GAZELLE CLOSE, WINNERSH Ecologocal Impact Assessment (EcIA)

for

Roy Wood Transits Ltd April 2017

01 April 2017

© The Landmark Practice 2017

All rights reserved. No part of this document may be produced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of The Landmark Practice. The Landmark Practice is a division of Landmark Environmental Consultants Ltd (Limited Company No 1939302).

Landmark Ref: 2955

Client: Roy Wood Transits Ltd

This document was produced under Landmark contract for Roy Wood Transits Ltd.

Version Prepared by Checked by Approved by Issued

D01 AP/MCIEEM RP/MCIEEM BR/MCIEEM AP/MCIEEM 20/03/2017 21/03/2017 22/03/2017 24/03/2017

FV AP/MCIEEM 21/04/2017

*D denotes a Draft version

The information which we have prepared and provided is true, and has been prepared and provided in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Code of Professional Conduct. We confirm that the opinions expressed are our true and professional bona fide opinions.

Tel: 0117 923 0455

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) has been prepared to assess the potential impacts of a proposed camper van showroom and car parking development at Gazelle Close, Winnersh by Roy Wood Transits Ltd. The report describes the ecological survey work undertaken to inform the application scheme, considers the impacts of the proposed development on the ecology of the site and its environs and describes the strategy devised to inform suitable mitigation and/or compensation measures required to address these impacts.

The site lies on the north-western edge of the village of Winnersh, in the Borough of Wokingham. It is bordered by an industrial estate to the north and east and open countryside to the south and west. The area immediately to the west of the site is consented to become a country park, as part of large-scale residential development to the south.

An Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey (including a data search), a roost assessment of trees and HSI assessment of nearby ponds have been undertaken.

The Council has requested that this scheme should synthesise with the wildlife enhancements associated with the adjacent country park. Therefore, the reports associated with the country park have been referred to and referenced where appropriate.

The site is dominated by good quality semi-improved grassland which has been tightly grazed by rabbits, with variable amounts of scrub/tree cover. An historic line of mature pedunculate oak trees forms the south-western boundary of the site. Open countryside is present to the west of the site, albeit the site is temporarily isolated by construction of the link road in the adjacent plot of land.

Although fairly limited in extent, botanical interest and habitat diversity, the site has not been subject to recent management therefore there are increased opportunities for wildlife. The site may support bats, nesting birds, reptiles and potentially great crested newt, which together add to the strategic and intrinsic value of the site. Overall the site is considered to be of local ecological value only.

The most important ecological feature at the site is the line of mature trees, along the south- western boundary. The focus of the mitigation strategy has, therefore, been to protect this line of trees from potential development impacts.

The mitigation strategy also proposes phased vegetation clearance under a non-licensed method statement to include RAMs. The principals of the mitigation strategy have been scoped with the LPA ecologist.

Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Scope of Report ...... 1 Site Location and Description ...... 1 Development Proposals ...... 1 2.0 PLANNING POLICY AND LEGISLATION ...... 1 National Planning Policy ...... 1 Local Planning Policy ...... 2 Pre-Application Advice ...... 4 Planning Guidance ...... 4 Legislation ...... 5 3.0 METHODS ...... 5 Scope of Assessment ...... 5 Desk Study ...... 6 Consultation ...... 6 Field Surveys ...... 7 Survey Constraints and Limitations ...... 8 Assessment ...... 8 4.0 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS ...... 8 Designated Sites ...... 9 Habitats ...... 11 Species ...... 12 Summary ...... 16 5.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 17 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 17 Designated Sites ...... 17 Habitats ...... 18 Species ...... 19 7.0 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION/COMPENSATION REQUIREMENTS ...... 22 8.0 ENHANCEMENT ...... 24 9.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 24

FIGURES Figure 1: Site Location Figure 2: Waterbody Locations Figure 3: Statutory Designated Site Locations Figure 4: Extended Phase 1 Habitat plan APPENDIX A: LEGAL CONTEXT APPENDIX B: MASTERPLAN APPENDIX C: EVALUATION TECHNIQUES APPENDIX D: NON-STATUTORY DESIGNATED SITES APPENDIX E: TARGET NOTES AND PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX F: HIBERNACULUM DESIGN

The Landmark Practice Page i Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

APPENDIX G: FSC GCN IDENTIFICATION GUIDE

Page ii The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Scope of Report 1.1 The Landmark Practice (TLP) was commissioned by Roy Wood Transits Ltd in January 2017 to assess the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposed development of a motorhome showroom and parking at Gazelle Close, Winnersh.

Site Location and Description 1.2 The site lies on the north-western edge of the village of Winnersh, in the borough of Wokingham (Figure 1 refers). The site is centred on Grid Reference SU769712 and is approximately 1 ha in size.

1.3 The site currently comprises a single parcel of derelict land. It is bordered by an industrial estate to the north and east and open countryside to the south and west. The area immediately to the west of the site is consented due to become a country park, delivered as part of large-scale residential development to the south (Ref: O/2006/8687). To facilitate this scheme a link road is currently being constructed in the field adjacent to the site.

Development Proposals 1.4 Roy Wood Transits Ltd is seeking full planning permission to create a new van and motorhome showroom and an additional parking area for the adjacent offices to the west of the site. The development proposals include landscaping and the maintenance of an area of open green space in the north-west of the site. As embedded mitigation, the development has been designed to avoid impacts on a mature line of trees which bounds the site to the south west, by ensuring it is retained and adequately buffered.

1.5 Further detailed information regarding the proposed development is provided in Section 5.

2.0 PLANNING POLICY AND LEGISLATION

National Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework 2.1 The NPPF advises that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:

x “if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

x proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted unless the benefits of the development clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;

x development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted;

The Landmark Practice Page 1 Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

x opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged; and

x planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.”

National Planning Practice Guidance 2.2 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) was adopted in March 2014. The NPPG has been designed to support the National Planning Policy Framework and the two should be read in conjunction.

2.3 NPPG ‘Natural Environment’ regarding biodiversity, ecosystems and green infrastructure, emphasises the duty on planning authorities to consider biodiversity as an integral part of planning policy and decision making. This reiterates the principles of sustainable development set out by the NPPF, to include achieving net gains for nature, contributing to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution.

2.4 The NPPG provides detailed guidance on the assessment of impact on designated sites and protected species, to be considered when preparing a planning application. Para 16 requires information on biodiversity impacts and opportunities to inform all stages of development. An ecological survey is required in advance of a planning application should potential biodiversity impact be significant.

2.5 Paragraph 17 requires development to not only protect but enhance biodiversity, whilst paragraph 18 reinforces the requirement for a mitigation hierarchy.

Local Planning Policy Wokingham Borough Core Strategy 2.6 Wokingham Borough Council adopted its Core Strategy in January 2010. It sets out the vision for how the borough will develop, in the period to 2026 and how the council aims to protect and enhance the good quality of life enjoyed in the borough. Relevant policies include:

2.7 Policy CP7 Biodiversity. “Sites designated as of importance for nature conservation at an international or national level will be conserved and enhanced and inappropriate development will be resisted. The degree of protection given will be appropriate to the status of the site in terms of its international or national importance. Development:

x Which may harm county designated sites (Local Wildlife Sites in Berkshire), whether directly or indirectly, or x Which may harm habitats or, species of principle importance in England for nature conservation, veteran trees or features of the landscape that are of major importance for wild flora and fauna (including wildlife and river corridors), whether directly or indirectly, or x That compromises the implementation of the national, regional, county and local biodiversity action plans will be only permitted if it has been clearly demonstrated that the need for the proposal outweighs the need to safeguard the nature conservation importance, that no alternative site that would result in less or no harm is available which will meet the need, and:

Page 2 The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

x Mitigation measures can be put in place to prevent damaging impacts; or x Appropriate compensation measures to offset the scale and kind of losses are provided”.

2.8 Policy CP8 Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. “Development which alone or in combination is likely to have a significant effects on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area will be required to demonstrate that adequate measures to avoid and mitigate any potential adverse effects are delivered.”

2.9 Policy CP11 Proposals outside Development Limits (including countryside), seeks to protect the separate identity of settlements and maintain the quality of the environment. Proposals outside of development limits will not normally be permitted except where: …they “Bring about environmental improvements”.

Wokingham Borough Development Plan 2.10 The Wokingham Borough Development Plan also known as the Managing Development Delivery Local Plan (MDD), adds extra detail to the policies within the Core Strategy. It was adopted in 2014, and relevant policies include:

2.11 Policy CC03 Green Infrastructure, Trees and Landscaping, states the following:

“1. Green Routes and Green Route Enhancement Areas are defined on the Policies Map.

2. Development proposals should demonstrate how they have considered and achieved the following criteria within scheme proposals: a) Provide new or protect and enhance the Borough’s Green Infrastructure networks, including the need to mitigate potential impacts of new development b) Promote accessibility, linkages and permeability between and within existing green corridors including public rights of way such as footpaths, cycleways and bridleways c) Promote the integration of the scheme with any adjoining public open space or countryside d) Protect and retain existing trees, hedges and other landscape features e) Incorporate high quality, ideally, native planting and landscaping as an integral part of the scheme.

3. Development proposals which would result in the loss, fragmentation or isolation of areas of green infrastructure will not be acceptable.

4. Development proposals within the River Valley areas shall improve or contribute toward: a) The establishment of a Loddon/ Blackwater riverside footpath and bridleway, as defined on the Policies Map, to accommodate dual use b) The establishment of a riverside footpath and cycleway to accommodate dual use along the Emm Brook c) Opportunities for improvements to green infrastructure to help minimise flood risk.”

2.12 Policy TB23 Biodiversity and Development, states the following:

“1. Sites of national or international importance are shown and sites of local importance are defined on the Policies Map.

2. Planning permission for development proposals will only be granted where they comply with policy CP7 – Biodiversity of the Core Strategy and also demonstrate how they:

a) Provide opportunities, including through design, layout and landscaping to incorporate new biodiversity features or enhance existing

The Landmark Practice Page 3 Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

b) Provide appropriate buffer zones between development proposals and designated sites as well as habitats and species of principle importance for nature conservation

c) Ensure that all existing and new developments are ecologically permeable through the protection of existing and the provision of new continuous wildlife corridors, which shall be integrated and linked to the wider green infrastructure network.”

2.13 Supporting text at paragraph 3.115 notes that “…When designing new habitats and biodiversity features, consideration should be given to the use of native species as well as the adaptability to the likely effects of climate change.”

2.14 Policy CC03: Green Infrastructure, Trees and Landscaping, states the following:

2.15 “Where the nature and location of a development is such that nature conservation impacts may be significant, further ecological surveys and report may be required prior to determination.

Development proposals should demonstrate how they have considered and achieved the following criteria within scheme proposals:

a) Provide new or protect and enhance the Borough's Green Infrastructure networks, including the need to mitigate potential impacts of new development

b) Promote accessibility, linkages and permeability between and within existing green corridors including public rights of way such as footpaths, cycleways and bridleways

c) Promote the integration of the scheme with any adjoining public open space or countryside

d) Protect and retain existing trees, hedges and other landscape features e) Incorporate high quality, ideally, native planting and landscaping as an integral part of the scheme.”

Pre-Application Advice 2.16 In its pre-application advice Wokingham Borough Council has stated:

“that wildlife enhancements which are appropriate to the local context, should be included within the proposals. Any synthesis with the Country Park and wildlife enhancements being created on the adjacent site will be particularly welcomed.”

2.17 The creation of a circa 24ha Country Park is to be delivered as part of the consented large- scale residential development to the south of the site (known as Hatch Farm Dairies, application ref. O/2006/8687).

Planning Guidance Making Space for Nature 2.18 The UK Government published a white paper ‘Making Space for Nature: securing the value of nature’ in June 2011. This document sets out a series of commitments relating, in particular, to the protection and improvement of the natural environment, the

Page 4 The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

development of a green economy, and strengthening the connection between people and nature. Many of the commitments and principles identified in the white paper are of particular relevance, including:

x The establishment of coherent ecological networks;

x The creation/use of urban green infrastructure to complete the links in the ecological networks, with green spaces managed to provide a diverse range of functions, benefitting people and wildlife, by delivering ecosystem services; and

x Re-connecting people to nature through education, by providing neighbourhood access to nature and the countryside, and encouraging voluntary participation in nature conservation activities.

Legislation 2.19 A range of habitats and species that may actually or potentially be relevant to the application site, are afforded legal protection under national and international legislation (Appendix A refers).

3.0 METHODS

Scope of Assessment 3.1 It is a requirement of EcIA that the 'zone of influence' for a project is established. This is the area over which ecological features may be subject to significant effects, as a result of the proposed project and associated activities. Therefore, the zone of influence varies for different ecological features and depending upon their sensitivity to environmental change (CIEEM, 2016).

3.2 Table 1 below defines the 'zones of influence' for each ecological feature represented at the site.

Table 1: Definition of Zones of Influence

Survey Area Ecological Feature Rationale

The Site x Habitats Ecological features for which impacts x Reptiles are more likely to be localised and restricted to direct habitat loss. x Birds (nesting)

The site and 30m x Badger Potential for badger setts within the buffer zone application site and up to 30m from the boundary to be directly affected by development.

The site and 500 x Great crested newts Potential for great crested newts m buffer zone utilising breeding ponds up to 500m from the boundary to occur within the application site and could be affected by development activities.

The Landmark Practice Page 5 Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

Survey Area Ecological Feature Rationale

The site and zone x Bats (roosting and Bat activity within and adjacent to the of artificial light foraging) site has the potential to be significantly spill affected by changes in the lighting environment of the site.

Desk Study 3.3 Details of non-statutory designated sites and legally protected and notable species records from within 1 km of the site were sought from the Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre (TVERC). In addition, the Berkshire and South Buckinghamshire Bat Group (BSBBG) was consulted for any bat records within 4km of the site. The Binfield Badger Group (BBG) was also contacted.

3.4 The Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website (www.magic.gov.uk) was accessed in January 2017 for records of statutory designated sites of biological interest within 5 km of the site, this was extended to 10km for internationally designated sites which listed bats or birds as their prime interest feature.

3.5 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 Section 41 list of habitats of principal importance (HPI) and species of principal importance (SPI) has been consulted in order to identify species and habitats relevant to the site that are on the aforementioned list.

3.6 The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP, JNCC 2007) has been succeeded by the UK Post- 2010 Biodiversity Framework which was published in 2012 (JNCC & DEFRA 2012). Nonetheless, the lists of UK BAP priority species and habitats and their associated Species and Habitat Action Plans (SAPs and HAPs respectively) remain important reference sources and the lists informed the Section 41 lists of SPIs and HPIs. Regional and local BAPs, where these are of relevance to a Local Plan, remain a material consideration in the planning process. The following BAPs were therefore consulted to inform the identification of priority habitats and species:

x UK Biodiversity Action Plan; and x Berkshire Biodiversity Strategy (Berkshire Local Nature Partnership, 2014)

Consultation 3.7 In its pre-application advice Wokingham Borough Council has advised that this proposal should seek to deliver complimentary enhancements to those delivered by the adjacent Country Park. The EcIA report produced for Hatch Farm Dairies has therefore been referred to within this assessment (EPR, 2010).

3.8 In addition to the above, the views of Wokingham Borough Council Ecology Officer, Duncan Fisher, were sought in respect of likely ecological sensitivities pertaining to the site, the survey scope being undertaken and an initial view on the proposed mitigation.

Page 6 The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

Field Surveys Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey 3.9 An Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey was conducted of the site on 17 January 2017 by an ecologist from TLP1. The survey area covered the entire site, including a buffer zone of 30 m (where appropriate and where access allowed) beyond the site boundary.

3.10 The Phase 1 Habitat survey method classifies and maps habitats using standard colour codes, with further information provided by means of dominant species codes and descriptive target notes. The potential of the habitats within the survey area to support legally protected and/or notable habitats and species is also assessed in accordance with the Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment (IEA, 1995).

3.11 Plant species nomenclature follows Stace (2010) and bird species nomenclature follows the British Ornithologists’ Union (BOU) English vernacular names in The British List: A Checklist of Birds of Britain (8th edition, 2013). Mammal nomenclature follows Harris and Yalden (2008).

Hedgerow Regulations Assessment 3.12 No hedgerows were present on site so a Hedgerow Regulations Assessment was not undertaken.

Preliminary Ground Level Roost Assessment 3.13 A preliminary ground level roost assessment was undertaken of all trees within the site following best practice guidance (BCT, 2016). Each tree with features that bats could use for roosting (i.e. Potential Roost Features (PRFs)) such as holes, cracks and splits, was categorised according to its potential. The categories were as follows:

x High suitability - a tree with one or more potential roost sites that are capable of supporting larger bat roosts on a more regular basis and potentially for a longer period of time;

x Moderate suitability - a tree with one or more potential roost sites but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status (with respect to roost type);

x Low suitability - a tree of sufficient size and age to contain PRFs but with none seen from the ground or features seen with only very limited roosting potential;

x Negligible suitability - trees with negligible or no potential to support roosting bats.

Habitat Suitability Index Assessment 3.14 A desk study was undertaken using Ordnance Survey (OS) maps and aerial photographs, to highlight any ponds within 500 m of the site that could potentially support great crested newts (Triturus cristatus). This distance is based on the Great Crested Newt (GCN) Mitigation Guidelines (English Nature, 2001), which advise that ponds up to 500 m away from a development site should be surveyed if it is thought likely that great crested newt populations centred on those ponds would be affected by changes to the development site.

1 In compliance with CIEEM guidance 2015, surveyor names are available on request.

The Landmark Practice Page 7 Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

3.15 All suitable and accessible waterbodies (P1, P3 and P4) were subject to Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment (Oldham et al, 2000). This is a standard assessment which uses numerous criteria or indices such as water quality, fish/waterfowl presence and surrounding terrestrial habitat from which a score between 0 and 1 is derived. Waterbodies with higher scores are considered more likely to support great crested newt compared to those with low scores.

3.16 See Figure 2 for the waterbody locations. P2 was scoped out of the need for further assessment, as the watercourse was very fast flowing, making it unsuitable for breeding great crested newt. Access to P5 was not possible (its sits on a private road with guard dogs running loose), from the OS map P5 looks like a wide section of ditch. In addition, P5 was not surveyed (or mentioned) by either EPR or RPS in reporting pertaining to the adjacent residential development, so potentially it is a fast flowing ditch rather than a static waterbody suitable for breeding GCN. The drains north of the A329 and those west of the B3270 were scoped out, as these main roads were considered significant barriers to dispersal (should GCN be present in the wider area).

Survey Constraints and Limitations 3.17 January falls outside the optimal survey season for undertaking Phase 1 Habitat Surveys, due to winter dieback. If the site were subject to an update survey during the optimal survey period, more botanical species would undoubtedly be recorded, however, it is considered unlikely that the habitat classification would change. Owing to the ecological context and type of habitats present within the site, the survey is not considered to have been limited by seasonal or climatic factors.

3.18 The evidence set out in this report describes the characteristics of the site at the time at which the survey was undertaken. Many species are highly mobile by nature and will routinely take advantage of new opportunities, which arise within their home ranges. Over time this may alter the baseline conditions present at the site. Should there be delays in the delivery of the project, it is possible that the baseline ecology will change, for example by establishment of a new badger sett. In the event of a significant delay (>1 year) between the baseline survey and works commencing on site, advice on the implications of potential changes at the site should be sought from a suitably experienced ecologist.

Assessment 3.19 This assessment identifies and considers the effects of potential impacts to important ecological features (as defined in Section 3), which could be affected by the proposed development. For each feature, a level of ecological importance is assigned based on guidance provided by the Chartered Institute of Ecology & Environmental Management (CIEEM, 2016). Based on the development masterplan provided at Appendix B, impacts on important ecological features are predicted and the significance of these impacts is assessed. Where necessary, measures to avoid, mitigate or compensate for impacts are presented alongside options for ecological enhancement.

4.0 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS

4.1 Appendix C provides details of the evaluation techniques and criteria that have been used to determine the ecological importance of habitats and species identified in this report.

Page 8 The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

Designated Sites 4.2 The site is not covered by any statutory or non-statutory designations of nature conservation interest. The location of statutory designated sites can be seen on Figure 3, whilst a plan showing the location of non-statutory site is provided at Appendix D.

4.3 There is a single internationally designated site within 10km of the site. The Thames Basin Heath SPA lies approximately 8.5km south of the site, a composite of heathland sites known to support ground nesting birds, as well as rare reptile species. Given the reason for its designation, combined with the distance from the site, no functional link is likely and impacts resulting from the development proposals are considered highly unlikely.

4.4 There are a number of statutory designated sites of nature conservation interest within 5km of the site, as summarised in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Statutory Designated Sites with 5km

Site Designation Reason for Designation Distance from Site Maiden Eriegh Local The LNR supports a lake and 1.4km Park Nature woodland. west Reserve (LNR) Lodge Wood and Site of Wet woodland bordering the River 1.9km Sandford Mill Special Loddon that supports interesting north-east Scientific ground flora, including large Interest populations of the Loddon Lily (Leucojum aestivum). Highwood LNR It supports mixed woodland and 1.9km heathland. north-west Lavells Lake LNR Nationally known for the migratory 2km north- and resident bird species it supports. east Alder Moors LNR Ancient woodland with a diverse 2.5km ground flora. north Pearmans Copse LNR Ancient woodland with classic 3.6km archaeological features, including south-west wood banks and ditches.

Ali’s Pond LNR Since its establishment in 1997 the site 4.1km now supports 18 species of dragonfly north-west and 40 species of aquatic/wetland plant. In addition, great-crested newt, harvest mouse (Micromys minutus) and stag beetle (Lucanus cervus) have all been recorded on site.

The Landmark Practice Page 9 Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

4.5 Given the reasons for their designations, combined with the spatial separation from the site, no functional links are likely and no impacts resulting from the development are predicted. Therefore, no statutory designated sites have been taken forward for assessment.

4.6 There are several non-statutory designated sites of nature conservation interest within 1km of the site, which in Berkshire are known as Local Wildlife Sites (LWSs). These are summarised in Table 3 below.

4.7 The table also includes Biodiversity Opportunity Areas (BOAs). These landscape scale areas have been identified as supporting high concentrations of UKBAP habitats and species populations and have the potential to restore habitats at a landscape scale. Therefore, these areas act as a focus for targeting resources into habitat management and restoration.

Table 3: Non-Statutory Designated Sites within 1km

Site Reason for Designation Distance from Site Loddon Valley It supports river valley and adjacent habitats Adjacent (South) BOA include meadow, wet woodland, parkland and to the deciduous woodland. west Loddon Bridge- Grassland, planted in part with trees as a 110m Lower Earley community woodland site. The grassland to the west Community west of the bridge was species-rich in the past. Woodland LWS River Loddon (Part) It supports a diversity of features such as adjacent 285m LWS marsh, islands, inlets, riffles, river cliffs and west extensive and varied channel vegetation. This includes the uncommon Loddon Pondweed (Potamogeton nodosus). Water vole (Arvicola amphibius) and a variety of dragonflies and damselflies are also found along its length. Winnersh A small area of woodland with much hazel (Corylus 475m Woodland LWS avellana) coppice. south-east Loddon Valley This area encompasses all of the gravel pits at the 545m Gravel Pits BOA north end of the Loddon Valley, between Winnersh north and Twyford and includes various areas of adjacent land mostly comprising woodland and grassland habitats. Dinton Pastures A number of old gravel pits that are managed for 690m Country Park LWS recreation and nature conservation. The site also north includes areas of woodland, a small wet meadow and a large area of grassland to the west. Alder carr, adjacent An extensive area of mature alder (Alnus glutinosa) 930m to River Loddon coppice between the River Lodden and an old south- LWS channel of the Lodden. west

Page 10 The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

4.8 With the exception of the Loddon Valley (South) BOA, which lies immediately adjacent to the site, impacts on non-statutory designated sites are considered unlikely given the reasons for their designations, combined with their distances from the site and lack of functional links to the site. Therefore, only the Loddon Valley (South) BOA has been taken forward for assessment, and is considered to be of at least county value given the landscape scale of the site.

Habitats 4.9 A Phase 1 Habitat map is provided at Figure 4 and is referred to throughout this section of the report. Photographs and target notes are provided at Appendix E.

4.10 The majority of the site is dominated by good quality semi-improved grassland (Photograph 1 refers) with variable amounts of scrub/tree cover, the vegetation becomes denser and more established to the west (Photograph 2 refers). More interesting species recorded in the sward include wild carrot (Daucus carota), tormentil (Potentilla erecta), hawkbit (Leontodon spp.), common vetch (Vicia sativa) and sedge (Carex spp.), however, these species were only recorded occasionally. A full list of other species recorded is provided at Target Note 1, this includes a number of semi-improved wildflower indicator species. The presence of anthills would indicate that the site has had minimal management over recent years, which would explain the higher level of botanical diversity recorded. The amount of tree/scrub cover appears to have been controlled by intensive rabbit grazing.

4.11 A distinctive hollow is present (the area lies at least 1.5m below ground level) in the north- east of the site (Target Note 2 refers). The feature was dry at the time of the survey. Given that only terrestrial vegetation, namely ash (Fraxinus excelsior) saplings and bramble (Rubus fruticosus), was present it is likely to only hold water occasionally.

4.12 A remnant species-poor hedgerow with an associated earth bank and dry ditch is present in the centre of the site (Target Note 3 refers). A number of mature goat willow (Salix caprea) coppice stools were recorded.

4.13 Several other ditches and banks criss-cross the site, which were generally dry and supported terrestrial vegetation. Species recorded in the ditch include ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata) and creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera). A section of the northerly- most ditch was holding approximately 1cm of water (Target Note 4 refers) at the time of the survey. The earth bank along the northerly ditch supported minimal vegetation cover indicating it has only recently been created, species recorded include spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), greater willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum), common nettle (Urtica dioica), groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) and winter heliotrope (Petasites fragrans).

4.14 A number of groups of broad-leaved trees of varying ages have been planted within the site. Species recorded include pedunculate oak (Quercus robur), silver birch (Betula pendula) and downy birch (Betula pubescens).

4.15 Scattered scrub and frequent saplings (particularly of oak trees) are present throughout the site, in addition there are a number of dense patches of scrub. Species recorded include hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), dogwood (Cornus sanguinea), rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum), bramble, oak and silver birch.

The Landmark Practice Page 11 Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

4.16 Two patches of tall ruderal vegetation are present on site. Species recorded include teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), greater burdock (Arctium lappa) and hard rush (Juncus inflexus).

4.17 An historic line of pedunculate oak trees (present on the 1872 OS map; Old Maps, 2017) forms the south-western boundary of the site (Photograph 3 refers). It predominantly consists of ancient coppice stools, and a mature standard is also present. A limited ground flora was present; occasional species recorded include male fern (Dryopteris dilatata) and stinking iris (Iris foetidissima). Some of the trees had features e.g. deadwood and ivy cover that could support roosting bats. These are described in further detail in paragraph 4.20 below.

4.18 The most important habitats on site are considered to be the line of mature oak trees (which has historic, aesthetic and ecological value, and also functions as a green corridor for species moving around the site and out into the wider countryside) and the good quality semi-improved grassland (the presence of several wildflower species increases the value of this habitat). Although not listed on Section 41 of the NERC Act as being ‘habitats of principal importance for nature conservation’, they will nonetheless support a range of species some of which will be protected. Overall, the site is therefore considered to be of site-local value.

Species Bats- Data Search Results 4.19 The following bat species are known to roost within 4 km of the site (records within the last 20 years provided by BSBBG): x Serotine (Eptesicus serotinus); x Daubenton’s (Myotis daubentonii); x Natterer’s (Myotis nattereri); x Noctule (Nyctalus noctula); x Common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus); x Soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus); x Brown long-eared (Plecotus auritus); x Plecotus spp.; x Pipistrelle spp.; x Myotis spp.; x Vespertilionidae bat; and x Unidentified bat.

4.20 BSBBG also provided records of other bat species foraging/commuting within 4km of the site (within the last 20 years): x Barbastelle (Barbastella barbastellus); x Leisler’s (Nyctalus leisleri); and x Nathusius pipistrelle (Pipistrellus nathusii).

Bats - Preliminary Ground Level Roost Assessment 4.21 The preliminary ground level roost assessment was undertaken during the Phase 1 Habitat survey. The trees detailed in Table 4 were considered to offer some roosting potential as described below.

Page 12 The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

Table 4: Trees with PRFs Requiring Further Survey

Target Species Age Type PRFs present Category Note

5 Pedunculate Mature Coppice Ivy cover could be Low oak stool obscuring additional bat roost features. 6 Pedunculate Mature Coppice Deadwood Moderate oak stool present and wound on limb SE. 7 Pedunculate Mature Dying Frequent peeling Low oak coppice bark NE. stool 8 Pedunculate Mature Coppice Peeling bark on Moderate oak stool two dead limbs N. 9 Pedunculate Semi- Dead tree Lots of small Low oak Mature holes, looks very Dead decayed and hollow. 10 Pedunculate Veteran Standard Broken branches Moderate oak SW & N.

Bats- Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey 4.22 The line of mature trees offers suitable habitat for roosting, foraging and commuting bats, whilst the scrub and rough grassland also provides suitable habitat for foraging purposes. The site is, however, small in size and has been temporarily isolated by construction of the link road. The site is considered to be of at least local value to bats, although further surveys would be required to establish the exact value of the site for bats if this information is needed to inform impact mitigation.

Badger 4.23 The nearest record returned by BBG is for a badger (Meles meles) road casualty, located 890m south of the site.

4.24 The site is considered to provide some foraging opportunities for badgers (should they be present in the vicinity of the site), rough grassland is known to support a moderate number of earthworms (Highland Council, 2006), a favoured food of badgers. No evidence of badger activity or setts was recorded on site or within 30m of the site.

4.25 Due to the lack of badger evidence noted within the site, it is considered to be of site value only in respect to this species. The site is not currently considered to be constrained by the presence of badgers, however. Badgers are legally protected and, since there is potential for badgers to be harmed during site preparation/construction works, this species has been taken forward for assessment.

The Landmark Practice Page 13 Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

Dormouse 4.26 No dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) records were returned in the data search, and no dormouse were found by EPR when bespoke dormice surveys were undertaken within the Hatch Farm Dairies site to the south in 2005. This evidence indicates that dormice are absent from the site, and this species has not, therefore, been taken forward for assessment.

Otter and Water Vole 4.27 Single otter (Lutra lutra) and water vole records were returned in the data search but, given there are no permanent aquatic features present on site, these species are considered likely to be absent. Otter and water vole have therefore not been taken forward for assessment.

Other Mammals 4.28 The site is likely to offer foraging and shelter for a range of other common mammal species such as hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus).

4.29 Other mammals utilising the site will be displaced into adjoining habitat. Therefore, significant impacts to other mammals are not anticipated, so this species group has not been taken forward for assessment.

Birds 4.30 Records for red kite (Milvus milvus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus) and kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) were returned in the data search. Given the lack of aquatic habitats on site the osprey and kingfisher records were not considered relevant. Notwithstanding this, the large trees present along the south-western boundary could be used by red kite for breeding purposes.

4.31 Incidental sightings of bird species recorded using the site include red kite, buzzard (Bufo bufo), robin (Erithacus rubecula), raven (Corvus corax) and blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus).

4.32 The trees, scrub and rank grassland provide suitable habitat for foraging bird species, whilst the trees and scrub offer opportunities for nesting birds. There is similar habitat available in close proximity to the site for birds to be displaced to (including a Country Park in the parcel of land adjacent to the site, which has been designed for the sole purpose of increasing the opportunities for wildlife). It is therefore only considered to be of site value for birds. Breeding birds are nonetheless legally protected and, since they could be harmed during site preparation/construction works, they have been taken forward for assessment.

Reptiles 4.33 Grass snake (Natrix natrix) and slow worm (Anguis fragilis) were returned in the data search from within proximity of the site. In addition, low numbers of slow-worm and grass snake were found at the Hatch Farm Dairies site in 2015, including a single grass snake immediately adjacent to the site (RPS, 2015).

4.34 The areas of rank grassland and scrub edges provide suitable habitat for foraging reptile species, whilst the earth banks, scrub/tree roots provide suitable habitat for hibernating reptiles. Overall, the habitats present on site are considered optimal for reptile species,

Page 14 The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

and the site is likely to be of at least site value for this species group. Further surveys would be required to determine the exact value of the site for reptiles.

Amphibians 4.35 Records for GCN, smooth newt (Lissotriton vulgaris), common toad (Bufo bufo) and common frog (Rana temporaria) have all been returned by the data search for within the locality of the site.

4.36 The HSI results are provided in Table 5 below.

Table 5: HSI Results

Waterbody Assessment Criteria P1 P3 P4 Pond location 1.00 1.00 1.00 Surface area 0.22 0.06 0.28 Desiccation rate 0.90 0.50 0.90 Water quality 1.00 0.33 0.01 Shade 0.40 0.20 0.20 Waterfowl 0.67 1.00 0.67 Fish population 0.33 0.67 0.33 Pond density 1.00 1.00 1.00 Terrestrial habitat 0.01 0.33 0.67 Macrophyte cover 0.90 0.31 0.33 Score & result: 0.41 0.35 0.42 Poor Poor Poor

4.37 A known great crested newt pond (identified as P1 on Figure 2 refers) is situated approximately 370 m to the south-east of the site on Lockyer Close. Paragraph 10.3.118 of the EPR report (2010) states the following:

The pond… “situated at Lockyer Close approximately 180m away from the site, contained a large population of GCN in the past. This population was, however translocated to a new pond approximately 700m away at Dinton Pastures. There have been unconfirmed records of GCN at the Lockyer Close pond since the translocation and therefore in April 2006 a Great Crested Newt survey was undertaken on behalf of Bovis Homes by EPR. After six visits the highest adult count using the torch survey method was 150. This equates to a large population according to the English Nature Guidelines 2001”.

4.38 The tussocky grassland and scrub provides suitable habitat for GCN, whilst the earth banks on site and tree/scrub roots offer suitable hibernation habitat for GCN. The site is relatively small, and lies beyond (i.e. further than 250m) the core terrestrial habitat range of a known breeding pond. Furthermore Lockyer Pond is relatively isolated and enclosed by existing residential development, with no direct habitat links to the application site. The site is considered to be of site value only for amphibian species including GCN.

The Landmark Practice Page 15 Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

Invertebrates 4.39 A number of records were returned in the data search for stag beetle (Lucanus cervus). Suitable habitat for stag beetles within the site is restricted to the line of mature trees where rotting/decaying wood, which this species requires, is present.

4.40 The site is composed of common and widespread habitat types, frequently found in the local environs of the site, and lacking in rare or notable botanical species. For these reasons, the site is considered to be of no more than site value for this species group.

Plants 4.41 The only rare plant records returned in the data search were for bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta). Although the survey was undertaken during the winter, the dead flowering stems usually persist and none were visible at the time of the survey. Therefore this species is likely to be absent from the site.

4.42 No plant species of conservation concern were recorded during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey so plants have not been taken forward for assessment.

Summary 4.43 Table 6 below, summarises the levels of value assigned to each ecological feature taken forward for assessment.

Table 6: Ecological Evaluation Summary

Ecological feature Level of value Loddon Valley (South) BOA County Habitats Site to Local (for the line of trees and grassland) Bats (adjacent railway line as a commuting route) At least Local Badger Site Breeding birds Site Reptiles At least Site Amphibians (including great crested newt) Site Invertebrates Site

4.44 With the exceptions of the line of mature trees, the site generally comprises a range of commonly occurring habitat types supporting a botanical assemblage indicative of land which has been subject to agricultural improvement (i.e. the application of fertilisers) in the past. The line of mature trees is considered to be the feature of highest ecological value on site. Open countryside is present immediately to the south-west of the site, albeit the site has been temporarily isolated by construction of the link road.

4.45 Although fairly limited in extent and habitat diversity, good quality semi-improved grassland is present which indicates that the site has not been subject to recent management. This explains the potential for multiple protected species including bats,

Page 16 The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

badger, nesting birds, reptiles and great crested newt, which together add to the strategic and intrinsic value of the site. Overall, the site is considered to be of local ecological value only.

5.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

5.1 The applicant, Roy Wood Transits (RWT) Ltd, proposes to use the part of the site closest to the Winnersh Fields development for the relocation of the camper van business (Appendix B refers). This includes the following provisions:

x Vehicle and pedestrian access taken from the service access to the adjoining Wickes/Halfords units;

x New workshop, showroom and office building circa 560m2;

x Secure compound and valeting area;

x 78 vehicle display/workshop/parking spaces for RWT exclusively; and

x 11 customer parking spaces including disabled space.

5.2 The scheme also includes 30 additional parking space for the Winnersh Fields Business Park (WFBP).

5.3 The layout incorporates new tree planting within the site and along external boundaries.

5.4 The main display area will comprise a two storey atrium, with a workshop space behind at ground floor, and offices, staff room and storage in a mezzanine floor across half of the workshop above.

5.5 The remainder of the site is to be left permanently undeveloped as green space.

5.6 The site will be lit for both security and operational reasons. A sensitive lighting strategy has been designed to limit light spill across the site and to ensure there is no light spill onto the south-western boundary.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Designated Sites Loddon Valley (South) BOA 6.1 A Country Park is due to be created in the Loddon Valley (South) BOA, which lies immediately adjacent to the site. The proposed development could impact on wildlife utilising the Country Park through an increase in artificial lighting and noise, during both the construction and operational phases of the development. In the absence of mitigation, the creation of the camper van showroom is likely to adversely impact local wildlife, particularly bats.

6.2 A sensitive lighting strategy is proposed to ensure that ambient light levels on the line of mature trees do not exceed existing levels. Either low-level bollard lighting or lights with passive infra-red sensors will be used.

6.3 In addition to this, a strip of dense scrub habitat will be planted along the south-western site boundary to enhance and buffer the existing line of mature trees, and to further limit

The Landmark Practice Page 17 Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

the potential for lighting to impact on this feature. This will comprise a variety of native species of local provenance, which will also provide new habitat for invertebrate species which bats predate. This strip of scrub planting will complement the landscape masterplan for the Country Park (RPS, 2016), by providing a band of scrub on either side of the line of trees.

6.4 The potential for adverse impacts on the mature line of trees (and the Loddon Valley BOA beyond) was identified at an early stage in the design process. As a result a precautionary approach was adopted with regards to scheme design and the requirement for a tailored lighting approach. As a consequence, potential impacts from light spill on the line of mature trees have been appropriately mitigated through embedded measures.

Habitats 6.5 The majority of the existing habitats (rank grassland, scrub and tree planting) that will be lost as result of development, are of lower ecological value. Only approximately two thirds of the site will be subject to development, and the remainder of the site will be retained as green space providing opportunities for on-site mitigation. Nonetheless the loss of these habitats as a resource for wildlife needs to be mitigated for in the scope of the proposed scheme.

6.6 The line of mature trees, which is of greatest ecological interest, will be retained and suitably buffered. The development will include the planting of a herb-rich base along the south-western boundary to create a transition between the line of trees and the rank grassland (as per the advice from the LPA ecologist). In addition, a belt of scrub will be planted at least 3m out from the edge of the line of trees to create a new area of dark, species rich, edge habitat which will function as an additional bat foraging resource whilst also creating a robust wildlife corridor.

6.7 Additional buffer planting will also be provided around the other boundaries of the development site, comprising tree/scrub planting. This will include a hedgerow with occasional trees along the eastern site boundary.

6.8 Overall it is considered that the loss of existing habitats is compensated for by the creation of enhanced habitats and the new dedicated ecological habitats proposed.

6.9 The following measures should be implemented, and can be secured by appropriately worded planning conditions, to ensure the adequate protection and management of habitats during construction:

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) 6.10 A range of ecological mitigation measures (summarised in Section 7.0) are required to ensure that the development does not result in significant negative impacts on biodiversity. Many of these measures will need to be implemented prior to, or during, the site clearance/construction phase of development. A CEMP should therefore be prepared to detail these mitigation requirements and provide a working site manual to inform site contractors and associated personnel.

Pollution Prevention Guidelines 5: Works and Maintenance In or Near Water 6.11 The site is surrounded by a series of dry ditches which are likely to hold water at least periodically. Although review of OS maps suggests that they are not functionally linked to the River Loddon, it is recommended that as a precautionary measure any construction

Page 18 The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

works on site should adhere to the methods laid out in PPG5. These guidelines provide working methods for construction works taking place near to watercourses and are designed to protect the watercourses from pollution events.

Working in Proximity to Trees 6.12 Tree root protection zones should be identified around all retained trees, and especially the line of retained mature trees along the south-western boundary, and suitable protective fencing installed where required in accordance with the appropriate standard.

Species Bats 6.13 The line of mature trees which forms the south western boundary is to be retained and buffered by a minimum 5m from built development, whilst the proposed sensitive lighting strategy and landscape planting is designed to ensure that this feature continues to function as a commuting, foraging and potentially roosting resource for bats. Discussions with the LPA ecologist have confirmed that these measures are adequate to ensure avoidance of development and operational impacts on bats and preclude the need for further bat surveys (including tree climbing surveys).

6.14 The proposed development will result in a loss of bat foraging habitat, in the form of some rank grassland and scrub. Given the measures proposed to enhance and manage the external boundary features, impacts caused by loss in foraging resource will be more than adequately mitigated/compensated within the proposed development.

6.15 The introduction of new sources of artificial lighting during both construction and post- construction phases of development could negatively affect the availability of foraging resources to more light sensitive species of bat. A sensitive lighting strategy has therefore been devised to reduce the proposed light levels to as low as possible on retained/enhanced boundary features.

6.16 The measures described above in relation to the line of mature trees (paragraphs 6.1 to 6.4) will also ensure bat commuting habitat will not be adversely impacted.

6.17 Potential Roost Features (which may support bats) were identified within the trees along the south-western boundary. The approach to mitigation described above, including the creation of a 5m buffer between the mature line of trees and the development site, and incorporation of a sensitive lighting strategy, both reduce the potential impacts of development to roosting bats and maintain a functional link between the line of mature trees and open countryside to the west.

Badger 6.18 Although badgers are known to be present within the locality of the site, no evidence of recent badger activity or setts was found during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey.

6.19 Given the nature of badgers to excavate new setts within short timescales, an update badger survey should be undertaken a maximum of six weeks prior to the start of construction to inform the construction and enabling works.

6.20 During site construction it is recommended that no excavations are left open overnight i.e. they should be backfilled. Where this cannot be avoided, they should be left with inclined ends to provide a means of escape for any animals that may fall in.

The Landmark Practice Page 19 Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

6.21 The creation of buffer habitats around the development site, will provide new areas of foraging and shelter for badgers which, with inclusion of fruit trees in the planting proposals, will also offset the loss in foraging resource.

Breeding Birds 6.22 The proposed development will result in the loss of a relatively small amount of habitat for breeding birds. Taking into consideration that the site is only likely to support generalist tree and shrub nesting species (no ground nesting species were recorded), the ecological impact is likely to be minor.

6.23 Mitigation for breeding birds will be delivered by retaining and strengthening existing boundary habitat including, for example, through the addition of structural planting of native shrub species.

6.24 In addition to the above, given the protection afforded to all breeding birds, their nests, eggs and young, sensitive vegetation clearance (required during the pre-construction and construction phases of development) should be timed to avoid the main bird breeding season (i.e. March to August inclusive). However, should this seasonal constraint prove impracticable, then vegetation clearance outside of this period should only commence following the advice and under supervision of a suitably qualified ecologist. Pre- commencement checks for active nests will be required prior to any vegetation clearance occurring during the main bird breeding season, with appropriate buffers marked out around active nests or nests under construction, until all eggs have hatched and chicks fledged. Such protection measures in relation to breeding birds should be included within the CEMP.

Reptiles 6.25 Given the known presence of reptiles adjacent to the site, the presence of good habitat connectivity and suitable onsite habitats, reptile presence is considered likely.

6.26 To ensure that reptiles are not harmed during development works, the following principles should be followed during a phased site clearance programme, and full details of these tasks should be included in the CEMP:

x Given the need to get vegetation at the site cleared quickly (to prevent GCN from potentially colonising, paragraph 6.30 refers). The first cut should be undertaken during the reptile active season (March to October)2, to a height of circa 150mm, and arisings removed;

x 24 hours later, any remaining vegetation can be cut to ground level, and then subsequently the area can be scraped back to bare earth to make it unsuitable for reptiles. Vegetation clearance should start on the easterly edge of the site and move westwards, to encourage reptiles to naturally disperse to the retained habitat in the north-western corner of the site. The vegetation clearance should be overseen by a suitably qualified ecologist and any reptiles discovered moved to areas of retained habitat. Any earth banks will also need to be subject to a

2 If these timescales cannot be met, an ecologist will need to be consulted to devise an alternative strategy for site clearance. Timing restrictions relating to breeding birds (paragraph 6.24 refers) will also need to be considered.

Page 20 The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

destructive search i.e. the banks will be dismantled gradually under a watching brief.

Amphibians 6.27 The site is relatively small, and lying beyond the 250m core terrestrial habitat known range of great crested newts. Furthermore Lockyer Pond which is known to support a large population of GCN, is relatively isolated and enclosed by existing residential development, with no direct habitat links to the application site. According to the Natural England Risk Calculator (NE, 2015) there is only a small risk of harming newts. Given this, it is recommended that the site be cleared sensitively under a non-licensed method statement (as agreed with the LPA ecologist, personal communication 2017), which will include reasonable avoidance measures (RAMS) to avoid harming GCN.

6.28 The proposed RAMs are detailed below:

x Since newts are a nocturnal species, construction activities should be limited to daylight hours when newts are not active;

x A toolbox talk about GCN should be given to the Site Manager, to ensure GCN awareness is raised with staff during site inductions. As part of the site induction process, all staff working on site should be made aware of the low risk of encountering GCN on site and their status as a UK and European Protected Species. A copy of the FSC Newt Guide (provided at Appendix G) should to be displayed in the site office so that staff are aware of what these animals look like;

x A phased vegetation clearance programme should be implemented within the working area, described in greater detail in paragraph 6.26 above in relation to reptiles.

x To avoid creating newt sheltering sites, materials should be stored off the ground and any waste disposed of;

x To prevent newts from becoming trapped in trenches or open excavations, these should be backfilled before nightfall. If excavations cannot be backfilled, they should be left with inclined ends; and

x The vegetation within the working area should be maintained at ground level throughout the construction period.

6.29 The proposed reptile hibernacula could also be used by amphibians for overwintering/hibernation purposes.

6.30 During the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey it was evident that the link road for the new residential development is currently being built, therefore works on the associated Country Park are anticipated to start soon. The plans for the Country Park (RPS, 2016) include installation of several swale features, two of which lie just to the west of the site. Once created these features are likely to become colonised by GCN, resulting in more GCN being present in much closer proximity to the site, increasing the likelihood that GCN could be harmed during site clearance works. Therefore the phased vegetation clearance works should start as soon as practicably possible given seasonal constraints.

The Landmark Practice Page 21 Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

Invertebrates 6.31 Given that the mature line of trees will be retained and buffered, this will avoid impacts on stag beetles should they be present on site. No specific mitigation measures are considered necessary.

7.0 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION/COMPENSATION REQUIREMENTS

7.1 The mitigation strategy developed for the site includes measures that safeguard features that support the greatest ecological diversity within and adjacent to the site.

7.2 Table 7 summarises the recommended mitigation and compensation measures.

Page 22 The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

Table 7: Summary of recommended mitigation/compensation requirements

Details of Mitigation Measure Purpose Timescale Implementation of a sensitive lighting strategy. To avoid/reduce impacts to bats using boundary habitats particularly Throughout construction works and along the south-western boundary where the line of mature trees is permanent lighting of the operational present. scheme. Creation of a 5m wide strip of vegetation (comprising herb-rich base To buffer the mature line of trees and avoid the need for further detailed Prior to works commencing on site. planting and belt of scrub) next to the mature line of trees. bat surveys. To buffer adjacent sensitive habitats and reinforce boundary habitats Additional landscape planting around other site boundaries. During construction. used by foraging/commuting species. Preparation and implementation of Construction Environmental To detail the measures required to protect species and habitats during Prior to works commencing on site. Management Plan (CEMP). construction. Adherence to Pollution Prevention Guidelines 5. To reduce the risk of aquatic pollution events. Throughout construction. Identification of tree root protection zones around all retained trees and To prevent damage to boundary features and retained trees. Throughout construction. installation of Heras fencing. Six weeks prior to works commencing on Update badger survey. To inform the development programme. site. Need to get vegetation cleared promptly. First cut to be undertaken during September or October, to a height of circa 150mm and Sensitive/timed vegetation clearance under a non-licensed method To ensure legal compliance and, in particular, to avoid the risk of killing arising removed. The second cut and statement to include RAMs. and injury of GCN during site clearance and construction. scraping of top soil will be undertaken 24 hours later. Top soil from eastern area of site to be retained. Prior to construction.

The Landmark Practice Page 23 Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

8.0 ENHANCEMENT

8.1 The creation of a robust wildlife corridor, functionally linked to areas already managed for long term protection and enhancement of biodiversity interest (i.e. the adjacent Country Park), is predicted to create an overall net gain for biodiversity and habitat connectivity in the wider area. The native species planting will provide habitat for a range of Section 41 species (including great crested newt, reptiles and a range of breeding bird species).

8.2 To compliment those enhancements associated with the adjacent Country Park, it is recommended that a total of six bird and six bat boxes of different types should be installed on the retained trees bounding the site.

8.3 To enhance the site for reptile species two artificial reptile hibernacula should be created; these can be constructed using arisings resulting from the shrub/tree thinning. These should be approximately 2 m long by 1m wide by 1 m high, a specification for a hibernaculum is provided at Appendix F.

9.0 CONCLUSIONS

9.1 A range of dedicated mitigation and compensation proposals have been recommended to avoid or reduce impacts on protected species in line with national and local planning policy. In addition, as embedded mitigation in the proposed development, the most important ecological feature on the site (the line of mature trees) will be retained and buffered from development and operational impacts. This avoids the need to undertake further detailed surveys for bats.

9.2 Provided that the recommendations made within this report are implemented, the ecological enhancements that are proposed are anticipated to increase the biodiversity value of the wider area. Overall, therefore, the proposed development offers an opportunity to deliver dedicated and beneficial management for biodiversity enhancement in the area alongside the primary purpose of development.

Page 24 The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

REFERENCES

Berkshire Local Nature Partnership (2014). Berkshire Biodiversity Strategy, BLNP. Available at:

British Ornithologists’ Union (2013). The British List: A Checklist of Birds of Britain (8th edition). Ibis, 155, 635-676.

CIEEM (2015). Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.

CIEEM (2016). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal, 2nd Edition. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.

Collins, J. (ed) (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). The Bat Conservation Trust, London. ISBN-13 978-1-872745-96-1.

DCLG (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. Department for Communities and Local Government, London.

DCLG (2014). Planning Practice Guidance. Department for Communities and Local Government. London.

Eaton, M. et al. (2015). Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108: 708-746.

English Nature (2001). Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. Version: August 2001. ISBN 1 85716 568 3.

English Nature (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. Version: January 2004 (A. J. Mitchell-Jones). ISBN 1 85716 781 3.

Ecological Planning and Research (2010). Environmental Statement- Chapter 10 Ecology, EPR.

Harris, S., and Yalden, D.W., eds. (2008). Mammals of the British Isles: Handbook, 4th Ed. Southampton: Mammal Society.

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) (1981). Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

HMSO (2006). Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

HMSO (2010). The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended).

Highland Council (2006). Best Practice Guidance- Managing Land as a Foraging Resource for Badgers, HC. Available at: http://www.highland.gov.uk/downloads/file/2642/badger_best_practice_guidance_managing_l and_as_a_foraging_resource_september_2006

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) (2013). Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. Winchester: Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.

Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA) (1995). Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. London: E & F N Spon.

The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2007). UK Biodiversity Action Plan. JNCC.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey – a technique for environmental audit. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

JNCC and DEFRA (2012). UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. Published on behalf of the four countries’ Biodiversity Group.

Lawton, J. (2010). Making Space for Nature: A review of England’s Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network.

Natural England (2010). Higher Level Stewardship FEP Manual. Page 61, key to identify semi- improved and species-rich grasslands. NE, ISBN 978-1-84754-211-3.

Natural England (2015). Method Statement Template for Great Crested Newt Mitigation Licence, version December 2015, NE. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/great-crested-newts-apply-for-a-mitigation- licence

Oldham, R.S., et. al, 2000. Evaluating the Suitability of Habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal, 10, 143-155.

Old Maps. OS County Series: Berkshire 1872-1881 1:2,500. Available at: https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/477039/171197/12/100067

RPS (2015). Land at Hatch Farm Winnersh: Condition 49- Protected Species Mitigation and Contingency Plan, RPS.

RPS (2016). Landscape Management Plan: Hatch Farm, Winnersh, RPS.

Stace, C.A. (2010). New Flora of the British Isles 3rd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wokingham Borough Council (2010). Wokingham Borough Core Strategy, WBC. Available at: http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/local-plan-and-planning-policies/#

Wokingham Borough Council (2014). Wokingham Borough Development Plan, WBC. Available at: http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/local-plan-and-planning-policies/#

The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

FIGURES

The Landmark Practice 5 Legend:

^ŝƚĞůŽĐĂƟŽŶ

Site boundary Reproduced with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright - Licence No. AR10001723 © Crown Copyright - Licence No. Stationery Office. the controller of Her Majesty’s Reproduced with the permission of

01,000m

Scale 1 : 25,000 @A3

GAZELLE CLOSE, WINNERSH

FIGURE 1 Site Location S:\PROJECTS\2950 - 2999\2955 - Gazelle Close, Winnersh\GRAPHICS (WORKING)\InDesign\2955_ECO FIGS - Gazelle Close, Winnersh\GRAPHICS (WORKING)\InDesign\2955_ECO S:\PROJECTS\2950 - 2999\2955 Hope Chapel House Hope Chapel Hill Hotwells Bristol BS8 4ND d͗нϰϰ;ϬͿϭϭϳϵϮϯϬϰϱϱ͗ĞŶƋƵŝƌŝĞƐΛƚŚĞůĂŶĚŵĂƌŬƉƌĂĐƟĐĞ͘ĐŽŵ ǁǁǁ͘ƚŚĞůĂŶĚŵĂƌŬƉƌĂĐƟĐĞ͘ĐŽŵ Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2016 Environmental Planning • EIA • Landscape Architecture • Ecology • Development Planning Drawn: GSChecked: PO Date:20 Feb 17 5 Legend:

Site boundary

ϱϬϬŵďƵīĞƌ;ĨƌŽŵƐŝƚĞ boundary)

Waterbodies

P4 Reproduced with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright - Licence No. AR10001723 © Crown Copyright - Licence No. Stationery Office. the controller of Her Majesty’s Reproduced with the permission of

500m 500m

P5 P3

0 50 100 150 m P1 Scale 1 : 5,000 @A3

GAZELLE CLOSE, WINNERSH

FIGURE 2 Waterbody locations P2 S:\PROJECTS\2950 - 2999\2955 - Gazelle Close, Winnersh\GRAPHICS (WORKING)\InDesign\2955_ECO FIGS - Gazelle Close, Winnersh\GRAPHICS (WORKING)\InDesign\2955_ECO S:\PROJECTS\2950 - 2999\2955 Hope Chapel House Hope Chapel Hill Hotwells Bristol BS8 4ND d͗нϰϰ;ϬͿϭϭϳϵϮϯϬϰϱϱ͗ĞŶƋƵŝƌŝĞƐΛƚŚĞůĂŶĚŵĂƌŬƉƌĂĐƟĐĞ͘ĐŽŵ ǁǁǁ͘ƚŚĞůĂŶĚŵĂƌŬƉƌĂĐƟĐĞ͘ĐŽŵ

Environmental Planning • EIA • Landscape Architecture • Ecology • Development Planning Drawn: GSChecked: PO Date:20 Feb 17 5 Legend:

Site boundary

ϭϬŬŵƐƚƵĚLJĂƌĞĂ;ĨƌŽŵƐŝƚĞ boundary) ^ŝƚĞŽĨ^ƉĞĐŝĂů^ĐŝĞŶƟĮĐ/ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ ,ĂƌƉƐĚĞŶtŽŽĚ;^^^/Ϳ ;^^^/Ϳ

^ƉĞĐŝĂůWƌŽƚĞĐƟŽŶƌĞĂ;^WͿ

^ƉĞĐŝĂůƌĞĂŽĨŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ ;^Ϳ

ůĂLJĮĞůĚŽƉƐĞ >ŽĐĂůEĂƚƵƌĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞ

EĂƟŽŶĂůEĂƚƵƌĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞ

ůŝΖƐWŽŶĚ

DĐ/ůƌŽLJWĂƌŬ ůĚĞƌDŽŽƌƐ

>ŽƵƐĞŚŝůůŽƉƐĞ >ŽĚŐĞtŽŽĚΘ^ĂŶĚĨŽƌĚDŝůů;^^^/Ϳ >ĂǀĞůůƐ>ĂŬĞ

Reproduced with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright - Licence No. AR10001723 © Crown Copyright - Licence No. Stationery Office. the controller of Her Majesty’s Reproduced with the permission of ,ŝŐŚǁŽŽĚ

ϭϬŬŵ DĂŝĚĞŶƌŝĞŐŚ ϭϬŬŵ WĂƌŬ dŝŶŬĞƌƐŽƉƐĞ dĞŵƉůĞŽƉƐĞ

WĞĂƌŵĂŶΖƐŽƉƐĞ ,ŽůƚŽƉƐĞΘ:ŽĞůWĂƌŬ &ĂƌůĞLJŽƉƐĞ

tLJŬĞƌLJŽƉƐĞ;^^^/Ϳ 01234Km

Scale 1 : 100,000 @A3

,ĞĂƚŚ>ĂŬĞ;^^^/Ϳ ^ƚĂŶĚĨŽƌĚŶĚDŝůůΘ >ŽŶŐŵŽŽƌŽŐ;^^^/Ϳ ZŝǀĞƌ>ŽĚĚĞŶ;^^^/Ϳ GAZELLE CLOSE, WINNERSH

dŚĂŵĞƐĂƐŝŶ ƌĂŵƐŚŝůů;^^^/Ϳ FIGURE 3 ,ĞĂƚŚƐ;^WͿ Statutory designated site locations S:\PROJECTS\2950 - 2999\2955 - Gazelle Close, Winnersh\GRAPHICS (WORKING)\InDesign\2955_ECO FIGS - Gazelle Close, Winnersh\GRAPHICS (WORKING)\InDesign\2955_ECO S:\PROJECTS\2950 - 2999\2955 Hope Chapel House Hope Chapel Hill Hotwells Bristol BS8 4ND d͗нϰϰ;ϬͿϭϭϳϵϮϯϬϰϱϱ͗ĞŶƋƵŝƌŝĞƐΛƚŚĞůĂŶĚŵĂƌŬƉƌĂĐƟĐĞ͘ĐŽŵ ǁǁǁ͘ƚŚĞůĂŶĚŵĂƌŬƉƌĂĐƟĐĞ͘ĐŽŵ

Environmental Planning • EIA • Landscape Architecture • Ecology • Development Planning Drawn: GSChecked: PO Date:20 Feb 17 5 Legend:

Site boundary

!. Target note !!!!! IIIIIIIIIII !!!!! !!!!! ^ĐĂƩĞƌĞĚďƌŽĂĚůĞĂǀĞĚƚƌĞĞƐ !!!!! Gaz ||||||||||| Fence

el

IIIIIIIIIII l dEϭϬ !. e Dry ditch

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSII SISISISISISISISISISISISISISS DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD C l DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD o DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD s !!!! SII SISISISISISISISISISISISISISS e Earth bank DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD | IIIIIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD |||| dEϵ |||| ||||| !. DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSII SISISISISISISISISI!!!!!!!SISISISI| ||| SS|||||||| |||||| !!!!!!!||||||| ||||||| |||||| EĞƵƚƌĂůƐĞŵŝͲŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚ DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD |||||| SI

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ||||| grassland

||| | ! |

!

dEϰ !

! | !

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!! !

!

SII SISISISISISISISISI!!!!!!!SISSII SII SISISSSISISI! SISISISI| S

! !

!

! | !

!. ! ! ! ! ! ! | ! ! !

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD !

!!!!!! !!!!!!! | !!!!!!! ! |

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD | !!!!!! ! | I /ŵƉƌŽǀĞĚŐƌĂƐƐůĂŶĚ

!!!!!!! |

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD |

IIIIIIIIIIISII SISISISISI!!!!!!SISISISI!!!!!!!SISII SISISSSISISISISISISI! SIS |

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD |

!!!!!! !!!!!!! | !

!!!!!!! dEϮ |

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!! | !. | ƌŽĂĚůĞĂǀĞĚƐĞŵŝͲŶĂƚƵƌĂů

!!!!!!! !

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!! DDDDDDDDDD |

SII SISISISISI!!!!!!SISISISISISII SISISSSISISISISISISISI| S ! |

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DDDDDDDDDD | woodland |

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD ! |

! |

!!!!!!! !

!!!!!!! |

! !

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD ! DDDDDDDDDD

SII SISISISI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SISISISISISISII SISISSS SII SISISISISISI| S

|

!!!!!!! ! |

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD!

IIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! Dense scrub |

!

|

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | !

!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!! ! |

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSII SISISISI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SISISISISISISII SISIDDDDDDDDDDSSSISISIDDDDDDDDDDSISI! SISISI| S DDDDD

! ! | !!!!!!! !

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DDDDDDDDDD | DDDDD

! | ! Reproduced with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright - Licence No. AR10001723 - Licence No. © Crown Copyright Stationery Office. the controller of Her Majesty’s Reproduced with the permission of

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD |

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | DDDDD ^ĐĂƩĞƌĞĚƐĐƌƵď

! |

!. !

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSII SISISISI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SISISISISISISII SISIDDDDDDDDDDSSSI! SISIDDDDDDDDDSISISISI| SIS DDDDD

!!!!!!!! |

!

!!!!!!! |

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DDDDDDDDDD! DDDDDDDDD |

!!!!!!!dEϭ ! | DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDD! DDDDDDDDD

IIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | |

! DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSII SISISISI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SISISISISISISII SISIDDDDDDDDDD!SSSI! SISIDDDDDDDDDSISISISI| SIS Tall ruderal

!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |

|

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DDDDDDDDDD! DDDDDDDDD ! ! |

!!!!!!! |

| !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DDDDDDDDDD !

| !!

| ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DDDDDDDDDD!

SII SISISISISISISISI!!!!!!!SISISII SISISSSISISISISISISI! SIS

!!!!!!!dEϯ |

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !. | | ! ! !

! ! ! Bare ground dEϴ !!!!!!!!!!!!!! |

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. | !

!

| !!

SII SISISISI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SISISISI!!!!!!!SISISII SISISSSISISISISISISI| SIS IIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!! | ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |

| ! !!!!!!! ! !!!!!!! |

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | Hardstanding ! ! | !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |

SII SISISISISISISISISI!!!!!!!SISII SISISSSISISISISISISI|SIS ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SII SISISISI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SISISISI!!!!!!!SI!!!!!!!SISII SI! SISSSISISISISISISISIS

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! IIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!SII SISISISISISISISISISIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!! 0 5 10 15 20 25 M !!!!!!!!!!!!!!SII SISISISISISISISISISIS dEϳ !. Scale 1 : 750 @A3 IIIIIIIIIIISII SISISISISISISISISISIS dEϲ !. SII SISISISISISISISISISIS

SII SISISISISISISISISISIS IIIIIIIIIII GAZELLE CLOSE, WINNERSH SII SISISISISISISISISISIS

SII SISISISISISISISISISIS dEϱ IIIIIIIIIII!. FIGURE 4 džƚĞŶĚĞĚWŚĂƐĞϭ,ĂďŝƚĂƚ^ƵƌǀĞLJ

IIIIIIIIIII S:\PROJECTS\2950 - 2999\2955 - Gazelle Close, Winnersh\GRAPHICS (WORKING)\InDesign\2955_ECO FIGS - Gazelle Close, Winnersh\GRAPHICS (WORKING)\InDesign\2955_ECO S:\PROJECTS\2950 - 2999\2955 IIIIIIIIIII Hope Chapel House Hope Chapel Hill Hotwells Bristol BS8 4ND d͗нϰϰ;ϬͿϭϭϳϵϮϯϬϰϱϱ͗ĞŶƋƵŝƌŝĞƐΛƚŚĞůĂŶĚŵĂƌŬƉƌĂĐƟĐĞ͘ĐŽŵ ǁǁǁ͘ƚŚĞůĂŶĚŵĂƌŬƉƌĂĐƟĐĞ͘ĐŽŵ

Environmental Planning • EIA • Landscape Architecture • Ecology • Development Planning Drawn: GSChecked: PO Date:20 Feb 17 Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

APPENDIX A: LEGAL CONTEXT

The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

Protected Sites (European)

Special Protection Area SPAs are classified in accordance with the European Community Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC) (the ‘Birds Directive’, EEC, 1979). Under this Directive, the UK Government must also take special measures to conserve the habitat of species listed in Annex I of the Directive and all migratory species. The provisions of the Birds Directive are implemented in England through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Habitats Regulations (2010).

Protected Sites (National)

Sites of Special Scientific The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended 1991 and varied 1998) Interest (SSSIs) (HMSO, 1981, 1991, 1998) requires Natural England, the Government body with authority for nature conservation in England, to designate areas which make a significant contribution to a national network of sites of nature conservation value as SSSIs. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (HMSO, 2000) came into force in full on 30 January 2001. The Act is in five parts. Part III relates to Nature Conservation and amends existing legislation (i.e. the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981) through improved protection and management of SSSIs, improved legal protection for threatened species and the provision of a statutory basis for biodiversity conservation.

Local Nature Reserves Local Nature Reserves are designated under Section 21 of The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (HMSO, 1949) by principal local authorities. The declaring local authority must have a legal interest in the land concerned. Local Nature reserves are designated for people and wildlife. They are places with wildlife or geological features of special interest locally and that give people special opportunities to study and learn about them or simply enjoy them and have contact with nature.

Non Statutory Sites

Local Wildlife Site The majority of Local Authorities have a system of 'second tier' sites which do not wholly fulfil SSSI designation criteria, but which are, nonetheless, of local or regional value. The policies, encouraged by Government advice, recognise that protection should be extended beyond the statutory sites to include the best examples of wildlife habitats, populations of rare species and geological features remaining in the area and are particularly valuable in supplementing and supporting the national framework for SSSIs.

Protected Features

The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

Tree Preservation Orders TPOs are made under the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012. They are made by local planning authorities to protect selected trees and woodlands if their removal would have a significant impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public. The criteria do not incorporate any specific considerations of ecological value. TPOs, however, provide legal protection to trees prohibiting the cutting down, uprooting, topping, lopping, wilful damage or wilful destruction.

Protected Species (European)

Bats All British bats and their roosts are fully protected under international wildlife law against adverse effects including disturbance. Under the terms of the Bonn Convention, which encompasses the Agreement of the Conservation of Bats in Europe, there is a fundamental obligation to protect from damage or disturbance, sites which are important for the conservation status of bats. Such sites include those bats use for shelter or protection and important foraging areas.

Birds In Britain all wild birds are granted legal protection under the EC Birds Directive and the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This legislation protects the birds, their eggs and nests whilst being built or in use. Under the Bern Convention 1979, Contracting Parties are required to take appropriate and necessary legislative and administrative measures to ensure the special protection of the wild fauna species specified in Appendix II. In the UK this is implemented through various national wildlife protection policies.

Great Crested Newt The great crested newt is fully protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The legislation protects the newts and their places of shelter or protection, which may extend 500m from the breeding pond.

Protected Species (National)

Badger Badgers are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. This Act makes it illegal to wilfully kill, injure or take any badger, or attempt to do so and it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any part of a badger sett or disturb a badger when it is occupying a sett.

Wild Mammals Under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 it is 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 Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

Birds In Britain all wild birds are granted legal protection under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the EC Birds Directive. This legislation protects the birds, their eggs and nests whilst being built or in use. Legal protection makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure, take or have in possession any wild bird or egg. It is also an offence to intentionally damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst it is being built or in use. Birds listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) are subject to special penalties and are also protected from disturbance while nesting including the disturbance of dependent young.

Reptiles The slow-worm (Anguis fragilis), grass snake (Natrix natrix), adder (Vipera berus) and common lizard (Lacerta vivipara) are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) in respect of section 9(1) and 9(5) only. Under section 9(1) it is an offence to knowingly kill or injure a reptile. Section 9(5) refers to sale and trade.

Plants Statutory protection in Great Britain is provided by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The plants and fungi which have special protection are listed on Schedule 8 under which it is an offence to intentionally pick, uproot or destroy any plant on Schedule 8. Five plant species are listed on the Weeds Act 1959 as injurious: common ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius), curled dock (Rumex crispus), creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) and spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare). The Act requires landowners to eliminate scheduled weeds to prevent their seeds contaminating neighbouring land. The Ragwort Control Act 2003 amends the Weed Act with respect to common ragwort. Thirty-eight species plus all species of Elodea (of which there are currently three species known to have been introduced) are listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 under which it is an offence to plant or otherwise cause to grow in the wild the scheduled species. Two are marine, thirteen (plus all species of Elodea) aquatic and the remainder terrestrial.

Biodiversity Conservation

Natural Environment and Section 41 (S41) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Rural Communities Act (NERC) Act 2006 requires the Secretary of State to publish a list (in consultation with Natural England) of habitats and species which are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. The Government has a duty to take reasonably practicable steps to further the conservation of the species and habitats that are included in lists published under Section 41. Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services sets out the means by which the Government will comply with its duty under Section 41 of the NERC Act to take or promote the taking by others of steps to further the conservation of listed habitats and species, including through the continued implementation of Action Plans.

The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

APPENDIX B: MASTERPLAN

The Landmark Practice

Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

APPENDIX C: EVALUATION TECHIQUES

The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

APPENDIX C: EVALUATION TECHNIQUES Introduction A number of systems and criteria are available to assess the nature and extent of ecological interest found at any site. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment have been prepared by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2016), which have been employed below. The IEEM guidelines detail a recommended approach to the valuation of ecological receptors on the following scale:

• International importance • UK importance • National importance (England/Northern Ireland/Scotland/Wales) • Regional importance • Metropolitan, County, vice-county or other local authority-wide area • Local • Site

Habitats and Features Internationally important habitats are considered to be those listed on Annex I of the Habitats Directive. All internationally important examples, however, should have been designated within Special Areas for Conservation (SACs). Other examples should be considered to be of value at the level for which they are designated (see below). There are published guidelines for the selection of SACs (see Brown et al, 1997) and SPAs and Ramsar Sites (Stroud et al, 1990).

There are similar published criteria for the selection of nationally important Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (NCC, 1989) which give criteria for both habitats and species.

The majority of Local Authorities have a system of 'second tier' sites which do not wholly fulfil SSSI designation criteria, but which are, nonetheless, of local to regional value. Policies, encouraged by Government advice, recognise that protection should be extended beyond the statutory sites to include the best examples of wildlife habitats, populations of rare species and geological features remaining in the District and are particularly valuable in supplementing and supporting the national framework for SSSIs. DEFRA (2006) has published Guidance on their Identification, Selection and Management of such sites. The Hedgerow Regulations (1997) provide a useful framework for the assessment of the ecological importance of hedgerows.

It is possible that there may be habitats that do not fall within designated sites but are considered to meet the published selection criteria. Similarly it is possible that habitats within designated sites may not fulfil the criteria for designation in their own right. This may be due to the site having deteriorated or that they have been included for other reasons such as secondary or supporting value. If a habitat is considered to be in an unfavourable condition, consideration must be given to its potential value if restored. Consideration should also be given to secondary or supporting value where a habitat or feature may have no particular interest in itself but may perform an important ecological function such as a buffer against negative impacts or an important link between habitats. The presence of a diverse range of habitats can increase the value of a site.

Species A number of resources are available to assess the rarity and vulnerability of individual species. Red Data Lists utilise standard criteria defined by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2001, now the World Conservation Union, WCU) to classify the scarcity and conservation status of species of flora and fauna. The Red Data List system can operate at an

The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

International, National or Regional level (e.g. County Red Data Lists). The IUCN maintains a list of threatened species on a global scale.

The IUCN threat categories are defined as follows: Extinct (EX), Extinct in the Wild (EW), Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened (NT), Least Concern (LC), Data Deficient (DD) and Not Evaluated (E). Species falling within the categories CR, EN and VU are considered to be threatened. These categories are defined by five criteria as follows:

x Criterion A considers the percentage decline of a taxon, regardless of current range or abundance. x Criterion B is designed to identify threats associated with extremely restricted distribution when combined with other risk factors. x Criterion C considers the combination of extremely small population size with similar risk factors to Criterion B. x Criterion D identifies very small or restricted populations. x Criterion E requires quantitative analysis to estimate the extinction probability of a taxon based on known life history, habitat requirements, threats and any specified management options.

Earlier Red Data Lists and Books (such as the British Red Data Book for Insects (Shirt 1987) and subsequent reviews: Falk, 1991 and Hyman and Parsons, 1992) classified species on the former IUCN criteria as: Extinct, Endangered (RDB1), Vulnerable (RDB2), Rare (RDB3) and insufficiently known (RDBK).

Criteria for the selection of Nationally Notable insects (now termed Nationally Scarce) species generally follow Eversham (1983). These Nationally Notable/Scarce species are further divided into Notable A (present in 16-30 squares) and Notable B (31-100 squares).

Rare birds in Britain are defined as any species for which records would have to be verified by the British Birds Rarities Committee. County rarities are taken to include all national rarities and also any species listed in County bird reports requiring a full description, which should be submitted to the relevant County Recorder. The presence of rare birds at any time of year, including locally rare species, adds significantly to the ecological value of a site. In general, however, only rare birds with a regular pattern of occurrence at a site should be included in this category.

National and County distribution atlases and species reports such as county bird reports can provide valuable additional information for evaluation. They can also provide information on species status at the level of geographic coverage of the atlas. Species at the edge of their distribution (especially in the context of global change) and notably large populations of species that are uncommon or threatened in the wider context enhances a species value. A species that is rare and declining should be assigned a higher level of importance than one that is stable. Other rarity related evaluation criteria include the need to protect populations for which the UK holds a large / significant proportion of the international / European population. The presence of a diverse assemblage of species can enhance the value of a site.

Further guidance on the evaluation of certain protected species has been published by English Nature e.g. Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines (EN, 2001) and Bat Mitigation Guidelines (Mitchell-Jones, 2004) and non-statutory organisations e.g. Froglife (1999, endorsed by English Nature).

The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

Other Resources Natural Areas English Nature (now Natural England) has divided England into 120 'Natural Areas' described as areas of the countryside identified by their unique combination of physical attributes, wildlife, land-use and culture (English Nature, 1998). Natural Areas provide a useful framework for assessing species and habitats beyond the traditional administrative boundaries. In the UK Biodiversity Action Plan they are described as:

"… biogeographical zones which reflect the geological foundation, the natural systems and processes and the wildlife in different parts of England, and provide a framework for setting objectives for nature conservation"

The Natural Area profiles provide contextual information to confirm temporal and spatial scope. They can provide information to aid evaluation of the relative importance of ecological receptors.

Biodiversity Action Plans

The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) published in 1994 (UK Biodiversity Steering Group, 1995- 1999) highlighted 38 key habitat types (now termed priority habitats), which were subsequently revised to include 26 non-maritime and 19 maritime priority habitats. A review was undertaken in 2007 resulting in the publication of a new list comprising 1,149 priority species and 65 priority habitats (40 terrestrial and 25 maritime).

Under the 2007 review, priority habitats were selected according to the following criteria:

1. Habitats for which the UK has international obligations;

2. Natural and semi-natural habitats at risk, such as those with a high rate of decline in extent and/or quality, especially over the last 20 years, or which are rare;

3. Habitats important for assemblages of key species.

4. Habitats which are 'functionally critical' i.e. those 'essential for organisms inhabiting wider ecosystems', may be useful in some cases as a supporting criterion but is unlikely to be a qualifying criterion in its own right.

Priority species were selected against the following criteria:

1. International threat;

2. International responsibility (of the UK) + moderate decline in the UK;

3. Marked decline in the UK; or

4. Other important factor(s).

Following the establishment of devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1998, each country produced its own biodiversity strategy. In 2002, DEFRA published Working with the Grain of Nature: a biodiversity strategy for England. This has since been superseded by Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services (DEFRA, 2011) which builds on the Natural Environment White Paper (TSO, 2011) and provides a comprehensive picture of how the Government is implementing its commitments under the Convention on Biological

The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

Diversity and the EU Biodiversity Strategy in England. It sets out the strategic direction for biodiversity policy for the next decade on land (including rivers and lakes) and at sea.

Section 41 (S41) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 requires the Secretary of State to publish a list (in consultation with Natural England) of habitats and species which are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. The Government has a duty to take reasonably practicable steps to further the conservation of the species and habitats that are included in lists published under Section 41. The S41 list includes all the habitats and species in England identified as requiring action under the UK BAP with the addition of hen harrier which, without continued conservation action, it is considered unlikely that its population will increase from its current very low levels in England.

Biodiversity Action plans at lower levels such as regional and county have also been produced for many areas.

Selection of habitats and species for BAPs is on the grounds that they are in a sub-optimal state and does not imply any specific level of importance of a habitat or species. The value of priority habitats and species should be determined as described above. Only where a specific habitat or species action plan states that all areas of a particular habitat or all populations of a given species should be protected should the habitat or species be valued at the appropriate level of the BAP. BAPs can assist in ecological evaluation but must be reviewed on a case by case basis.

Bird Species of Conservation Concern

Bird Species of Conservation Concern in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man was first published in 1996, updated in 2002 (Gregory et. al., 2002), in 2009 (Eaton et. al., 2009) and again in 2015 (Eaton et al., 2015). The list is prioritised into species of high (red) and medium (amber) conservation concern; all other species are of lower (green) concern. Red-listed species are globally threatened according to IUCN (World Conservation Union) criteria or in rapid decline (greater than 50% over the past 25 years) in the UK, currently or historically and those that have declined historically and not shown a substantial recent recovery. Amber listed species are in moderate decline (25-49% over the past 25 years), rare breeders, localised or internationally important populations, of an unfavourable conservation status in Europe or those whose population has declined historically but made a substantial recent recovery. It should be noted that despite substantial declines, many red-listed species such as skylark (Alauda arvensis) and song thrush (Turdus merula) remain relatively common in the UK countryside. As for BAPs, inclusion of species on one of the lists is not sufficient in itself for assigning a level of value to the species concerned. Each species should be evaluated according to the guidelines above with reference to the criteria for inclusion of the species.

The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

References

BROWN, A.E., et al. (1997). The Habitats Directive: selection of Special Areas of Conservation in the UK. Report 270. Peterborough: JNCC.

CIEEM (2016). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal. Winchester: Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management.

DEFRA (2002). Working with the grain of nature: A Biodiversity Strategy for England. London: DEFRA.

DEFRA (2006). Local Sites: Guidance on their Identification, Selection and Management. London: DEFRA.

DEFRA (2011). Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services. London: DEFRA.

EATON, M.A., et al., (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.

EATON, M. et al. (2015). Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108: 708-746.

ENGLISH NATURE (1998). Natural Areas: nature conservation in context.

ENGLISH NATURE (2001). Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. Peterborough: English Nature.

EVERSHAM, B (1983). Defining Rare and Notable species – a discussion document. Invertebrate Site Register Report No. 49. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council.

FALK, S.J. (1991). A review of the scarce and threatened bees, wasps and ants of Great Britain. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council.

FROGLIFE (1999). Reptile Survey: an introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Halesworth: Froglife.

GREGORY, R.D., et al., (2002). The population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man: an analysis of conservation concern 2002-2007. British Birds 95: pp 410- 450.

Hedgerow Regulations 1997 SI 1997 No. 1160.

HYMAN, P.S. & PARSONS M.S. (1992). A review of the scarce and threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain: Part 1. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

IUCN (2001). IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission, available at: www.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/RedList/redlistcatsenglish.pdf

IUCN (2003). Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, IUCN Species Survival Commission.

MITCHELL-JONES, A.J. (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. Peterborough: English Nature.

The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

Nature Conservancy Council (1989). Guidelines for the selection of biological SSSIs. Nature Conservancy Council and supplements. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

SHIRT, D B (1987). British Red Data Books 2: Insects. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council.

STROUD, D.A., MUDGE, G.P., and PIENOWSKI, M.W (1990). Protecting internationally important bird sites. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 SI 2010 No. 490.

THE STATIONARY OFFICE (TSO) (2011). The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature (Natural Environment White Paper). Norwich: TSO.

UK BIODIVERSITY STEERING GROUP (1995). Biodiversity: the UK Steering Group Report: Meeting the Rio Challenge, Volumes 1 and 2. London: HMSO.

UK BIODIVERSITY GROUP (1998-1999). Tranche 2 Action Plans, Volumes I-VI. Peterborough: English Nature.

The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

APPENDIX D: NON-STATUTORY DESIGNATED SITES

The Landmark Practice

Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

APPENDIX E: TARGET NOTES AND PHOTOGRAPHS

The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

APPENDIX E: TARGET NOTES AND PHOTOGRAPHS 1. Semi-improved wildflower indicator species recorded include ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), common cat’s-ear (Hypochaeris radicata), common sorrel (Rumex acetosa) and self- heal (Prunella vulgaris). Other species recorded were sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera), cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerata), ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea), dove’s-foot crane’s-bill (Geranium molle), common mouse-ear (Cerastium fontanum), white clover (Trifolium repens), bramble (Rubus fruticosus), teasel (Dipsacus fullonum) and winter heliotrope (Petasites fragrans).

2. A hollow that was dry at the time of the survey.

3. A defunct hedgerow with associated ditch and earth bank.

4. A dry ditch with a small section (1m in length) holding approximately 1cm of water.

5-8. Pedunculate oak coppice stools.

9. A dead semi-mature pedunuclate oak tree.

10. A veteran pedunculate oak tree.

Photograph 1: Good quality semi-improved grassland

The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

Photograph 2: Dense scrub/tree regeneration to the west.

Photograph 3: Mature line of trees along the south-western boundary.

The Landmark Practice Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

APPENDIX F: HIBERNACULUM DESIGN

The Landmark Practice

Roy Wood Transits Ltd Gazelle Close, Winnersh Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

APPENDIX G: FSC GCN IDENTIFICATION GUIDE

The Landmark Practice