external and plasterboard internal lining and glass windows (Photograph 1). The lower ground floor (basement) comprised of a number of large industrial units, such as gas tanks, boilers and chlorifiers with asbestos pipe insulation. A couple of small basement rooms were notably cooler in temperature and are evidently not regularly accessed. The internal of the building, including the majority of the basement was well lit. It should also be noted there were external street lights surrounding the building (these have been marked on Map 2). Bats generally avoid well-lit areas for foraging and roosting, as the artificial light can disturb their flight patterns and emergence times.

No loft voids are present as the building has a flat roof, consequently no internal inspection was possible. The outside of the building was walked and examined closely with high power binoculars for any potential gaps or features that could be used by bats. The external building was of red brick construction (Photograph 2). The roof was also accessed to assess suitability for bats and any habitats mapped.

The only notable features in relation to bats on the building were:

 Gaps between metal grills on portico entrance (Target Note 1); Photograph 3. Surveyed and considered unsuitable for bats due to exposed nature of the void and unsuitable surrounding landscape. This area as the main entrance to the building is also subject to regular disturbance from tenants and visitors; and  The basement (potential for hibernating bats; Target Note 2); Photograph 4. One or two rooms were considered as potentially suitable for hibernating bats but not likely to be present due to lack of any access/ egress points.

Images showing the features of the building can be found in Appendix 3 and locations of Target Notes are shown in Map 2.

An assessment of potential for the building to support roosting bats has been made in accordance with evaluation methods outlined within Appendix 2.

York House was well sealed externally with brickwork in good condition and no evidence of any significant cracks or crevices whereby bats could roost. The single storey outhouse building to the south (near the Lorenzo Street entrance) was also well sealed with a flat roof, so had no features for roosting bats.

As there are no access points that could be used by bats identified during the survey, or features suitable for roosting, York House is considered to have negligible potential to support roosting bats, therefore no further emergence or re-entry surveys are required.

Foraging Habitat The Zone of Influence surrounding the building is of little value to foraging bats and consists of other industrial units and office blocks with associated hardstanding; pavements and Pentonville Road (A501), and the pedestrianised Lorenzo Street (Photograph 5). The wider area forms a mosaic of well-lit streets and buildings which offer limited resources for foraging bats. More suitable foraging areas within the wider area include the Joseph Grimaldi Park (Photograph 6) which includes more

5 suitable foraging area with a small area of amenity grassland and some mature ornamental trees, located approximately 200m east from the Site. Both Local Nature Reserves (LNR) located on Map 1 contain more suitable features for foraging bats than the surrounding urbanised landscape, including grassland, ponds and trees.

The surrounding landscape is also primarily unsuitable for bat foraging and disconnected from more suitable habitat. Therefore, activity levels in the immediate surrounding area are likely to be very low.

Recommended Actions with regards to roosting bat potential All native bat species are European Protected Species, protected under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010) (as amended). In summary, activities which may impact upon any bat or bat roost in a manner described in Appendix 1 (including in respect of disturbance, killing and injury of bats or disturbance, obstructing access to or destroying a roost) would be an offence without a licence from Natural England.

Summary of Recommendations

Features of potential ecological interest identified during the Ecological Appraisal and Bat Building Inspection and the associated recommended actions in view of the Proposed Works including their associated timescales, are detailed below.

Table 1: Summary of Recommended Actions

Ecological Recommended Actions Timings Receptor Bats Works can commence, no impacts on bats are N/A anticipated. If bats are found to be present during the works, cease the work immediately and seek further ecological advice. Avoid any additional lighting, and keep building and street lighting levels the same as they are currently, so not to disrupt any existing bat activity in the area. Nesting If possible, carry out works outside of the nesting No check required for Birds birds season (March - September) works conducted October to February inclusive. If the Proposed Works is to happen between March to September, then a nesting bird check of the courtyard Check required for works (opposite Lorenzo Street entrance) and eastern conducted March to elevation should be completed by a suitably-qualified September inclusive. ecologist within 24 hours of the commencement of work. Trees Retain mature trees where possible (under local If trees are to be removed, policy DM6.5), if to be removed, replace with other ensure it is outside of native species. nesting bird season (see recommendation above).

Recommendations for Biodiversity Enhancements As guidance and best practice advocates that opportunities to enhance biodiversity should be incorporated into development proposals where possible, to enhance the Site following refurbishment of the buildings, I have identified the following opportunities for enhancements, which could be incorporated into the site:

 Bird boxes installed on trees nearby or York House itself, e.g. a Sparrow Terrace;  Appropriate planting of ornamental borders and landscaping using native species of local providence which provide suitable foraging resources for wildlife; and  Retention and protection of existing UK native trees along Pentonville Road.

Summary If the Recommended Actions are implemented, along with any mitigation requirements recommended I consider the Proposed Works can proceed lawfully, without causing any detrimental impact on any ecological receptors. I have also made recommendations for biodiversity enhancements that could also be included to enhance the Site for wildlife post refurbishment. This is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and The London Local Plan, Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature and the Islington Borough policies for DM 6.5 (Landscaping, trees and biodiversity) and DM19.2 (on Biodiversity and Urban Greening).

Overall, I consider that ecological interests should not present any significant barrier to the refurbishment of York House, subject to the recommendations being followed or incorporated into the proposals.

I trust that the above provides you with sufficient information at this stage. Should you have any further enquiries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

With Kind Regards,

Yours Sincerely Approved for Issue by:

Grace Turner BSc (Hons) Grad CIEEM Alison Hogan BSc (Hons) MSc MCIEEM Assistant Ecologist, EPR Ltd Director & Principal Ecological Consultant, EPR Ltd

MAPS AND APPENDICES

Map 1 Site Location & Designated Sites Map 2 Habitats and Features (External) Map 3 Habitats and Features (Roof)

Appendix 1 Relevant Nature Conservation Legislation Appendix 2 Bat Building Inspection and Ecological Appraisal Methodology Appendix 3 Target Notes and Photographs from York House

Big Wood & Little Wood Queen's Wood MAP 1 Site Location & Designated Sites

Railway Fields

Parkland Walk KEY

Springfield Park Site boundary

2km linear distance to Site boundary Abney Park Cemetery 5km linear distance to Site boundary

Local Nature Reserve Gillespie Park

Belsize Wood

Barnsbury Wood

Camley Street Nature Park

St John's Wood Church Grounds

Lavender Pond SCALE: 1:40,000 at A3 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Metres ±

Ecological Planning & Research

CLIENT: The Office Group (TOG)

PROJECT: York House, Islington

DATE: January 2017

Y:\York_House_Islington\GIS\Location_p1657_gt_100117.mxd P16/57 Battersea Park Nature Areas Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri MAP 2 Habitats & Features - External

KEY

Site boundary

Flowerbed

Building

r r

r r ±r

Æ±r Æ Hardstanding r Æ±r r

(! Æ±r Fence

r r r

r 1 1 Target Note Æ±r (! r

Æ±r r Æ±r Trees (! Street Lights / External wall lights

2 (!

(! SCALE: 1:180 at A3 ± 0 5 10 Metres

Ecological Planning & Research

CLIENT: Quantem Consulting LLP

PROJECT: York House, Islington

DATE: January 2017

Y:\York_House_Islington\GIS\Map3_H&F_External_p1657gt230117.mxd P16/57

Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, MAP 3 Habitats and Features Roof Plan

KEY

Site Boundary

Gravel and Hardstanding

Scattered scrub

Tall ruderal vegetation

± SCALE: 1:200 at A3

Ecological Planning & Research

CLIENT: The Office Group (TOG)

PROJECT: York House, Islington

DATE: January 2017

Y:\York_House_Islington\GIS\Map4_H&FonRoof_p1657_230117.mxd P16/57

Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, Appendix 1

Relevant Nature Conservation Legislation

This Appendix is intended to provide an overview of the main features of legislation and policy relating to nature conservation in England and the implications for development.

KEY WILDLIFE LEGISLATION

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 20101 (known as the “Habitats Regulations”) transpose Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the European “Habitats Directive”) into UK legislation. These regulations consolidate all the various amendments made to the preceding “Conservation Regulations” 1994 for England and Wales.

The Habitats Regulations were amended by the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012.2

The Habitats Regulations provide for the designation of both Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) in the UK, which form part of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas across Europe. The Regulations also prohibit the deliberate capture, killing or disturbance of European Protected Species (EPS), which include inter alia Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius, Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus, Otter Lutra lutra and all native species of bat, and make it an offence to destroy or damage either the nesting or breeding sites of these species. The above actions can be made lawful through the granting of licenses after Natural England (the licensing authority in England) is satisfied that there are no satisfactory alternatives and that such actions will have no detrimental effect on wild populations of the EPS.

Further information on SPAs, SACs and European Protected Species (Licensing and Protected Species) is provided in the relevant sub-sections of this Appendix.

Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) The Wildlife and Countryside Act 19813 is the principal mechanism for the legislative protection of wildlife in Great Britain. Various amendments have occurred since the original enactment. Certain species of bird, animal and plant (including all of the European Protected Species listed above) are afforded protection under Schedules 1, 5 and 8 of the Act. Reference is made to the various Schedules and Parts of this Act (Table A1.1) in the section of this Appendix dealing with Legally Protected Species. The Act also contains measures for the protection of the countryside, National Parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and public rights of way as well as preventing the establishment of invasive non-native species that may be detrimental to native wildlife.

1 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/490/contents/made 2 The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1927/contents/made

3 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69/contents

Table A1.1: Key Schedules of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

Schedule Protected Species Schedule 1 Part 1 Protects listed birds through special penalties at all times

Schedule 1 Part 2 Protects listed birds through special penalties during the close season

Schedule 5 Section Protects listed animals from intentional killing or injuring 9.1 (killing/injuring) Schedule 5 Protects listed animals from taking Section 9.1 (taking) Schedule 5 Protects listed animals from being possessed or controlled (live or dead) Section 9.2 Schedule 5 Protects listed animals from intentional damage or destruction to any structure or Section 9.4a place used for shelter or protection Schedule 5 Protects listed animals from intentional disturbance while occupying a structure or Section 9.4b place used for shelter or protection

Schedule 5 Protects listed animals from being sold, offered for sale or being held or Section 9.5a transported for sale either live or dead, whole or part

Schedule 5 Protects listed animals from being published or advertised as being for sale Section 9.5b

Protects listed plants from: intentional picking, uprooting or destruction (Section 13 1a); selling, offering for sale, possessing or transporting for the purpose of sale Schedule 8 (live or dead, part or derivative) (Section 13 2a); advertising (any of these) for buying or selling (Section 13 2b).

Schedule 9 Prohibits the release of species listed in the Schedule into the wild.

Further information on legally protected species, designated wildlife sites and invasive non-native species is provided in the relevant sub-sections of this Appendix.

Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 Many of the provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 20004 have been incorporated as amendments into the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and some provisions have now been superseded by later legislation such as The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006).

The most relevant changes provided by the CRoW Act include the added protection given to SSSIs and other important sites for nature conservation. Importantly, under the Act it became a criminal offence to "recklessly disturb" Schedule 1 nesting birds and species protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. It also enabled heavier penalties on conviction of wildlife offences.

The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 20065 was intended to raise the profile of biodiversity amongst all public authorities (including local authorities, and statutory undertakers) and to

4 The Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/contents 5 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Available from: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/contents

10 make biodiversity an integral part of policy and decision-making processes. The NERC Act also improved wildlife protection by amending the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Section 40 (S40) of the Act places a ‘Biodiversity Duty’ on all public bodies to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity when carrying out their normal functions. This includes giving consideration to the restoration and enhancement of species and habitats.

Section 41 (S41) of the Act requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of habitats and species which are of Principal Importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England6. Public authorities have a responsibility to give specific consideration to the S41 list when exercising their normal functions. For planning authorities, consideration for Species and Habitats of Principal Importance will be exercised through the planning and development control processes. Further information on species and habitats of Principal Importance is provided in the relevant sub-section of this Appendix.

Biodiversity plans and strategies The NERC Act 2006 places a duty on local authorities to have due regard to biodiversity when exercising their normal functions, and the NPPF requires planning policies to “promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets” (paragraph 117). These targets are set out in a range of biodiversity plans and strategies from the international through to the district level. An overview of the key biodiversity plans and strategies in the UK, and their implications for development, are set out below.

National level The UK Biodiversity Action Plan 2007 (UK BAP) has been superseded by the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework7 and individual national biodiversity strategies. The UK framework sets out the overarching vision, strategic goals and priority activities for the UK’s work towards international biodiversity targets (known as the ‘Aichi Targets’), as agreed by 192 parties at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in 2010. The Framework’s overall vision is that “by 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people.”

In England, Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services8 is the national biodiversity strategy, which has the stated mission “…to halt overall biodiversity loss, support healthy well- functioning ecosystems and establish coherent ecological networks, with more and better places for nature for the benefit of wildlife and people.” In order to focus activity and assess performance in achieving this mission, Biodiversity 2020 sets objectives relating to terrestrial and marine habitats and ecosystems, species and people. These include:

6 The S40 list replaces the previously prepared list of habitats and species of Principal Importance for the conservation of biological diversity in England that was published under Section 74 (2) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

7 JNCC and Defra (on behalf of the Four Countries' Biodiversity Group) (2012). The UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. Available from: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/UK_Post2010_Bio-Fwork.pdf

8 DEFRA (2011). Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/biodiversity-2020-a-strategy-for-england-s-wildlife-and-ecosystem-services

 Establishing coherent and resilient ecological networks, described as “a network of high quality sites, protected by buffer zones, and connected by wildlife corridors and smaller, but still wildlife- rich, ‘stepping-stone’ sites”;

 Taking targeted action for the recovery of priority species whose conservation is not delivered through wider habitat-based and ecosystem measures;

 Establishing Nature Improvement Areas and Marine Protected Areas;

 Bringing more SSSIs into favourable condition;

 Reducing environmental pressures by working with sectors such as agriculture, forestry, planning and development.

A network of 48 Local Nature Partnerships have been set up across England to help deliver these objectives.

Note that as these changes are still relatively new, some local plans and government guidance documents/circulars still refer to the UK BAP and ‘UK BAP priority habitats and species’. These habitats and species are listed under Section 41 of the NERC Act, and remain a material consideration in the planning process. They are now described as ‘Species/Habitats of Principal Importance’, though they are also commonly referred to as ‘Section 41 Species/Habitats’ or simply ‘Priority Species/Habitats’. Further guidance is given in the relevant sections below.

Local level Despite the changes to national level biodiversity policy described above, county and district level Biodiversity Action Plans (BAP’S) still apply. The London BAP identifies a number of priority species; including the following of relevance:

 Bats (all species);

 House Sparrow.

The London Local Plan (2015). Relevant policies include:

Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature

C- Development Proposals should:

A. Wherever possible, make a positive contribution to the protection, enhancement, creation and management of biodiversity

B. Prioritise assisting in achieving targets in biodiversity action plans (BAPs), set out in Table 7.3, and/or improving access to nature in areas deficient in accessible wildlife sites

C. Not adversely affect the integrity of European sites and be resisted where they have significant adverse impact on European or nationally designated sites or on the population or conservation status of a protected species or a priority species or habitat identified in a UK, London or appropriate regional BAP or borough BAP.

Islington Borough Local Plan: Relevant policies include:

Local Policy DM 6.5: Landscaping, trees and biodiversity

A. Developments must protect, contribute to and enhance the landscape, biodiversity value and growing conditions of the development site and surrounding area, including protecting connectivity between habitats. Development are required to maximise the provision of soft landscaping, including trees, shrubs and other vegetation, and maximise biodiversity benefits, including through the incorporation of wildlife habitats that complement surrounding habitats and support the council’s Biodiversity Action Plan.

B. Trees, shrubs and other vegetation of landscape and/or environmental significance must be considered holistically as part of the landscape plan. The following requirements shall be adhered to:

i) Developments are required to minimise any impacts on trees, shrubs, and other significant vegetation. Any loss of our damage to trees, or adverse effects on their growing conditions, will only be permitted where there are over-riding planning benefits, must be agreed with the council and suitably re-provided. Developments within proximity of existing trees are required to provide protection from any damage during development. Where on –site reprovision is not possible, a financial contribution of the full cost of appropriate re-provision will be provided. ii) The council will refuse permission or consent for the removal of protected trees (TPO an trees within a conservation area) and for proposals that would have a detrimental impact upon the health of protected species.

Local Policy DM19.2: Biodiversity and urban greening

Developments should promote biodiversity and contribute to urban greening by incorporating:

 Green roofs and walls,  Soft landscaping and trees;  Features for wildlife, such as nesting boxes and beehives;  A planting mix which encourages biodiversity;  Planting which will be resilient to a range of climate conditions;  Maintenance of habitats within Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation.

Delivering Biodiversity Opportunities Where practicable, opportunities should also be sought to achieve a net gain (i.e. enhancement) of biodiversity. Support for biodiversity enhancement is provided in the Public Authority ‘Biodiversity Duty’ under the NERC Act 2006 and in the key principles of the NPPF, as described above.

Enhancement projects may not just benefit biodiversity. There are many functional benefits to be won from strategically planned green infrastructure projects such as semi-natural urban green spaces, sustainable urban drainage schemes (SUDS) and green roofs. Planning conditions and obligations are increasingly being used to mandate biodiversity enhancement on or off a development site, either through design or through financial support.

Many ideas for incorporating ecological enhancement into planning and development can be found in the biodiversity action plans and/or strategies relevant to the policy or development area, or through initiatives led by the Local Nature Partnership. At the national level, twelve Nature Improvement Areas were set up in

2012 in order to deliver landscape-scale conservation objectives, and many regions and counties have also identified and mapped ‘Biodiversity Opportunity Areas’, ‘Nature Maps’ or ‘Strategic Nature Areas’ where conservation action such as habitat creation and restoration will deliver the greatest benefits for biodiversity.

Other sources of ideas and opportunities include schemes led by conservation NGOs, such as the Wildlife Trusts’ ‘Living Landscapes’ and the RSPB’s ‘Futurescapes’, which are working in partnership with landowners and local communities across the country to restore ecosystems and ecological networks.

SPECIES PROTECTION Legally Protected Species The species listed in the following subsections are protected by law in England. It is essential to determine the presence or likely absence of legally protected species and the extent to which they may be affected by proposed development. This can best be achieved by undertaking surveys early in the planning process. Mitigation measures are required to minimise disturbance to protected species and may necessitate a licence. Natural England offers further detailed advice which can be applied to planning applications that affect protected species9.

Mammals All wild mammals are protected against cruelty under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which makes it an offence to mutilate, kick, beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, crush, drown, drag or asphyxiate any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering.

The following species of mammal are protected further by law in England:

Bats There are 18 species of bat in the UK, seven of which are Species of Principal Importance in England. All bats and bat roosts are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Bats are also a European Protected Species protected under the Habitat Regulations 2010 (as amended). It is an offence to:

 Intentionally or deliberately kill, injure or capture bats;

 Intentionally, deliberately or recklessly disturb bats in such a way as to be likely to significantly affect the ability of any significant group of bats to survive, breed, or rear or nurture their young or the local distribution of or abundance of a species of bat;

 Intentionally, or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct any place used for shelter or protection (i.e. bat roosts) or intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat whilst it is occupying such a place;

 Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a bat; and

 Possess, sell or transport a bat, or anything derived from it.

9 Natural England. 2011. Standing Advice for Protected Species. Available from: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/planningtransportlocalgov/spatialplanning/standingadvice/default.aspx

Development proposals affecting bats or their roosts require a European Protected Species licence from Natural England.

Birds All birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), making it an offence, with certain exceptions (e.g. game birds), to intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird and to take, damage or destroy their nests or eggs.

Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 affords extra protection for a number of species and applies harsher penalties for offences. Any intentional or reckless disturbance of a Schedule 1 bird, whilst it is nesting or rearing dependant young, constitutes an offence.

Licences for Development Licenses are required to permit activities prohibited under wildlife legislation, namely the disturbance or capture of protected species or damage to their habitats. Natural England is the licensing authority in England. Licenses are only issued for certain purposes, which are set out in the law, and only where there is a valid justification. The licenses most relevant to development scenarios are discussed below.

European Protected Species Licenses A European Protected Species License is required from Natural England to undertake any development that is reasonably likely to result in an offence in respect of a European Protected Species protected under Schedule 2 of the Habitat Regulations 2010 (as amended); including inter alia all species of bats, Dormouse, Great Crested Newt and Otter. Natural England must be satisfied that the following three tests are satisfied before it will issue a license covering a European Protected Species:

1. The proposal is necessary to preserve public health or public safety, or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment;

2. There is no satisfactory alternative; and

3. The proposal will have no detrimental effect to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

Species of Principal Importance in England 943 species have been identified as being of Principal Importance in England for the conservation of biodiversity under Section 41 (S41) of the NERC Act 2006. This list of species includes species found in England which have been identified as requiring action under the now superseded UK Biodiversity Action Plan 2007 (plus the Hen Harrier10). While these species may not be legally protected, there is a clear responsibility on planning authorities to further their conservation. These species can be a material consideration in development control decisions and so developers are advised to take reasonable measures to avoid or mitigate impacts to prevent the net loss of these species and habitats and to enhance them where possible. Additional guidance to developers is typically provided in level planning policies.

10 The Hen Harrier has also been included on the List because without continued conservation action it is unlikely that the Hen Harrier population will increase from its current very low levels in England.

Appendix 2 Bat Building Inspection and Ecological Appraisal Methodology

Insofar as they are applicable, this Ecological Appraisal has been completed following guidance in the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland (January 2016).

DESK STUDY METHODOLOGY

A desk study was carried out in order to gather and refer to existing biodiversity and contextual information with respect to the Zone of Influence and the wider area. This involved interrogation of internet resources, including the National Biodiversity Network (NBN), aerial photos, current Ordnance Survey maps and the Old Maps online database, where necessary. Reference was also made to local planning policies, strategies and initiatives relating to biodiversity as detailed in Appendix 1.

The Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL) were commissioned to provide information from their databases on existing data records with full coverage of the Site. Statutory and non-statutory site designations for nature conservation and protected species records were identified within a 5km radius, all other records were obtained for 2km radius from the centre of the Site.

FIELDWORK METHODOLOGY

The field survey was completed by Lynsey Robinson and Josh Sowden of EPR on 5th February 2016. The site and the predicted Zone of Influence of proposals was walked, recording habitats and features of potential value to wildlife and any evidence of, or potential for, protected or notable species or habitats, in accordance with the methods described below.

Land Use, Habitat Types, Vegetation Communities and Flora Within the study area the land use, habitat types and landscape features (such as hedgerows and veteran trees) were described and mapped. For each main habitat type the dominant vegetation communities were recorded, along with any notable or indicator plant species, (including Japanese Knotweed where present). A preliminary evaluation of the structure, quality and likely management of each habitat or feature was also carried out. The survey method used to record this information was based on Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology (JNCC 1993).

Bats Bats use buildings and trees for roosting and breeding and, where present, a preliminary assessment of the potential for these features to support bats was undertaken during the survey in accordance best practice guidance, including that set out within the Bat Conservation Trust’s Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines (2012). A summary of the methodology used to assess bat roosting potential is given below.

Internal and External Building Inspection for Bats A daytime inspection of all the structures within the Site boundary were carried out by Lynsey Robinson (a Natural England licensed bat worker) on 5thth February 2016.

The buildings were searched internally and externally (where possible) for evidence of current or historic bat roosting. The search included looking for potential areas for bats to roost and associated potential access points. The search also included looking for direct evidence of bat use that included:

 The presence of bats;  Bat droppings on surfaces on and/or immediately adjacent to the building; and  Staining or scratch marks and feeding remains around suitable bat roost locations or suitable access points into the building.

All accessible areas were searched using a high-power torch (Clulight) to illuminate dark areas. The external surfaces/features of the buildings were thoroughly searched for evidence of bats, using a high-power torch (model as above) to illuminate dark areas and binoculars to magnify locations inaccessible to the surveyor.

Birds Any birds seen whilst carrying out the survey were recorded, and the type and quality of habitats available for birds was considered, including vegetation suitable for nesting, and habitat with the potential to support valued species, including breeding and wintering birds.

Appendix 3 Target Notes & Photographs from Bat Building Inspection York House

Photograph ID General Photographs Description 1 Flat roof, multi-storey tower block building (external view of building, taken from Pentonville Road- North).

2 Brick built construction, glass window strip on each extrusion.

3 Target Note 1, metal struts in entrance of porchway leading to small void. Cold and exposed so assessed as likely unsuitable for bats.

4 Target Note 2, small basement room which could have had potential to support hibernating bats. However, the metal grill is sealed so no available access points for bats.

5 Surrounding area (immediate ZOI and beyond), showing heavy urbanisation.

6 Joseph Grimaldi Park (further east down Pentonville Road, ornamental planting and trees, supporting low value habitat for foraging bats and birds.

7 Ornamental planted trees including Cherry, Silver Birch and London Plane tree.

8 Typical flower bed at base of planted Cherry tree, including species such as Dandelion, Ragwort and other ornamental species.

9 Target Note 3- Courtyard area and flat- roofed outbuilding in the background- with some nesting bird potential, e.g. for Feral Pigeon.

10 Target Note 4- Concrete art type structure on eastern elevation.