BIFFA WASTE SERVICES

ATTLEBRIDGE LANDFILL SITE REEPHAM ROAD, ATTLEBRIDGE, NORFOLK

RESTORATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

October 2016

bright & associates landscape and environmental consultants

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. PREFACE ...... 1 1.2. APPOINTMENT AND SCOPE OF WORK ...... 1 1.3. DEFINITIONS ...... 2 2. CURRENT SITE SITUATION ...... 3 2.1. SITE REVIEW (AUGUST 2016) ...... 3 2.2. AREAS 1 TO 11 ...... 3 3. FUTURE RESTORATION MANAGEMENT ...... 4

DRAWINGS Drawing No. AT1073-D1v2, (Computer Ref. A5039001), Current Situation (2016) and Direct Management Actions

APPENDICES Appendix 1 Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan, prepared by Bright & Associates for Biffa Waste Services, December 2012

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. PREFACE 1.1.1. Attlebridge Landfill (the Site) is located c.2.5km north-west of the village of Taverham in Norfolk and is operated by Biffa Waste Services (the Client). 1.1.2. In December 2012, Bright & Associates (B&A) produced a report of behalf of the Client, ‘Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan’ which is referred to henceforth as the 2012 Restoration Management Plan (see Appendix 1).1 It dealt with matters relating to the Site including an amendment to the restoration design.2

1.2. APPOINTMENT AND SCOPE OF WORK 1.2.1. At the request of the Client, B&A conducted a Site review in August 2016 and have updated the approved restoration management plan, namely Drawing No. AT939-D3v4 (Computer ref. A5039200) (dated November 2012) to comply with the Schedule under paragraph 1.1 of the Section 106 agreement which requires: ‘… a revised scheme for the ongoing maintenance, management and monitoring of the Land for the approval of the County Council such scheme to include: Provision for the restoration to heathland and grass heath in accordance with the restoration plan submitted as part of the Application under reference number AT939-D3v4 and dated November 2012 or such other plan as is approved and agreed by the County Council’.3 1.2.2. The resultant plan, Drawing No. AT1073-D1v2, (Computer Ref. A5039001), Current Situation (2016) and Direct Management Actions is supported by the following report which consists of:  Section 2 (Current Site Situation) summarises the present situation noting any major changes which have occurred since the 2012 Restoration Management Plan in terms of specific Areas of the Site; and  Section 3 (Future Restoration Management) presents the supplementary aftercare details which have been prepared by B&A. It takes account of the current Site situation and restoration works completed to date since the Planning Consent was issued.

1 Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan, prepared by Bright & Associates for Biffa Waste Services, December 2012 2 Section 1 Introduction, Sub-section 1.2. Planning Consent, paragraph 1.2.1, page 2 3 Agreement Under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to Landfill Site at Deighton Hills Shooting Ground, Attlebridge, Norfolk, Norfolk County Council, page 9

Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 1

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016)

1.2.3. This report bases much of the detail on the 2012 Restoration Management Plan and as stipulated under Condition 2 of Planning Consent, Reference C/5/2012/5008 (dated 10 April 2015); which constitute the Approved Details for the Site. 1.2.4. With respect to the 2012 Restoration Management Plan, it should be noted that the broad management aims and objectives for the Site, together with the establishment of specific species and habitats, has not fundamentally altered.

1.3. DEFINITIONS 1.3.1. The 2012 Restoration Management Plan concerns the ‘Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan’ which is included in Appendix 1 for reference. 1.3.2. Drawing No. AT1073-D1v2, (Computer Ref. A5039001) refers to Drawing No. AT1073-D1v2, (Computer Ref. A5039001), Current Situation (2016) and Direct Management Actions. 1.3.3. The Site applies to the Planning boundary (red line) shown on Drawing No. AT1073-D1v2, (Computer Ref. A5039001). 1.3.4. Area 1, 2 etc. specifies a part of the Site listed in Table 1 Future Restoration Management, Areas 1 to 11 (2016-2018) and identified on Drawing No. AT1073-D1v2, (Computer Ref. A5039001).

Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 2

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016)

2. CURRENT SITE SITUATION

2.1. SITE REVIEW (AUGUST 2016) 2.1.1. A Site review was conducted by B&A in August 2016 and the following is of note:  Restoration work has taken place on Site with Area 8 being restored by completing capping and soil placement. Subsequently, this Area has been established with grassland;  Tree planting has taken place in Areas 10 and 11;  Heathland areas have become more established (in area extent); and  Tree and shrub regeneration has increased in places within the Site.

2.2. AREAS 1 TO 11 2.2.1. The direct management actions presented in Table 1 Future Restoration Management, Areas 1 to 11 (2016-2018) constitute the medium-term actions outlined in the 2012 Restoration Management Plan. The Area numbers correlate to those in the 2012 Management Plan, albeit with a minor adjustment to Areas 9 and 10, together with an additional new Area (No.11) which reflects the current Site situation and landuses observed during the Site review. Works are proposed broadly over 2017 and 2018 to facilitate the management objectives set out in this report. 2.2.2. The underlying approach with recognition to approved restoration management plan, Drawing No. AT939-D3v4 (Computer Ref. A5039200) and Drawing No. AT1073-D1v2 (Computer Ref. A5039001); is as follows:  Development of heathland and mixed scrub in Areas 1, 3, 4 and 6;  Development of improved grassland in Areas 2 and 8;  Development of a sandy substrate grassland in Area 5; and  Proposed planting in Areas 10 and 11. 2.2.3. The long term proposal to allow public access as indicated by Drawing No. AT939-D3v4 (Computer Ref. A5039200) remains current and valid, however, this will only take place upon removal of Site infrastructure.

Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 3

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016)

3. FUTURE RESTORATION MANAGEMENT

3.1.1. Having completed the Site Review (August 2016) and noted the findings, Table 1 summarises the broad restoration aims, management approach and direct management actions for 2017 and 2018 for each Area (1 to 11). An example photograph is provided for illustrative purposes. 3.1.2. Generally, this concerns the control of weeds, containment of scrub regeneration where it occurs (at the expense of reducing heathland) and ongoing heathland regeneration works where some further active input is required to ‘assist’ or facilitate the process of natural regeneration. Clearance work and weed control are more noticeable actions. Once the heathland is harvested and seeded from Area 3 and 4 into Area 1, the results (success or otherwise) of this process are likely to extend further into the longer-term management process. 3.1.3. Reference should be made to Drawing No. AT1073-D1v2, (Computer Ref. A5039001). 3.1.4. Longer term management actions proposed as part of this report, will include a Site review in 2020 and 2025. This will identify the process of maintenance and future action tasks which will enable habitats to be sustained or altered accordingly.

Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 4

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016)

Table 1: Future Restoration Management, Areas 1 to 11 (2016- 2018)

AREA 1

Broad restoration aim: The long-term restoration aim is to establish heathland within areas that are currently open and not established with scrub such as Gorse, Willow and some Birch. Currently a small area in the centre of the Site is beginning to exhibit positive heathland regeneration. Management Example photograph Direct management approach actions Retain current 2017 & 2018 proportion of open  Cut back ground by cutting encroaching Willow back Gorse, Birch and Birch. Cut to and Willow scrub ground level, dispose along line of cuttings by illustrated. shredding, leave in piles on Site.

Prevent Gorse and 2017 & 2018 Birch regeneration.  Hand pulling (small regen trees) or cutting back. Shred cuttings and leave on Site.

Retain rabbit 2017 grazed Gorse.  Allow Gorse growth and rabbit graze but cut back extended growth.

Instigate mole Winter 2016/Spring control. 2017  Mole control.

Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 5

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016)

Retain bare ground Ongoing where it exists. management  Prevent shadow incurring with regenerating scrub vegetation near bare ground areas.

Prepare new areas Late summer 2017 for heathland  At same time as the seeding. seed harvest, chain harrow areas for seeding, broadcast harvested seed heads and roll with Cambridge roller.

Remove c.50% of 2017 Willow  Cut to base regeneration to Birch/Willow etc. promote grassland shred material and development. leave in a single pile on Site.

Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 6

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016)

AREA 2

Broad restoration aim: Retain grassland as an improved grassland type and manage as hay meadow/silage cut. Retain surface water management pond, allowing natural regeneration in this area. Management Example photograph Direct management approach actions Retain grassland 2017 onwards by cutting for hay  Treat weeds e.g. or silage. thistle/ragwort annually by weed wipe or hand pull technique.

Retain surface  No action water allowing natural regeneration.

Manage scrub 2017 onwards regrowth.  Retain rough scrub edges but prevent further ingress through regular grassland cutting.

Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 7

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016)

AREA 3

Broad restoration aim: Promote continued natural development of heathland through control of shrub regeneration and weed control. Management Example photograph Direct management approach actions Remove outlying 2017 & 2018 Birch regeneration  Cut back, hand pull Area 2 to Area 3. (or stump treatment) and remove roots to prevent regrowth.  Shred cuttings and place into a single pile with other cut back in Area 3.

Thin central scrub 2017 & 2018 wooded area  Remove tree/shrubs (including by 50% by removal of Birch/Willow & outer area (i.e. Gorse) by 50%. reduction in overall extent).  Shred cuttings and leave in a single pile away from heathland habitat areas.

Cut back woody 2017 & 2018 Gorse.  Cut to ground level all outlying woody Gorse clumps around central woodland area.

Cut back woody 2017 & 2018 Gorse in outlying  As above, cut back parts of Area 3. to ground level, cuttings to be shred and left on Site.

Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 8

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016)

Remove tree 2017 regrowth to  Remove promote wetter Birch/Willow regrowth grassland type. by cutting back, removal of roots by hand dig or treat stumps.  Retain wetter grassland type.

Weed control. 2017 & 2018  Weed wipe with broadleaf herbicide application, thistle and other weed infestation

Tree maintenance 2017 & 2018 to develop woody  Treat grassland canopy growth. around trees with glyphosate to reduce grass growth (c.0.8m diameter) and treat other weeds through local application, hand pulling etc. to prevent loss of other vegetation.  Straighten guards and replace any losses.

Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 9

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016)

AREA 4

Broad restoration aim: Promote continued natural development of heathland through control of shrub regeneration and weed control. Management Example photograph Direct management approach actions Remove 2017 & 2018 Birch/Willow &  Remove by cutting Gorse in northern down, shred cutting sector of Area. and leave on Site (away from heathland).  Treat stumps with proprietary stump killer.

Allow re-  No action, monitor establishment of regrowth. edge regrowth, but retain 5m standoff from heathland area.

Control woody 2017 & 2018 Gorse.  Cut back to ground level all woody/enlarged Gorse development, shred cuttings and leave away from heathland.

Promote rabbit  No action. Retain grazing. rabbit grazed Gorse.

Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 10

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016)

Control grassland Spring-Summer weed infestations. 2017 & 2018  Hand weed wipe with glyphosate or other approved type all thistle, ragwort etc. Also, hand pull ragwort growth before seed heads ripen.

Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 11

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016)

AREA 5

Broad restoration aim: Promote continued natural development of grassland. No other input other than control of noxious weeds e.g. thistle/ragwort etc.

AREA 6

Broad restoration aim: Allow regeneration of grassland and Gorse and shrub/tree development. Management Example photograph Direct management approach actions Retain Birch  No action regeneration.

Control Gorse and 2017 & 2018 Buddleia.  Cut back woody Gorse and all Buddleia, treating stumps with propriety stump wood killer.

Retain grassland  No action regeneration.

Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 12

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016)

AREA 7

Broad restoration aim: Allow regeneration of both planted trees and Sycamore/Birch regeneration. Management Example photograph Direct management approach actions Retain area.  No action

AREA 8

Broad restoration aim: Develop grassland growth for long term improved pasture. Management Example photograph Direct management approach actions Remove surface 2017 debris.  Remove surface debris including large stones to enable longer term grassland cutting

Remove surface 2017 litter.  Remove surface litter and detritus.

Level ground. 2017  Area in northern sector to be re- graded to suit surrounding ground levels.

Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 13

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016)

Restrict ingress of 2017 & 2018 scrub on northern  Cut back boundary. regenerating scrub along north-eastern boundary.

Weed control. 2017 & 2018  Hand wipe noxious weeds and hand pull ragwort before seed head development. Generally, around manholes, electric guys and other landfill infrastructure.

Fertiliser Spring 2017 & 2018 applications to  Apply balanced develop grassland fertiliser application to growth. develop grassland regeneration and growth.

Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 14

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016)

AREA 9

Broad restoration aim: Surface water flood containment pond to be retained. Management Example photograph Direct management approach actions Retain.  No action.

AREA 10

Broad restoration aim: Develop new woodland around gas management and leachate compound. Management Example photograph Direct management approach actions New planting. 2017  Rip and loosen soil in entire planting area to at least 0.5m depth.  Plant Birch, Sessile Oak and Goat Willow to establish wider woodland area adjacent to existing areas.  Trees consisting of 0.6-0.9m transplants with 1.2m Tubex deer guards.  Weed free circles maintained by glyphosate treatment, 0.8m diameter. Tree maintenance. 2017 & 2018  Weed control around base of trees, replacement of losses and straightening of guards.

Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 15

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk, Restoration Management Plan (dated October 2016)

AREA 11

Broad restoration aim: Develop vegetation along the bund. Management Example photograph Direct management approach actions Tree maintenance. 2017 & 2018  Weed control around base of trees including herbicide treatment (0.8m diameter), replacement of losses and straightening of guards.

Development of 2018 regeneration of  Allow development scrub vegetation. of natural regeneration, whilst removing Buddleia and treatment of stumps.  Review use of geotextile in ditch to prevent erosion yet develop vegetative cover.

Bright & Associates Page AT1073, October 2016 16

DRAWING LIST

DRAWING NO. TITLE

AT1073-D1v2 Current Situation (2016) and Direct Management Computer Ref. Actions A5039001

APPENDIX 1

Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan, prepared by Bright & Associates for Biffa Waste Services, December 2012

BIFFA WASTE SERVICES

ATTLEBRIDGE LANDFILL SITE REEPHAM ROAD, ATTLEBRIDGE, NORFOLK

MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPROVED RESTORATION SCHEME AND SUBMISSION OF RESTORATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

December 2012

bright & associates landscape and environmental consultants CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 2 1.1. PREFACE ...... 2 1.2. PLANNING CONSENT ...... 2 1.3. DOCUMENT STRUCTURE ...... 3 1.4. DEFINITIONS ...... 4 1.5. RESTORATION OVERVIEW ...... 5 2. CURRENT SITE SITUATION ...... 7 3. SOILS ...... 11 3.1. INTRODUCTION ...... 11 3.2. SOIL ANALYSIS ...... 11 4. MANAGEMENT OF EXISTING HABITATS AND SPECIES ...... 16 4.1. INTRODUCTION ...... 16 4.2. ESTABLISHED HEATHLAND ...... 16 4.3. IMPROVED GRASSLAND ...... 17 4.4. SANDY GRASSLAND ...... 17 4.5. GORSE AND SCRUB ...... 18 4.6. TREES AND WOODLAND ...... 20 4.7. ROUGH GRASSLAND ...... 20 4.8. WETLAND ...... 20 5. PROPOSED LANDFORM ...... 21 5.1. INTRODUCTION ...... 21 5.2. LANDFORM DESCRIPTION ...... 21 5.3. CONCLUSION ...... 22 6. PROPOSED RESTORATION MASTERPLAN ...... 23 6.1. INTRODUCTION ...... 23 6.2. IMPROVED GRASSLAND ...... 24 6.3. WOODLAND HEDGE AND OPEN WOODLAND ...... 25 6.4. LOWLAND HEATHLAND/ACID GRASSLAND ...... 29 6.5. SURFACE WATER DITCHES AND SOAKAWAYS ...... 31 6.6. BARE GROUND ...... 32 6.7. SANDY GRASSLAND ...... 33 6.8. OTHER AREAS INCLUDING SURFACE INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 34 7. REFERENCES ...... 35

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. PREFACE 1.1.1. Attlebridge Landfill (the Site) is situated approximately 2.5km north-west of the village of Taverham and 11.0km north-west of the City centre of Norwich, Norfolk. The Site is operated by Biffa Waste Services and covers an area of approximately 29.4ha. 1.1.2. Planning Consent C/5/2009/5013 was granted in September 2009. The details of the consent (Planning Condition 1) require landfilling and restoration to be completed by 31 December 2012. Whilst landfilling has indeed ceased, and restoration is completed over a large part of the landfill site, due to a number of reasons, this deadline will not be met with regard the final restoration processes and it is understood, this report will form part of a Section 73 Planning Application to vary the date of the completion of the Site. The process of seeking an extension of time to complete the restoration provided an opportunity to review the current situation, and as a result it required variation of certain details from the consented scheme relating to:  A variability of imported soil type;  A minor adjustment of final landform;  Take account of existing uses associated with the shooting school; and  Take account of surface water management. 1.1.3. Furthermore, previous experience of restoration processes used to achieve restoration in areas that are currently restored can be applied and used as part of a management plan to apply to the whole site and thus a revised aftercare scheme also forms part of this document.

1.2. PLANNING CONSENT 1.2.1. This report deals with the matters raised in the recent (2009) Planning Consent which itself amended Conditions 2 and 9 of Consent C/5/1995/5010. The pertinent Conditions of the 2009 Consent being number 1 which is a time specific completion date and Condition 2, 9 and 10 which will form part of the amendments to the approved Restoration Design.

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 2

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

1.3. DOCUMENT STRUCTURE 1.3.1. The report is divided into the following sections, which are summarised below. 1.3.2. Section 2: Current Situation – a description of the existing areas of restoration and habitats found in the Site. 1.3.3. Section 3: Soils - outlines the results of soil analysis that was undertaken to determine the composition of soils already restored on Site, but not yet fully developed to heathland, to assess the influence of the shooting school activity upon the soil and to determine the physical constraints and composition of likely future imported soil such that final restoration can be accurately predicted and an appropriate restoration scheme submitted. 1.3.4. Section 4: Management of Existing Habitats and Species – this section documents and maps the existing habitats within the Site and it forms the basis for the restoration scheme illustrated in this report as it retains all of the habitats and restored areas already completed. 1.3.5. Section 5: Proposed Landform – this section explains the changes that are presented as part of the revised scheme. It demonstrates the contours that presently apply to those areas that are already restored and notes the final (settled) contours on the most recent area of landfill that remains capped but little or no final restoration soils being spread and will undergo settlement over the coming years 1.3.6. Section 6: Proposed Restoration Masterplan – this chapter will illustrate and describe the processes of restoration applicable to both the existing Site as well as the proposed areas awaiting final restoration. It describes the aims and objectives for biodiversity and nature conservation. It specifies how these may be applied to the Site, encompassing a timeline for action. It will also include details of the practical methods involved in aftercare and management of the Site, such as weed control, and replacement of losses etc. 1.3.7. References are noted in Section 7 with footnotes provided in the text where appropriate. 1.3.8. The report is supported by the following appendices:  Appendix 1: UK Biodiversity Action Plan – Priority Habitat Descriptions 2008 (updated December 2011);  Appendix 2: Habitat Action Plan – in respect of Lowland Heathland and Acidic Grassland, which features extracts from the Norfolk Biodiversity Action Plan; 1.3.9. Reference is made in the report to the following Figures:  Drawing No. AT939-D1v4 (computer ref. A5039000)  Drawing No. AT939-D2v3 (computer ref. A5039100)  Drawing No. AT939-D3v4 (computer ref. A5039200)

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 3

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

1.4. DEFINITIONS 1.4.1. ‘The Site’ refers to the restoration boundary. 1.4.2. The Landscape and Ecology Management Plan is referred to as the ‘Management Plan’ within this report. 1.4.3. For the purpose of clarity, the term ‘restoration’ will mean the completion of reinstatement, and associated tasks, of individual landscape components and elements such as tree planting, grass seeding etc. as generally illustrated on Drawing No. AT939-D3v4 (computer ref. A5039200). 1.4.4. ‘Landscape elements’ describes the proposed individual components or the principal landuse of the restoration scheme. 1.4.5. ‘Surface mounted infrastructure’ describes any surface pipes, gas and leachate monitoring wells or boreholes, and other surface infrastructure. 1.4.6. ‘Rough grassland’ describes areas of grassland which do not fit under one specific habitat classification such as heathland or acid grassland but may contain features from many different habitats such as specific soil types and plant species. 1.4.7. ‘Improved grassland’ describes areas of grassland which are thought to have received soil high in organic matter and nutrients and have therefore yielded a high biomass of a few species. Improved grassland is not as species rich as unimproved grassland but can still be managed for conservation. 1.4.8. ‘Sandy grassland’ describes acidic type grassland on sandy soils. 1.4.9. ‘Area 1’ etc. specifies particular parts of the Site as they currently exist. These are shown on Drawing No. AT939-D1v4 (computer ref. A5039000) and AT939-D2v3 (computer ref. A5039100). 1.4.10. ‘Existing woodland’ – current areas of (mainly) broadleaved woodland within/adjacent to the Site. 1.4.11. Due to the nature of the Site and restoration process which will be involved, the following definitions summarise the different stages and actions covered by the Management Plan. 1.4.12. ‘Initial’ relates to the objectives to be carried out within years 1-3. 1.4.13. ‘Medium-term’ relates to the management of areas between years 3-8 1.4.14. ‘Principal’ relates to long term management between 8-20 years. 1.4.15. Appendix 1 includes extracts from the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) relating to habitats and species deemed relevant to the restoration scheme. A full definition of ‘Lowland Heathland’ is provided. A brief summary is noted in the proceeding paragraphs.

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 4

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

1.4.16. The UK BAP (Biodiversity Action Plan)1 defines ‘Lowland Heathland’ as ‘a broadly open landscape on impoverished, acidic mineral and shallow peat soil, which is characterised by the presence of plants such as heathers and dwarf gorses. It is generally found below 300 metres in altitude in the UK, but in more northerly latitudes the altitudinal limit is often lower...’ In the case of the Attlebridge site it refers to the presence of characteristic lowland heathland species such as common heather/ ling (Calluna vulgaris), bell heather (Erica cinerea), Cross-leaved heath (Erica tetralix), small areas of broom and gorse interspersed in a mosaic of acidic, impoverished, dry sandy or wet soils. 1.4.17. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)2 classifies woodland as ‘vegetation dominated by trees more than 5m high when mature, forming a distinct, although sometimes open canopy’. 1.4.18. It also describes the following:  Acid Grassland – ‘often unenclosed, as on hill-grazing land, and occurs on a range of acid soils (pH less than 5.5). It is generally species-poor, and often grades into wet or dry dwarf shrub heath, although it must always have less than 25% dwarf shrub cover’; and  Neutral Grassland – ‘Typically enclosed and usually more intensively managed than acid or calcareous grassland (except on roadside verges), this category encompasses a wide range of communities occurring on neutral soils (pH 5.5-7.0)’. 1.4.19. The broad definitions above have been adopted as desired habitats as part of this report.

1.5. RESTORATION OVERVIEW 1.5.1. The main objective is to achieve a successful restoration scheme which will enhance the visual and landscape quality, in addition to improving nature conservation both in terms of the Site and in a wider context. 1.5.2. In order for this to be accomplished it will be necessary to take into account the current situation at the Site, and the timeframe (individual stages) which will be required for the preparation of the Site, for example in relation to site soils. Soil characteristics are dealt with further in Section 2. 1.5.3. One of the constraints of the Site is that it is still evolving notably in relation to the maintenance and management of gas generated on Site and through the necessity to have some surface mounted infrastructure. A practical scheme of restoration was required which allows for access for maintenance to be carried out but also limits disturbance on Site, the latter for example may cause delays in planting. During soil settlement, gas wells may fail or remediation work may need to be carried out.

1 UK Biodiversity Action Plan – Priority Habitat Descriptions 2008 (updated December 2011) 2 Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), (Revised reprint 2010)

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 5

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

1.5.4. Since the restoration masterplan (computer ref. A5130100) was approved in 2009, amendments have been made to habitat areas, planting and the Site contours. None of these variations are adverse or contrary to the ethos of restoration to both lowland heath areas and parcels of improved grassland. The variations relate to the current situation experienced on site, the constraints these impose on final landuses and indeed the requirements to comply with the Site licence and need to control both landfill gas and leachate for the foreseeable future. 1.5.5. In summary the Proposed Restoration Masterplan illustrates provision for a mixed use restoration scheme which would incorporate the following proposed landscape elements:  Woodland Hedges;  Open Woodland;  Lowland Heathland/Acid Grassland;  Improved Grassland;  Surface Water Ditches;  Soakaway Areas (ephemeral pools);  Hard Surfaced Access Tracks;  Surface Infrastructure

1.5.6. Table 1 summarises the approximate areas of each habitat type for the permitted scheme and the proposed scheme. The area sizes take into account existing habitats that will be retained as part of the Proposed Restoration Masterplan. Table 1: Comparison of Permitted Habitats and Proposed Habitats

AREA (HA)

HABITAT PERMITTED SCHEME PROPOSED SCHEME

Heathland 19.88 (this includes 13.3 (plus scrub) existing scrub) Improved (neutral) grassland 5.8 5.31 Woodland 3.0 2.48 Scrub Included in heathland 3.34 Soakaway 0.1 0.3 Bund 0.5 Within woodland Track 0.15 0.85 Sandy grassland N/A 3.63 Other (infrastructure) N/A 0.22

Total 29.43 29.43

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 6

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

2. CURRENT SITE SITUATION

2.1.1. B&A undertook a site visit in October 2012 to assess and document the present situation (illustrated on Drawing No. AT939-D1v4 (computer ref. A5039000). 2.1.2. The Site is surrounded by existing broadleaved woodland together with mosaic habitats on Site and also in places adjacent to the Site. A diverted footpath, retained as a permissive public path, runs along the western boundary of the Site. 2.1.3. The Site is currently accessed via a track from the north-east which joins Reepham Road although it can also be accessed via the track in the south-western edge of the Site. This track is the main access point to Keepers Cottage. Area 1 2.1.4. Area 1 is situated in the north-west of the Site and is c.5.7 ha. The soil is sandy in texture and the predominant land cover is grassland. The area is partially restored to grassland however characteristic lowland heathland species have yet to establish. Trees and scrub have established around the area have started to encroach on the grassland. Drawing No. AT939-D1v4 (computer ref. A5039000) illustrates plant type areas including S1 which consists of gorse and willow, S2, S3 and S6 consisting of gorse and bramble, S4 and S7 consisting of birch and willow and S5 and S21 consisting of gorse. T1 is an area of sycamore and birch. A hawthorn hedge has established between the south edge of Area 1 and the track which leads to Keepers Cottage. Existing surface mounted infrastructure is present over the extent of Area 1 and surface water ditches run mainly around the periphery of the area. A permissive right of way runs along the north-west and south-west boundary of Area 1. Area 2 2.1.5. Area 2 is situated in the north of the Site and is c.1.2 ha. The area is understood to have received imported soil which has a clay texture and high organic matter. The predominant land cover is improved grassland with long sword length. The area is restored to improved grassland and it is understood that no attempts have been made to restore it to heathland. An area of scrub birch, illustrated by S18, has established along the north-west and north-east boundary of Area 2 which is interspersed with existing trees along the north-east boundary. An area of rough grassland is situated in the north-west corner of Area 2 on an existing soakaway and is surrounded on the west by dense nettle (illustrated by S19). A hawthorn hedge has established between the west edge of Area 2 and the boundary of Keepers Cottage. Existing surface mounted infrastructure is present over the extent of Area 2 and

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 7

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

surface water ditches run mainly around the periphery of the area, draining into a soakaway area to the north of Keepers Cottage. The soakaway comprises two depressions. The smaller of the two remains as a wetland, the larger depression is dry and forms the soakaway feature. Area 3 2.1.6. Area 3 is situated in the central northern part of the Site and is c.5.1 ha. The soil is sandy in texture and has been mostly restored to heathland. A distinct zone can be seen between the central area of heathland (illustrated by H1) and surrounding grassland. Species on the area of heathland include common heather or ling (Calluna vulgaris), bell heather (Erica cinerea), cross-leaved heath (Erica tetralix), gorse and broom. An area of scrub birch, illustrated by S18, has established along the north-east boundary of Area 3. Also present is gorse and willow scrub illustrated by S17, gorse shown by S20 and rough grassland along the north-west edge of Area 3. A hawthorn hedge runs from Area 2 along the boundary between the Site and Keepers Cottage and existing trees are present on the north-west edge on the rough grassland. Existing surface mounted infrastructure is present over the extent of Area 3 and surface water ditches run mainly around the periphery of the area. Settling of the landfill has occurred creating areas of uneven surface which retain water during periods of high rainfall. Area 4 2.1.7. Area 4 is situated in the central southern part of the Site and is c.5.5 ha. The soil is sandy in texture and has been partially restored to heathland (illustrated by H2) although grassland is the predominant cover. Species on the area of heathland include common heather or ling (Calluna vulgaris), bell heather (Erica cinerea), cross-leaved heath (Erica tetralix), gorse and broom. Areas of gorse and bramble are illustrated by S9 and S22 and are present along the north-west edge and southern edge of Area 4. Trees and scrub are present around the western and southern edges of Area 4 illustrated on Drawing No. AT939-D1v4 (computer ref. A5039000). Areas of birch and gorse, illustrated by S8, S12 and S13 are present in the southern part of Area 4 and a clump of gorse, illustrated by S14, can be seen in the eastern part of Area 4. An area of sycamore and birch, illustrated by T7 is present in the southern section of the area. The western edge consists of a hawthorn hedge and rough grassland. A bund is present on the south-eastern edge between Area 4 and Area 5. A track runs from Area 1 through Area 4 to Area 10 and is raised above the surrounding ground. Existing surface mounted infrastructure is present over the extent of Area 4 and surface water ditches run mainly around the western periphery of the area. A permissive right of way runs along the western boundary of Area 4.

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 8

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

Area 5 2.1.8. Area 5 is situated in the central part of the Site, east of Area 4, and is c.3.7 ha. The soil is sandy in texture and has been restored to grassland although soil erosion caused by heavy rain has been noted in south-western part of the Site. The grass cover is fairly poor and it is understood that no attempts have been made to restore the area to heathland. Birch and willow scrub has established on the south-easterly boundary (illustrated by S10 and S11). The area is used as a part of a shooting range by the Mid Norfolk Shooting School and is littered with debris from shooting activities such as whole and shattered clays, spent lead shot and plastic wads. Area 5 is south facing with its highest point along the north edge of the area. The bund present in Area 4 runs along the north-west boundary of Area 5 and decreases in size as the ground elevation increases. Existing surface mounted infrastructure is present over the extent of Area 5 and a surface water ditch runs across the middle of the area. Area 6 2.1.9. Area 6 is in the centre of the Site south of the Site infrastructure and makes up c.1.5 ha. The soil is mostly sandy in texture and is mostly covered with scrub planting including birch, willow and gorse, illustrated on Drawing No. AT939-D1v4 (computer ref. A5039000) by S15 and S16. It is higher in elevation than Area 10 to the north and along with the scrub planting, provides good screening from the south. Existing surface mounted infrastructure is present in Area 6. Area 7 2.1.10. Area 7 is located in the south-eastern part of the Site and is c.0.9 ha. The soil is very sandy in texture and has a covering of moss and fine grass. It has previously been planted with a mixture of deciduous trees however these have failed to establish, possibly due to soil compaction, drought, damage from deer or a mixture of factors. Birch has encroached on to the area from surrounding woodland and is thriving. Some gorse has also established on this area. Existing surface mounted infrastructure is present over the extent of Area 7 and a surface water ditch runs across the middle of the area. Area 8 2.1.11. Area 8 is located in the north-east of the Site and is c.4.1 ha. The area has been capped and prepared with a HDPE landfill cap and imported soil is being placed on the membrane from the soil store in Area 9. Rough grassland runs along the eastern boundary of the Site bordering existing agricultural land. Existing trees are present along the eastern boundary as is a hawthorn hedge. Existing surface mounted infrastructure is present over the extent of Area 8 and a surface water ditch runs along the southern edge. A track extends from the eastern boundary of the Site to the weighbridge and office. Also present in Area 8, towards the north of the area is a car park, track, weighbridge and office all currently in use.

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 9

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

Area 9 2.1.12. Area 9 is located in the north of the Site and is c. 0.6 ha. The area mainly consists of imported soil which is being placed on Area 8 to restore the area and is used as the top soil stockpile area. Area 10 2.1.13. Area 10 is located in the north of the Site, adjacent to Area 9 and is c. 0.5 ha. The area consists of the Site infrastructure facilities such as the leachate works, gas flare, track and hard standing with skips. The area is screened by the planting in Area 6. A ditch runs south of the existing track.

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 10

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

3. SOILS

3.1. INTRODUCTION 3.1.1. Soil analysis was undertaken to understand the current and future progress of restoration works over the Site including;  Progress of restored areas and their future management  Progress of partially restored areas and their future management  Prediction of future restoration works using imported soil – including restoration of Area 8 using imported soils. 3.1.2. Soil placed on Area 8 is taken from the soil store in Area 9. This soil is imported and therefore the quantity, quality and composition can vary across batches. The composition of imported soil has an effect on the overall land use and habitat formation. 3.1.3. Soil was analysed to conclude the soil condition in respect to the restoration of the Site. 3.1.4. The restoration of part of Attlebridge Landfill includes heathland in Area 3 under the existing restoration regime. An area surrounding the heathland, to the north and west, has not yet developed heathland features such as the characteristic plant species (i.e. species of heather) and is currently improved grassland in Area 2 and grass with occasional birch to the west. 3.1.5. Following a site visit, soil samples were taken from various locations over the Site to determine an explanation for the distinct zoning of species and the Site’s future restoration and management.

3.2. SOIL ANALYSIS 3.2.1. In total 8 samples were taken from an average depth of 70mm (the primary rooting zone). 3.2.2. Sample locations are illustrated on Drawing No. AT939-D1v4 (computer ref. A5039000). Summary of Results  Soils were analysed by i2 Analytical1 for pH, organic matter (OM), Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Water soluble Nitrate, copper (Cu), lead (Pb), phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and potassium (K). In summary, the analysis demonstrated that:  Samples were found to have a pH range between 5.8 (sample 3) to 7.7 (sample 8).

1 I2Analytical. www.i2analytical.com

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 11

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

 Extractable phosphorous concentrations ranged from 1100-1600 in samples 1 and 2, indicating high soil fertility.  Lead (Pb) was found in all samples but was highest in sample 3.  Copper (Cu) concentrations are well below the risk of phytotoxicity value (250mg kg-1) between 4-36mg kg-1-.  Organic matter (OM) was found to be low with values between 0.7-2.7%. Sample 6 has a value of 3.7% which is still classed as low.  Samples 1, 2 & 8 had clay like texture whereas samples 3-7 had a sandy texture. Soil Structure and Analysis 3.2.3. Samples were taken at a depth of no more than 100mm as this was recognised through trial pitting as the primary rooting zone for the grassland and tree sapling growth. Samples 1 and 2 3.2.4. These samples were taken from a soil store in Area 9, composed of imported soil, organic matter and wastes from various sources. Both samples were sandy clay rather than sand and had a pH of 7.6. Fertility within these samples is high shown by high concentrations of calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and potassium (K). The properties of the soil in samples 1 and 2 will have an impact upon final landuses in the restoration of the Site. Samples 3 and 4 3.2.5. These samples were taken from areas in which clay pigeon shooting takes place. Sample 4 was taken from Area 5, north of the shooting butts and sample 3 was taken in Area 7. Both samples had a sandy texture. Sample 3 has the lowest pH of the 8 samples taken at 5.8 and sample 4 was alkaline with a pH of 7.5. Samples 3 and 4 have lower concentrations of Ca, Mg and K than samples 1 and 2 indicating lower soil fertility. 3.2.6. Samples 3 and 4 contained numerous ‘spent’ lead shots which may readily release soluble lead into the surrounding soil, potentially leading to contamination. In low moisture, aerobic environments Pb can easily corrode leading to high soil contamination1. A low pH can increase the mobility of Pb causing it to leach through the soil although Roony3 states that ‘the annual amount leached is a very small proportion (<0.1%) of the total lead burden’. 3.2.7. The concentration (extractable) of Pb in sample 3 was especially high at 520mg kg-1, which exceeds CLEA SGV (Soil Guideline Values) for residential use (450mg kg-1) although is below the threshold for commercial or industrial use (750mg kg-1)2. Sample 3 soil contained

1 Roony, C. Contamination at Shooting Ranges. Soil, Plant and Ecological Science Division, Lincoln University, New Zealand. [sourced November 2012] via http://www.lead.org.au/fs/shootingranges.pdf 2 Defra and Environment Agency (2002) CLR 10 GV5 Guideline Values for Lead Contamination in Soils. Defra/ EA, London (Withdrawn)

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 12

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

numerous lead shots, thus the analysis process would have extracted a large percentage of Pb from the shots (lead shots are composed of >90% Pb). Therefore the concentration indicates the amount of Pb that could potentially reach the soil in the future after corrosion of the lead shots. Samples 5 and 6 3.2.8. These samples were taken from the heathland (in Area 3) from the root zone, no greater than 100mm depth. The samples were sandy in texture. Beneath the root zone is a layer composed predominantly of sand which lies above the landfill membrane. Samples 5 and 6 have a pH of 6.5 and 7.3 respectively and extractable phosphorus concentrations of 220mg kg-1 and 250mg kg-1. Samples 7 and 8 3.2.9. These samples were taken north of 5 and 6. Sample 7 was taken from grassland in Area 3 and sample 8 was taken from the improved grassland in Area 2. The soil texture of sample 7 was sandy and the texture of sample 8 was clay. Samples 7 and 8 have a pH of 7.6 and 7.7 respectively. Soil from sample 8 contained a higher OM fraction and lower sand fraction. Samples from the two areas are compared in 3.2.12 – 3.2.13 to give an idea of the difference in soil properties. Comparison of the Existing Lowland Heathland Soil and Areas Lacking in Lowland Heathland Characteristics to the North. 3.2.10. Samples 5 and 6 have a pH of 6.5 and 7.3 respectively and samples 7 and 8 have a pH of 7.6 and 7.7 respectively all exceeding the characteristic pH of lowland heathland which is typically around 3-51. Although the heathland samples have a lower pH, they only differ by pH 1.2 and exceed the characteristic pH of lowland heathland. 3.2.11. Extractable phosphorus is also a constraint on lowland heathland development. Lowland heathland requires very low soil fertility4 including extractable phosphorus concentrations of <10mg kg-1. Samples 5, 6 and 7 had extractable phosphorus concentrations of 220mg kg-1, 250mg kg-1-, and 230mg kg-1 respectively and sample 8 had an extractable phosphorus concentration of 890mg kg-1. Samples 5-7 had an average concentration 23x higher than suggested by NAM (2006) and sample 8 had an average concentration 89x higher than suggested by NAM (2006).

1 NAM (Nature After Minerals). Lowland Heathland Habitat Advice. [sourced October 2012] via http://www.afterminerals.com/

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 13

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

Summary and Conclusion 3.2.12. There is little difference between samples 5, 6 and 7 thus providing no obvious cause for the zonation. Sample 8 has a distinctly higher concentration of extractable phosphorus and it is therefore predicted that this area will not easily be restored to lowland heathland. 3.2.13. The RSPB’s ‘practical guide to the restoration and management of lowland heathland’1 suggests that species such as heather survives well in nutrient deficient soil (including low phosphorus). It also states that ‘heather tolerates acidic soils, surviving in a range of pH 3.2-7.4’. The soils analysed exceed ideal values for heathland establishment for pH and extractable phosphorus however the heathland plant community in Area 3 seems to be thriving. 3.2.14. Seed dispersal is presumed to be the main factor accounting for the lack of lowland heathland species in some parts of Area 3. Heather produces thousands of seeds per year which are dispersed in time rather than space. The seeds fall to the ground below and are buried forming a large seedbank2. 3.2.15. It is possible that heathland species may not establish due to competition from species more suitably adapted to the high soil fertility such as grasses and birch. High soil fertility combined with little management may lead to succession, thus pioneer species such as birch will encroach on the heathland area, over longer time periods. 3.2.16. The Pb concentration in sample 3 indicates an issue that could arise in the future. The Pb concentration stated in the results includes Pb that is currently unobtainable to plants and therefore the concentration of bioavailable Pb is significantly lower. However because the lead shots are exposed to the atmosphere (aerobic conditions) they are open to corrosion and may accumulate in the soil, potentially leading to soil contamination in the future. 3.2.17. The Pb concentration (primarily from lead shots) does not seem to be causing a significant problem at the moment in terms of development of plant life. 3.2.18. Soil characteristics of the 8 samples are not ideal for the establishment of lowland heathland due to a high pH and high concentration of extractable phosphorus although the existing heathland seems to be thriving. On the basis of previous heathland areas of the Site with sandy soil could provide a substrate for the introduction of heathland. 3.2.19. It is recommended that the existing area of heathland is managed by cutting to prevent the build-up of organic matter and macro-nutrients such as calcium, magnesium and potassium. The reduction in soil fertility would encourage the growth of heathland species and promote the establishment of lowland heathland in surrounding areas.

1 RSPB. A practical guide to the restoration and management of lowland heathland. 2003. 2 RSPB. A practical guide to the restoration and management of lowland heathland. 2003.

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 14

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

3.2.20. The area to the north of the heathland and areas with sandy soils could be encouraged to develop/revert to heathland using heather brash from the existing heathland area. Heather from the existing heathland could be cut and used to provide seeds. 3.2.21. The variability in characteristics of imported soil materials brought into the Site may affect the aim of producing a consistent standard of restoration in absolute terms. 3.2.22. The imported soil (being placed on Area 8) has clay like texture and high fertility. It also has a neutral-alkaline pH of about 7.6. The imported soil currently present in the soil store is not deemed suitable for heathland restoration since it is too rich in nutrients for heathland species such as heather. 3.2.23. It is therefore suggested that the previously proposed restoration of Area 8 to heathland is altered to suit the soil conditions. 3.2.24. It is suggested that any imported soil which is less fertile and has a sandy texture is placed at the southern edge of Area 8 (the south side of the capped area) as this could create further areas of heathland.

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 15

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

4. MANAGEMENT OF EXISTING HABITATS AND SPECIES

4.1. INTRODUCTION 4.1.1. The following section identifies the aims and objectives for managing existing habitats and species on Site. These are identified on Drawing no. AT939-D1v4.

4.2. ESTABLISHED HEATHLAND Background 4.2.1. A substantial area of heathland (c.2.2 ha in total) has established on Areas 3 and 4 and characteristic heathland species such as ling, bell heather, gorse and broom have spread. 4.2.2. Heather has four life cycle stages and degenerates after about 25 years. In order to maintain the heather community, a range of life cycle stages must be present so that old heather plants which have entered the degeneration phase, are replaced by new plants (pioneer stage). 4.2.3. RSPB (2003)1 suggest the following objectives for heathland restoration;  Sustain the heather community.  Maintain a balance of age classes across the Site, from pioneer to mature, although some areas should be allowed to go through degeneration.  Prevent increases in soil fertility through litter accumulation.  Remove early stages of scrub and bracken colonisation. Site Aims and Objectives 4.2.4. Action - Initial to Principal Stages:  Management of existing heathland - Existing heathland, in Areas 3 and 4 (H1 and H2), will be maintained to enhance biodiversity and structure.  The oldest heather stands should be cut and collected in late autumn/ winter. Around thirty-forty 5mx5m patches should be cut every year for twenty years (0.1 ha/ year) to restore the heather’s growth cycle and avoid mass degeneration.  The brush can subsequently be used to ‘seed’ Areas 1, 3 & 4 (detailed in section 6.4).

1 RSPB (2003). A Practical Guide to the Management of Lowland Heathland.

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 16

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

4.3. IMPROVED GRASSLAND Background 4.3.1. Due to fertile soil with a pH of around 7.7, various species of grass dominate Area 3 (c.1.2 ha) Site Aims and Objectives 4.3.2. Action - Initial Stage:  Grassland in Area 2 - left to develop a wildlife rich grassland system.  Leave the area uncut which will provide seed food for birds and habitat for insects.  The grass should only be grazed or cut once every three years from September onwards, thus encouraging large, long-lived insects. These insects provide food for birds, especially in the spring when birds are collecting food for chicks.  Cut plant debris should be removed and placed in one pile. This will rot down and provide a habitat for insects and potentially some reptiles.  Areas of tussocky grass can provide nesting habitat for birds especially if they are situated near to short, thick hedges and should therefore be left without grazing or cutting for three years and should only be cut with blades set high to preserve the tussocky nature.  Removal of invasive weeds and prevent encroachment of scrub 4.3.3. General care and maintenance of existing grassland habitats should continue during the Medium-term and Principal Stages of the Management Plan.

4.4. SANDY GRASSLAND 4.4.1. For Area 5 only, this is the area of grassland that has been established onto a sandy soil substrate in much the same way as was initially done to the areas that currently demonstrate heathland. It is the area that fronts the shooting school and there is now significant ‘litter’ such as broken clay pigeon and plastic wads on the ground. Site Aims and Objectives 4.4.2. Action - Initial Stage:  Grassland – comprising fescue species will be left to develop a grassland cover.  Periodic cleaning/picking up by the shooting school of clay and plastic litter  No further expectation of heathland development which will be contrary to the current shooting use.

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 17

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

4.5. GORSE AND SCRUB 4.5.1. Drawing No. AT939-D1v4 (computer ref. A5039000) shows the existing scrub and gorse which have colonised in many areas of the Site (noted in Scrub habitats also on Drawing No. AT939-D1v4 (computer ref. A5039000). 4.5.2. Areas of scrub on lowland heathland can be a problem due to successional processes leading to woodland. Some managed scrub can be beneficial. Gorse on heathland 4.5.3. Gorse can be seen over the whole Site including areas of established heathland. In this section, ‘Gorse’ refers to any gorse cover over the areas of heathland shown as ‘Established heathland’ in Drawing No. AT939-D1v4 (computer ref. A5039000) and the following management applies. 4.5.4. Gorse forms an important habitat for certain species, particularly as a nesting cover for linnet, stonechat and yellowhammer, as foraging ground for nightjar and as foraging ground for reptiles such as lizards, slow worm and snakes. However if gorse is left unmanaged, it can become invasive into disturbed soils displacing heather stands and dominating large areas. Therefore careful management of the heathland periphery is required in order to provide a balance of habitat types. 4.5.5. Gorse can be rejuvenated by coppicing and will be maintained in some areas of the Site. Rabbit grazing of the Gorse is also currently preventing wide encroachment and should be encouraged/ continued. Site Aims and Objectives 4.5.6. Action - Initial Stage:  Existing gorse in Areas 1, 3 & 4 which becomes ‘leggy’ should be cleared to ground level and the accumulated litter removed to restore the old gorse stands. This will remove nutrients from the soil and expose the seedbank allowing successful germination.  A proportion of the cut gorse wood can be left to rot in piles providing habitats for a variety of ‘dead wood’ invertebrates.

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 18

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

Scrub Habitats 4.5.7. Areas of scrub are illustrated as ‘Scrub habitats’ on Drawing No. AT939-D1v4 (computer ref. A5039000). This section refers to the management of these habitats including existing gorse. Trees around the edges of the Site provide some degree of screening and the RSPB1 suggest that a range of heathland species can benefit from some trees within a heathland ecosystem as nest sites and for hunting. Site Aims and Objectives 4.5.8. Action - Initial Stage:  Young trees up to 2m tall have little negative effect on heathland vegetation and can provide niches for invertebrates and nest sites for birds. Young trees in Areas 1, 3 & 4 should be cleared on a five year cycle leaving approximately 10/ha.  Birch is a pioneer species and colonises open areas, therefore methods of control should be used to reduce the likelihood of succession on heathland areas. Zones containing birch (T1, S4, S7, T7, S10, S11, S16 and S18) should be monitored for birch spread. Birch which is starting to encroach on the heathland should be controlled through either; removal of saplings by hand, an approved herbicide, cutting with a chainsaw or flailing in very dense stands.  These methods require any cut wood to be removed and placed in piles.  Willow is also found on the Site (zones S1, S4, S7, S10, S11, S16 and S17) and is unfavourable on heathland. As with the birch, areas containing willow should be monitored for spreading and controlled accordingly.  Large trees (upwards of 2m) in Areas 1, 3 & 4 should be removed to leave 3-4/ha.  Dense scrub should be removed in Areas 1, 3 & 4 since it will shade out heathland species.  Existing gorse in zones S1, S2, S3, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, S12, S13, S14, S15, S17 and S22, which becomes ‘leggy’, should be cleared to ground level and the accumulated litter removed to restore the old gorse stands. This will remove nutrients from the soil and expose the seedbank allowing successful germination.  A proportion of the cut gorse wood can be left to rot in piles providing habitats for a variety of ‘dead wood’ invertebrates.  Zones S20 and S21 should be managed as above but with consideration to screening the property adjacent to the area

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 19

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

4.6. TREES AND WOODLAND Background 4.6.1. Limited areas of trees and woodland (not including scrub trees) are found on the Site and are illustrated on Drawing AT939-D1v4 (computer ref. A5039000). This includes areas of birch and willow (S4, S7, S10, S11 and S16) and existing trees around the periphery of the Site. Site Aims and Objectives 4.6.2. Action - Initial and Medium-term Stages:  Care of Existing Trees and Woodland - if they are to be removed/partly removed (due to damage/poor growth), then the tree trunks could be left on Site for the benefit of invertebrates and reptiles.  Birch and willow – S4, S7, S10, S11 and S16 should be monitored for encroachment onto heathland habitats and removed accordingly.  Removal of Trees in Area 7 - removal of trees and guards that have failed to grow in Area 7. 4.6.3. General care and maintenance of existing trees should continue for the Principal Stage of the Management Plan.

4.7. ROUGH GRASSLAND 4.7.1. The principal areas of rough grassland can be seen in Area 4, along the western boundary, Area 2, surrounding the wetland (soakaway), Area 3, south of Keepers Cottage and Area 8, along the north-eastern boundary. 4.7.2. Rough grassland areas can be beneficial to wildlife and require little or no management. The areas of rough grassland should be left to encourage species colonisation.

4.8. WETLAND 4.8.1. North of Keepers Cottage, in Area 2, is an area of wetland which acts as part of the soakaway for surface water ditches and drains. No action will be taken in this area.

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 20

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

5. PROPOSED LANDFORM

5.1. INTRODUCTION 5.1.1. A review of the Site survey and existing landform compared to the permitted scheme identified a need to update the approved contours as part of the proposed restoration masterplan. 5.1.2. The restored landform contours as illustrated on Drawing No. AT939- D3v4 (computer ref. A5039200) are a facsimile of the contours and landform illustrated on Drawing No. AT939-D2v3 (computer ref. A5039100). 5.1.3. Alterations to the landform have become necessary to take account of the lower levels of the restored landform in certain situations, increased levels along the frontage to the shooting school, and minor adjustment to approved levels in the areas recently landfilled. There is also a provision for surface water soakaway on the northern sector, not previously taken into account in the restoration design. As such the variations represent minor alterations to the approved plan and are, in effect, a recognition that there are always minor variations that need to be accounted for.

5.2. LANDFORM DESCRIPTION Area 1 5.2.1. Permitted levels are between 55 and 47mAOD. Currently site levels are 51 to 48mAOD in comparable locations. The Site shape and topographic shape is broadly comparable by having an ‘elongated area of high ground, albeit the high ground is 4metres lower than the permitted level. It is not known how much more settlement will take place in this Area although landfill gas continues to be extracted suggesting some further settlement is inevitable. There are no proposals to modify the contours from the current situation. Area 2 5.2.2. Permitted levels are between 48 and 47mAOD. Currently site levels are broadly 49 to 48mAOD in comparable locations. It is not known how much more settlement will take place in this Area although landfill gas continues to be extracted suggesting further settlement is inevitable. There are no proposals to modify the contours from the current situation. And final currently permitted levels are likely to be achieved over the coming years.

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 21

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

Area 3 and 4 5.2.3. Permitted levels are between 52 and 48mAOD (in north of Area 3) and 46m (in south of Area 4). Currently Site levels are between 54 and 49m/47mAOD in broadly comparable locations. The topographic shape and extension into Area 2 is comparable to the permitted landform. It is not known how much more settlement will take place in this Area although landfill gas continues to be extracted suggesting further settlement is inevitable. There are no proposals to modify the contours from the current situation. And final permitted levels are likely to be achieved over the coming years. Area 5 5.2.4. Permitted levels are 52 to 44mAOD. Proposed levels are 53 to 46mAOD although some further settlement (beyond that already taken into account could well reduce the overall landform to comparable heights as the permitted scheme. Contours illustrated in Area 5 are the estimated settlement contours approximately 0.5metres lower than current levels. Area 7 5.2.5. Permitted levels are 44mAOD and the comparable proposed restoration level is 45m. This level will broadly remain. Area 8 5.2.6. Permitted levels range from 52 to 46mAOD. The projected settlement levels are from 52 to 46mAOD and the topographic formation will be broadly comparable to the permitted scheme. Area 6, 9 and 10 5.2.7. Permitted levels are between 50 and 48mAOD. Proposed levels are between 50 and 44mAOD in comparable locations. The lower than permitted levels in the northern sector of the Site are necessary to retain the gas and leachate processing plant, as well as vehicular road access and to enable the retention of existing woodland, ground levels for which are also at lower than permitted landform levels.

5.3. CONCLUSION 5.3.1. With the exception of the lower levels than permitted in Area 1, most of the landform that is proposed is comparable to the permitted levels with some future settlement taking place. The expectation is that the landform will, in essence, achieve the predicted landform levels with only minor variations to the contour patterns. 5.3.2. Minor re-grading to the sides of the existing track, and re-grading of the bund in the south-eastern corner of Area 4 will lend towards an improved landform than presently observed.

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 22

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

6. PROPOSED RESTORATION MASTERPLAN

6.1. INTRODUCTION 6.1.1. The following chapter outlines the principles involved in the restoration process, together with the aims and objectives of the scheme for each proposed landscape element which includes:  Improved Grassland;  Woodland Hedge, mixed woodland and Open Woodland;  Lowland Heathland/Acid Grassland;  Surface Water Ditches;  Soakaway Areas;  Existing sandy grassland adjacent to the shooting school; and  Other areas including access tracks, infrastructure etc. 6.1.2. Reference should be made to Drawing No. AT939-D1v4 (computer ref. A5039000) and Drawing No. AT939-D3v4 (computer ref. A5039200) 6.1.3. It has been established that there is potential to enhance the biodiversity of the Site in relation to potential bird species. This is in reference to the management of current habitats on Site as well as those proposed as part of the restoration scheme. 6.1.4. The restoration scheme aims to provide a suitable habitat for target species including Nightjar, Skylark and Yellowhammer. Strategic Aims and Objectives  RSPB: Common Gorse is identified as an important habitat for birds and invertebrates including the Dartford Warbler, Common Linnet, Stone Curlew and Yellowhammer; and  RSPB: Lowland Heathland has been identified as a beneficial habitat for Nightjars. 6.1.5. Each habitat is dealt with in turn and divided into the following stages:

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 23

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

Table 2: Stage Division and Duration of Aftercare/Management Periods

STAGE ACTION DURATION

Completion of soil placement on the capped area. Soil settlement and grassland establishment, with tree planting taking place in the central and south-eastern part of the Years 1-3 Initial Site (as indicated on Drawing No. AT939- (up to 2015) D3v4 (computer ref. A5039200). In relation to habitats this specifically includes preparation, planting and establishment. Medium-term Management for 5 years of all restored areas Years 3-8 Continuing management of restored areas Principal Years 8-20 over the long-term

6.2. IMPROVED GRASSLAND

KEY (GRAPHICS) AS SHOWN ON DRAWING NO. AT939-D3V4 (COMPUTER REF. A5039200)

Improved Grassland

Background 6.2.1. Findings made in the soil analysis (Chapter 3. Soil) of the imported soil included its unsuitability for heathland restoration. Therefore any areas which receive imported soil (which is similar in composition to the existing soil store) should be restored to improved grassland, similar to the existing grassland in Area 2. Site Aims and Objectives 6.2.2. Action - Initial Stage:  Once the correct level of soil has been placed on Area 8, an early vegetative cover over the whole site seeding using a grassland meadow mix such as ESG3 – Meadowland Mixture1. Over time this area will develop its own species composition.  All grass areas to be reinstated should be cultivated, graded and seeded. Prior to seeding a fine tilth should be created and any large stones removed, the soil could then be levelled by rolling in preparation for seeding.  Following the restoration of Area 8 it should then be cut once per year in late summer, or longer seasonal periods if desired for conservation reasons.

1 Emorsgate Seeds. Sourced November 2012 via http://wildseed.co.uk/mixtures/view/48

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 24

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

 Cutting or spot herbicide treatment can be used to control injurious weeds (common ragwort, spear thistle, creeping or field thistle, broad-leaved dock and curled dock)1.  Avoid applying artificial fertiliser to encourage a greater variety of plants. Table 3: Grass Species in ESG3 – Meadowland Mixture

LATIN NAME COMMON NAME PERCENTAGE (%)

GRASSES

Cynosurus cristatus Crested Dogstail 15 Agrostis capillaris Higland Bent 5 Phleum bertolonii Smaller Cat’s-tail 10 Festuca rubra Strong Creeping Red 20 Fescue Festuca pratensis Meadow Fescue 20 Dactylis glomerata Cocksfoot 15 Poa pratensis Smooth-stalked Meadow- 15 grass

6.3. WOODLAND HEDGE AND OPEN WOODLAND

KEY (GRAPHICS) AS SHOWN ON DRAWING NO. AT939-D3V4 (COMPUTER REF. A5039200)

Woodland Hedge Open Woodland

Background 6.3.1. Woodland planting will be kept to a minimum since the predominant habitat cover proposed is heathland. It was decided due to the nature of the Site, a mixture of woodland hedges and open woodland were deemed most appropriate. 6.3.2. Four areas of woodland are proposed. A woodland hedge (WB1) is proposed on the northern edge of Area 5 on the bund and should be managed to retain a low canopy height. A similar woodland block (WB2) is proposed along the boundary between Area 3 and Keepers Cottage. This woodland block will be managed in a similar way to WB1. In Area 7, where there has been previous failed planting and naturally seeding birch re-growth, WB3 is proposed. Woodland block WB3 comprises of sessile oak planting in amongst the birch re-growth. An

1 Natural England. Injurious weeds and invasive plants. Sourced November 2012 via http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/regulation/wildlife/enforcement/injuriousweeds.aspx

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 25

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

area of woodland planting is proposed in Area 10, north of the existing birch and willow, which is labelled WB4 on Drawing No. AT939-D3v4 (computer ref. A5039200) 6.3.3. The restoration scheme proposes that WB1 makes up c. 1.0ha, WB2 makes up c. 0.2ha, WB3 makes up c. 0.8ha and WB4 makes up c. 0.1ha giving a total proposed woodland area of c. 2.1ha. 6.3.4. The presence of deer on the Site has been noted and could be a cause of failed planting in Area 7. Site Aims and Objectives 6.3.5. Action - Initial and Medium-term Stages:  Woodland hedge planting in Area 5: Successful establishment of native trees and shrubs on the bund in Area 5 (WB1) and 3 (WB2).  Replacement on a yearly basis of damaged stock. Shelterguard Plus for Trees will be used to protect trees from damage by rabbits and deer.  Open woodland planting in Area 7: a small number of oak trees to be replanted in Area 7 (WB3) with guards taller than guards on existing trees (to protect trees from damage by deer). Birch trees to be left to establish.  Successful creation of covered areas suitable for reptiles (using species such as broom), particularly along the southerly woodland edge of Area 7. 6.3.6. Action - Principal Stage:  In order to ensure the establishment of an effective woodland canopy, as trees and shrubs become established, coppicing of species exhibiting vigorous growth may be undertaken to prevent slower growing species from being shaded out and thinning undertaken in years 7-10 (following planting), depending upon requirements at that time;  Coppicing is also required to maintain the woodland hedge at a height suitable for shooting activities.  Undertake a woodland survey in year 5 and 10 to assess woodland development; and

Woodland Hedge: Preparation, Planting and Establishment (Initial Stage) 6.3.7. Woodland hedge planting will be established in the locations shown on Drawing No. AT939-D3v4 (computer ref. A5039200) (WB1 and WB2). These areas will strengthen the existing woodland framework and provide linkage between existing areas of tree cover adjacent to the Site.

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 26

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

6.3.8. All planting will consist of 60-80cm bare root stock (unless specified in Table 4). Planting will be undertaken using good horticultural practice and protect using deer shelter guards. Shelterguard Plus for Trees1 offers protection from rabbits and deer. 6.3.9. Trees and shrubs should be planted in rows of four at a distance of 2.5m apart. 6.3.10. All planting material will be grown to and handled in accordance with the appropriate British Standard and using the guidelines given in the document ‘Handling and Establishing Landscape Plants’.2 6.3.11. Plant stock of native origin and of local provenance is to be used as preference. The planting mixtures are shown in Table 4. 6.3.12. All proposed tree and shrub species will be planted using pit planting techniques. The pit will be sufficiently large to allow the root system to be amply spread out with the sides and base of the pit broken up to allow ease of root penetration. One part compost to two parts soil mix will be used as backfill material, together with hydration granules and fertiliser, installed to manufacturer’s recommendations. All plants will be planted between the months of November and April. 6.3.13. Transplants will have a vigorous leading shoot and will be appropriately furnished with laterals according to species and age. The plants will have been either undercut or transplanted at least once. 6.3.14. The root systems of each bare root plant will be thoroughly immersed in ‘Broadleaf’ root dip (or approved substitute) in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions at the nursery immediately after lifting. The age and height will be as specified in the plant schedule.

Table 4: Woodland Hedge Planting (Tree and Shrub Species)

LATIN NAME COMMON NAME PERCENTAGE (%)

Applicable to: Woodland hedge (woodland blocks WB1 and WB2) Corylus avellana Hazel (S) 30 Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn (S) 25 Castanea sativa Sweet chestnut (T) 30 Acer campestre Field maple (T) 15 6.3.15. Steps will be taken to reduce the competition to trees and shrubs from weeds for water, light and nutrient resources by chemical and, where appropriate, physical means during the initial establishment period. 6.3.16. Invasive weeds will be removed by herbicide treatment.

1 www.acorn-planting-products, details of tree and shrub shelters (sourced May 2012) 2 Handling and Establishing of Landscape Plants, The Committee for Plant Supply and Establishment (1995)

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 27

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

6.3.17. Replacement numbers due to failures will be counted in September of the first two years. Replacements will be like for like according to the original specification and implemented during that planting season. A minimum of 95% stocking is carried through into the next season for the first 2 years after planting. 6.3.18. Protective tree guards and shelters in planting areas will be checked during maintenance visits with any replacements or adjustments required undertaken immediately. 6.3.19. As trees and shrubs become established, coppicing of species exhibiting vigorous growth may be undertaken to prevent slower growing species from being shaded out and thinning undertaken in years 7-10 (following planting), depending upon requirements at that time. 6.3.20. In order to gain access to previously buried gas pipe locations, selected trees may be required to be removed. Open Woodland: Preparation, Planting and Establishment (Initial Stage) 6.3.21. Area 7 will be planted with a small number of oak trees in amongst the existing naturally seeded birch saplings. This area will create an open woodland canopy that is intended to create a more visually and habitat diverse area in comparison with block woodland. 6.3.22. Such areas will be established in accordance with the methodology noted above (Woodland Hedge) and trees will be set out in a random pattern but based on 10 metre gaps. 6.3.23. Grassland and weed development will be controlled around each tree/shrub species using herbicide treatment (0.4 metre radius). Table 5: Open Woodland Planting

LATIN NAME COMMON NAME PERCENTAGE

Applicable to: Open woodland block in Area 7 (WB3) Quercus patraea Sessile Oak (T) 100%

6.3.24. The Medium-term and Principal Stages should follow that of Woodland Hedge planting.

Woodland Block: Preparation, Planting and Establishment (Initial Stage) 6.3.25. A small area (c. 0.1ha), south of the Site infrastructure facilities in Area 10, will be planted with a mixture of sessile oak, birch and willow.thi sis are WB4.

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 28

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

6.3.26. Such areas will be established in accordance with the methodology noted for Woodland Hedge and trees will be set out in a random pattern in intervals of 2 metres. 6.3.27. Grassland and weed development will be controlled around each tree/shrub species using herbicide treatment (0.4 metre radius). Table 6: Mixed Woodland Planting

LATIN NAME COMMON NAME PERCENTAGE

Applicable to: Mixed woodland block in Area 10 (WB4) Quercus patraea Sessile Oak (T) 30% Salix caprea Goat Willow 40% Betula pendula Silver Birch 30%

6.4. LOWLAND HEATHLAND/ACID GRASSLAND

KEY (GRAPHIC) AS SHOWN ON DRAWING NO. AT939-D3V4 (COMPUTER REF. A5039200)

Background 6.4.1. Lowland heathland is a key priority habitat in the UK BAP. The restoration scheme includes an area of lowland heathland mainly in western and central part of the Site (c.16.6 ha). Strategic Aims and Objectives 6.4.2. UK BAP: Lowland Heathland (Target T4). ‘Increase the extent of lowland heathland by 7,600ha by 2015 (11,352ha UK wide by 2020)’. 6.4.3. The Norfolk Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Targets for Heathland:  Maintain the current extent of all existing lowland heathland (94,788 ha - no net loss of habitat).  Maintain the area of lowland heathland currently in favourable condition.  Improve the condition of lowland heathland on sites currently in unfavourable condition (12,762 ha).  Increase the extent of lowland heathland by 7,600 ha by 2015.  Increase the number of heathland patches over 30 ha from 10% of the total resource to 50% by 2030. 6.4.4. The Norfolk Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Targets for Lowland Dry Acid Grassland:  Maintain the current extent of lowland dry acid grassland in the UK (61,646 ha - no net loss of habitat).

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 29

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

 Maintain at least the current condition of lowland dry acid grassland.  Achieve favourable or recovering condition for 34,745 ha of lowland dry acid grassland by 2015.  Restore 597 ha of lowland dry acid grassland from semi-improved or neglected grassland, which no longer meets the priority habitat definition by 2015.  Re-establish 411 ha of grassland of wildlife value from arable or improved grassland by 2015.  312 ha (75%) of re-established area to be adjacent to existing lowland dry acid grassland or other semi-natural habitat by 2015.  208 ha (50%) of re-established area to contribute to resultant habitat patches of 6 ha or more of lowland dry acid grassland by 2015. Wherever practicable, bigger patches should be created. Site Aims and Objectives 6.4.5. Action - Initial and Medium-term Stages:  Undertake the process of ‘interseeding’ into the existing grass sward or spreading brash harvested from existing heathland communities; and  Allow areas of gorse to occur close to areas of proposed woodland planting (block and open)  Review the effect of grazing by rabbits initially whilst heathland plant communities establish. Possibly use temporary rabbit fencing to gain better establishment. After a good heathland ecosystem has developed grazing (by rabbits) should be encouraged as part of the management of the heathland. Preparation, Planting and Establishment (Initial Stage) 6.4.6. Situated mainly within the western and central area of the Site, the restoration scheme aims to recreate a naturalistic plant community, creating a beneficial environment for the natural colonisation of birds and invertebrates. 6.4.7. The total area proposed for lowland heathland/acid grassland is c.166,000m2. 6.4.8. Calluna vulgaris (Heather) and Erica cinerea (Bell Heather) seeds should be applied using brash cut from existing areas of heathland, cut in late autumn. In total there is c. 2.14ha of heathland although not all of this area will be accessible for cutting. In total approximately 0.04 ha/ year of heather should be cut and removed from areas of existing heather. In total, sixteen 5mx5m areas should be cut. It is likely that a smaller area will be covered with the seed brash. 6.4.9. Cut heather can be used to propagate new plants applied to lightly scarified ground surface. Cut branches can be layered (in Areas 1, 3 & 4). These areas should then be rolled to ensure good contact with the soil.

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 30

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

6.4.10. As part of natural regeneration, areas of gorse will require management to prevent interference with other plant species. 6.4.11. The receptor areas for the heather seed and brash in inferred on the Proposed Restoration Masterplan, Drawing No. AT939-D3v4 (computer ref. A5039200), by ‘Proposed restored heathland’ Initial/Medium-term/ (General) Principal Stages 6.4.12. Invasive vegetative species will be controlled and where possible, eradicated. Species such as Creeping Thistle, Nettle and Dock will be treated with specific herbicide treatment administered to the plant rather than blanket spray. 6.4.13. Ragwort will be pulled by hand in early summer, prior to general cutting or strimming tasks taking place. 6.4.14. Gorse, broom and bracken will be controlled to enable the regeneration of heathland species. 6.4.15. Aftercare and management will be tailored to encourage and establish a heathland/acid grassland community. Principal Stage (Rabbit Grazing) 6.4.16. The long term management (Principal Stage) would benefit from grazing by rabbits of the heathland habitat. This is generally considered to be highly beneficial to the heathland ecosystem by:  Helping to maintain low nutrient levels;  Helping to suppress scrub encroachment;  Developing a finely varied vegetation structure on a much smaller scale than can be achieved by mechanical means (via preferential selection of grazed species);

6.5. SURFACE WATER DITCHES AND SOAKAWAYS

KEY (GRAPHICS) AS SHOWN ON DRAWING NO. AT939-D3V4 (COMPUTER REF. A5039200)

Surface Water Ditches Soakaway Areas

6.5.1. To enable the successful drainage of surface water on the Site, a system of ditches and soakaways are located on the Site. (This is in addition to the sub-surface drainage layer).

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 31

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

Surface Water Ditches Background 6.5.2. Surface water ditches are mainly situated on the periphery of the Site as shown on Drawing No. AT939-D3v4 (computer ref. A5039200). 6.5.3. The surface water management scheme allows for periods of high rainfall and thus drainage ditches have already been incorporated into the overall design and these will be directed towards soakaway areas. Site Aims and Objectives 6.5.4. Action - Initial Stage:

 To ensure that the network of drainage ditches is working efficiently with vegetation clearance undertaken as necessary.

Preparation, Planting and Establishment (Initial Stage) 6.5.5. During the active years of management (covered by the Management Plan), all drainage ditches will be checked and kept clear of debris, including excessive vegetation growth that would otherwise restrict the efficient drainage of the land. Soakaway Areas Background 6.5.6. The main proposed soakaway area is situated in Area 9. They will be sown with EM1 Basic General Purpose Meadow Mixture1 Action During All Stages 6.5.7. Observational monitoring of rate of natural colonisation of the soakaway areas will be made throughout the aftercare period. 6.5.8. Vegetation clearance will be undertaken as necessary with invasive weeds removed. There will be no cutting of the grass once it establishes in these areas, nor grazing. 6.5.9. With reference to the soakaway located in Area 2 in the north-west of the Site, no action will be necessary as part of the Management Plan.

6.6. BARE GROUND

KEY (GRAPHICS) AS SHOWN ON DRAWING NO. AT939-D3V4 (COMPUTER REF. A5039200)

Bare ground created by cutting away Bare ground and reptile habitat existing track

1 Emorsgate Seeds. Sourced November 2012 via http://wildseed.co.uk/mixtures/view/2

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 32

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

6.6.1. Bare ground is important for a range of insects, especially as part of a heathland ecosystem. 6.6.2. The existing track in Area 4 has a higher elevation than the surrounding ground and cannot be levelled or removed due to the presence of pipe lines within the raised area. Site Aims and Objectives 6.6.3. Action - Initial Stage:  Undertake the process of cutting away the track to create steep sided, bare slopes.  Removal of grass in discrete areas near established scrub for reptiles Preparation, Planting and Establishment (Initial Stage) 6.6.4. During Year 1, the sides of the existing track should be cut away to create steep sided, bare slopes. 6.6.5. Biffa should make the final decision on the extent of the excavation to avoid damaging any infrastructure within the elevated area. 6.6.6. During subsequent years the sides of the track should be monitored for subsidence/hazard. 6.6.7. As illustrated on Drawing No. AT939-D3v4 (computer ref. A5039200), either side of the central site track should be cut away c. 216m in length (this relates to Area 4 on Drawing No. AT939-D1v4 (computer ref. A5039000). 6.6.8. Bare ground and nearby vegetation cover on a south facing slope is ideal habitat for reptiles. In Areas 5 and 7, once vegetation has established, 1mx1m squares of bare ground can be created. Areas that would be suitable for reptiles and bare ground creation are shown on Drawing No. AT939-D3v4 (computer ref. A5039200).

6.7. SANDY GRASSLAND 6.7.1. The existing area abutting the shooting school will remain as existing and as described in Section 4 of this report. The longer term management will include the continuing use by the shooting school and therefore on-going retention and establishment of the sandy grassland species.

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 33

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

6.8. OTHER AREAS INCLUDING SURFACE INFRASTRUCTURE

KEY (GRAPHIC) AS SHOWN ON DRAWING NO. AT939-D3V4 (COMPUTER REF. A5039200)

Background 6.8.1. Drawing No. AT939-D1v4 (computer ref. A5039000) shows the current locations of surface wells for monitoring leachate and gas and other surface infrastructure. These are noted in a generic sense to recognise that restoration management will need to take account of this infrastructure, and the limitations of afteruse it creates. Access is required to gas wells and equipment (as indicated on Drawing No. AT939-D3v4 (computer ref. A5039200). Furthermore public access will need to be restricted. 6.8.2. Other Site infrastructure includes the leachate processing and storage and gas management and electric turbines situated on the northern side of the site.. These will be retained for a prolonged period of time into the future and have thus been incorporated as an integral element of the final restoration scheme. These works are regulated by the Environment Agency under the terms of the Site Licence. 6.8.3. A replaced public right of way is illustrated on Drawing No. AT939-D3v4 (computer ref. A5039200) which shows the proposed route of the public right of way across the Site, avoiding walking over the bund. The original right of way was moved to pass along the boundary (shown by ‘permissive right of way’ on Drawing No. AT939-D3v4 (computer ref. A5039200). The route of the definitive right of way across the Site will be restored only once Site infrastructure has been removed, which is regulated by the Environment Agency and the Site’s monitoring licence.

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 34

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

7. REFERENCES

1. Defra and Environment Agency (2002) CLR 10 GV5 Guideline Values for Lead Contamination in 2. Emorsgate Seeds. Sourced November 2012 via http://wildseed.co.uk/mixtures/view/48 3. Emorsgate Seeds. Sourced November 2012 via http://wildseed.co.uk/mixtures/view/2 4. Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), (Revised reprint 2010) 5. Handling and Establishing of Landscape Plants, The Committee for Plant Supply and Establishment (1995) 6. I2Analytical. www.i2analytical.com 7. NAM (Nature After Minerals). Lowland Heathland Habitat Advice. [sourced October 2012] via http://www.afterminerals.com/ 8. Natural England. Injurious weeds and invasive plants. Sourced November 2012 via http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/regulation/wildlife/enforcement/ injuriousweeds.aspx 9. Roony, C. Contamination at Shooting Ranges. Soil, Plant and Ecological Science Division, Lincoln University, New Zealand. [sourced November 2012] via http://www.lead.org.au/fs/shootingranges.pdf 10. RSPB (2003). A Practical Guide to the Management of Lowland Heathland. 11. Soils. Defra/ EA, London (Withdrawn) 12. UK Biodiversity Action Plan – Priority Habitat Descriptions 2008 (updated December 2011) 13. www.acorn-planting-products, details of tree and shrub shelters (sourced May 2012)

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 35

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

APPENDIX 1

UK BAP Lowland Heathland Characteristics

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 36

Biffa Waste Services Attlebridge Landfill Site, Norfolk Modifications to the Approved Restoration Scheme and Submission of Restoration Management Plan

APPENDIX 2

Habitat Action Plan – in respect of Lowland Heathland and Acidic Grassland, which features extracts from the Norfolk Biodiversity Action Plan

Bright & Associates Page AT939 V2 37

NORFOLK BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN Ref 1/H6 Tranche 1 Habitat Action Plan 6 Plan Author: Norfolk County Council LOWLAND HEATHLAND AND DRY ACID Plan Co-ordinator: Heathland BAP Topic GRASSLAND Group The UK BAP identifies heathland as consisting Plan Leader: Norfolk County of “an ericaceous layer of varying heights and Council structures, some areas of scattered trees and Date: Stage: scrub, areas of bare ground, gorse, wet heaths, 31 December 1998 Version 1 bogs and open water”. In Norfolk, heathland is April 2004 Version 2 much more of a mosaic, with acid grassland and 17 November 2011 Version 3 bracken often being significant elements. Even more distinctive are the heaths of the Brecks which include chalk grassland and little or no heather.

In East Anglia, the typical lowland acid grassland community is NVC U1, comprising sheep’s-fescue Festuca ovina, common bent Agrostis capillaris and sheep’s sorrel Rumex acetosella. Other species may include wavy hair-grass Deschampsia flexuosa, heath bedstraw Galium saxatile and tormentil Potentilla erecta.

1., CURRENT STATUS

National Status  In England, only a sixth of the heathland present in 1800 now remains. The UK has about 95,000 ha of lowland heathland (58,000 ha of which are in England) representing about 20% of the international total of this habitat.

 As with other lowland semi-natural grassland types, acid grassland underwent substantial declines in the 20th century. Although there are no figures available on the current rate of loss, it is thought to be slowing. The decline is primarily the result of under-management, specifically under-grazing and abandonment. In Norfolk, afforestation has also been a significant factor in heathland decline (although perversely, in Breckland, the soil disturbance associated with forestry management may have helped to sustain the very high levels of biodiversity - particularly invertebrates - that the area supports today.)

 Cover data for lowland acid grassland across the UK for the full altitudinal range are not currently available. Stands remote from the upland fringe, which are the primary focus of conservation attention, are now of restricted occurrence and it is estimated that less than 30,000 ha now remain in the UK. Important concentrations occur in Breckland, the New Forest, Dorset, Suffolk Sandlings, the Weald, Dungeness, the coasts of south-west England and the Welsh and English border hills of Powys and Shropshire. Scotland is estimated to have less than 5,000 ha and much of this is likely to be on the upland fringe.

1 Norfolk Status  It has been estimated that the extent of heathland (taking a wide definition) in 1797 was 30,500ha. The estimate of that existing today is 7,787ha1, of which approximately 3,610ha has been mapped as heathland and 4176ha as dry acid grassland. This represents a decline of 75 per cent. However, the Stanford Training Area, which has a large and important area of largely relatively recent grass heath of about 3,116ha, represents 40 per cent of this figure. Over 80 percent (6,472ha) of Norfolk’s existing heathland and acid grassland is covered by Site of Special Scientific Interest designation. Approximately 538ha are in County Wildlife Sites.

 Priority BAP bird species associated with Norfolk’s heaths include nightjar, woodlark, red-backed shrike, stone curlew, skylark, grey partridge and linnet. Priority invertebrates include silver-studded blue butterfly solitary wasp (Cerceris quinquefasciata) and two ground beetles (Harpalus H. froelichii and Ophonus laticollis). Other priority BAP species associated with heaths include tower mustard, nail fungus, starry breck lichen, pillwort and natterjack toad.

 The Breckland Biodiversity Audit (Dolman, Panter and Mossman, 2010) has highlighted the importance of structural heterogeneity and active ecological processes for integrating the requirements of important BAP species; i.e., heaths are systems which function best when they support the maximum diversity of conditions across the habitat, including bare ground, and are often best maintained with a high level of soil disturbance.

2. CURRENT FACTORS CAUSING LOSS OR DECLINE IN NORFOLK

 Encroachment of trees, shrubs and bracken due to abandonment of traditional management such as grazing, fuelwood gathering and to some extent, controlled burning. These factors affect most sites, including even SSSIs.

 Declining availability of water for wetland areas within heaths.

 Uncontrolled fires in some areas (eg, Mousehold Heath), particularly in summer.

 Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen.

 Development of non-statutory sites.

 The access provision in the CROW Act may act as a disincentive to heathland creation in some situations.

 Losses to agriculture have been a major factor in the past. With the recent introduction of current EIA regulations, it is hoped that these losses have ceased.

1 This is a maximum amount, as it has been mapped using the Natural England standard. If a polygon contains an area of heathland or dry acid grassland of unknown extent, the whole polygon will have been mapped as that habitat.

2 3. CURRENT ACTION IN NORFOLK

The Brecks  The Breckland Biodiversity Audit was a collaborative venture headed by a team from UEA, to review the status of Breckland biodiversity and the evidence basis for its management. Nearly one million biological records were collated during the study, from a wide variety of organisations and individual recorders. Information about the ecological processes required by individual species was also gathered, along with information about the management of Breckland sites. The audit demonstrated the outstanding importance of Breckland for UK biodiversity. Some 12,845 species were recorded, including 2,149 species of conservation concern. The audit also showed that 28 per cent of all UK priority BAP species occur in Breckland.

 Plantlife is carrying out a Grantscape-funded project in the Brecks. This involves micro-habitat management trials, looking at a variety of disturbance factors and processes, concentrating on creating early-successional habitats. The overall aims of the project include addressing the decline in plant species particular to the Brecks, establishing effective methods of managing small-scale habitats and developing a landscape-scale plant conservation strategy for the Brecks.

 Butterfly Conservation’s project, “Restoration of Norfolk Brecks Heathlands for Threatened Butterflies and Moths”, is focusing on nine BAP species, and being carried out on the Norfolk side of the Brecks.

 The Forestry Commission has been working to integrate the recommendations of the Breckland Biodiversity Audit into its management of Thetford Forest. This has included widening the forest rides and promoting greater soil disturbance.

 The University of East Anglia has been carrying out research into invertebrate responses to experimental ride management in Thetford Forest.

Norfolk Excluding the Brecks  The Norfolk Wildlife Trust has been involved in a major heathland restoration project at Grimston Warren in north-west Norfolk, funded by a variety of organisations including English Nature (now Natural England), the SITA Trust, WREN, the John Jarrold Trust, Norfolk County Council, and HLS. Management has included tree felling, brash collection, stump grinding, litter removal and grazing by Dartmoor Ponies. Guided walks have been held to promote the work to local people and NWT supporters, and articles have appeared in NWT’s magazine Tern and the local press. Breeding reports for Grimston Warren now include nightjar, woodlark, black darter dragonfly and turtle dove, among others.

 Following consultation with Norfolk Landscape Archaeology and local herpetologists, and with the support of the Holt Lowes Trustees, NWT embarked on a major restoration project at Holt Lowes in 2010/11, funded through Higher Level Stewardship. The project has included the clearance of 15ha of mature scrub and the removal offsite of approximately 15,000 cubic metres of humus. The aim is to restore open heathland on this important SSSI and SAC valley fen site. Because of the site’s reptile and archaeological interest, machine movements have been carefully controlled, with extensive areas being cleared by hand and other areas left unscraped.

 NWT’s Hidden Heaths Project aims to deliver BAP targets for non-statutory heathland sites in Norfolk by raising the profile of heaths for wildlife, increasing public interest in heaths and by bringing more sites into appropriate management.

3

 NWT’s Heathland CWS Audit is gathering information on 68 sites with a heathland or acid grassland component for which there is no current condition assessment. Of the 96 sites assessed so far, 46 were deemed to be declining, neglected or damaged; 24 were deemed to be improving, and 21 were felt to be in reasonable or good/excellent condition. The status of five sites remains unknown.

 Substantial areas of former mineral sites have been restored to heathland/acid grassland, particularly at Leziate quarries in west Norfolk. Some of these sites are now of a high biodiversity value.

 A new management plan for Mousehold Heath has been prepared, covering the period 2008-2013. This aims to maintain, enhance, increase and join up areas of lowland heath vegetation, control the encroachment of trees and bracken, maintain and enhance acid grassland areas and increase public understanding of issues related to the conservation of lowland heaths.

 Management of Salthouse and Kelling Heaths is continuing under a Higher Level Stewardship scheme. Recent work has included fencing 2ha of heathland to allow grazing by sheep to maintain archaeological features and control birch re-growth. A second fencing project at Salthouse Heath has been implemented to exclude deer from important nightingale nesting areas. The dense scrub and understorey formerly used by the birds is disappearing as a result of canopy closure and grazing of the understory. These areas are being fenced and selective thinning of birch is taking place to encourage the understory to re-establish. On Kelling Heath, bare ground is being created to benefit heathland invertebrate species, particularly silver-studded blue butterfly and the associated black ants Lasius niger.

 Information about Kelling Heath is being compiled by local naturalists and can be accessed at: http://www.kellingheathwildlife.org.uk

 The Forestry Commission has established a link between Marsham and Buxton heaths, by clearing a corridor of conifers between the two sites.

4 4, ACTION PLAN OBJECTIVES AND PROPOSED TARGETS

National Targets (Baseline 2005)

Heathland  Maintain the current extent of all existing lowland heathland (94,788 ha - no net loss of habitat).

 Maintain the area of lowland heathland currently in favourable condition.

 Improve the condition of lowland heathland on sites currently in unfavourable condition (12,762 ha).

 Increase the extent of lowland heathland by 7,600 ha by 2015.

 Increase the number of heathland patches over 30 ha from 10% of the total resource to 50% by 2030.

Lowland Dry Acid Grassland  Maintain the current extent of lowland dry acid grassland in the UK (61,646 ha - no net loss of habitat).

 Maintain at least the current condition of lowland dry acid grassland.

 Achieve favourable or recovering condition for 34,745 ha of lowland dry acid grassland by 2015.

 Restore 597 ha of lowland dry acid grassland from semi-improved or neglected grassland, which no longer meets the priority habitat definition by 2015.

 Re-establish 411 ha of grassland of wildlife value from arable or improved grassland by 2015.

 312 ha (75%) of re-established area to be adjacent to existing lowland dry acid grassland or other semi-natural habitat by 2015.

 208 ha (50%) of re-established area to contribute to resultant habitat patches of 6 ha or more of lowland dry acid grassland by 2015. Wherever practicable, bigger patches should be created.

East of England Targets, 1996-2015

 Restore 260 hectares of lowland heath or dry acid grassland from semi-improved or neglected grassland.

 Re-establish 1,400 hectares of heath or grassland of wildlife value from arable or improved grassland and increase the extent of lowland heathland.

5

Norfolk Targets and Objectives

Objectives

 To maintain 100% of the current lowland heathland and acid grassland in the county (no net loss of habitat).

 To maintain the condition of those sites already in favourable management, by ensuring the continuation of existing management regimes.

 To identify and rehabilitate priority areas which are not currently in favourable condition.

 To restore and create new heathland and acid grassland at priority sites. Particular emphasis should be placed on enlarging, buffering and re-connecting sites, in line with the recommendations of the Norfolk ecological network mapping project.

Targets

Target Type: Target Text Target Value Units Target Date Maintain Extent: To maintain the current 7,787ha2 ha 2011 extent and quality of heathland and acid grassland (no net loss of area and no loss of condition).

Achieve To bring 75% of 400 ha 2015 Condition: heathland/ acid grassland County Wildlife Sites into favourable or recovering condition.

Achieve To bring 50% of 3,236 ha 2020 Condition: heathland SSSIs into favourable condition

Restore: To restore areas of 1403 ha 2015 heathland/ acid grassland at priority sites.

Expand: To expand the area of 444 ha 2015 heathland and acid grassland in appropriate areas.

2 This is a maximum amount, as it has been mapped using the Natural England standard. If a polygon contains an area of heathland or dry acid grassland of unknown extent, the whole polygon will have been mapped as that habitat. 3 Based on an estimated 30 ha/year for four years through HLS and 5 ha/year through other schemes, eg, FC, NWT, RSPB. 4 Based on an estimated 5 ha/per year for four years through HLS, 1 ha/year through other schemes, and 20 ha for the NWT project at the Delft, Grimston Warren. 6

ACTION TO BE TAKEN ACTION PARTNERS: DATE BY: BY:

5.1 Policy and Legislation 5.1.1 Survey all potential new heathland/acid NWT NCC, NE, 2015 grassland County Wildlife Sites and designate NBIS, NBP those areas which meet CWS criteria. (There are currently approximately 30 sites on the list in the Brecks, Norwich and North Norfolk).

5.1.2 Ensure that heathland/acid grassland remains NCC, NE Ongoing a high priority for HLS targeting in the county, NWT, by responding to consultations from Natural RSPB England and taking part in the Regional Agri- environment Advisors’ Group.

5.1.3 Secure the creation of heathland/acid NCC Mineral Ongoing grassland as after-use on at least one former companies mineral extraction site per year.

5.1.4 Ensure the implementation of the new Open FC Heathland 2015 Habitats Policy leads to significant increases BAP Topic in heathland/acid grassland. Group

5.1.5 Ensure that heathland/acid grassland creation GNDP, Heathland Ongoing and management are accorded priority in the BDC, BAP Topic Green Infrastructure Strategies for Norwich, BCKLWN Group Thetford and King’s Lynn.

5.1.6 Ensure that existing heathland and acid GNDP, Heathland Ongoing grassland sites are not damaged by BDC BAP Topic excessive recreational pressures, particularly Group in the Greater Norwich north-eastern growth point and in the vicinity of Thetford.

5.2 Site Safeguard and Management 5.2.1 Apply to HLF’s Landscape Partnership Brecks Heathland 2012 programme and to Defra’s Nature Partnership BAP Topic Improvement Area competition as a means of Group taking forward the recommendations in the Breckland Biodiversity Audit.

5.2.2 Use HLS to bring 50 per cent of NE Landowners 2020 heathland/acid grassland SSSIs into favourable condition by 2020.

5.2.3 Use HLS to create a link between Salthouse NE Salthouse 2015 and Kelling Heaths. Trustees, NCP, landowners

5.2.4 Complete the link between Marsham and FC NWT 2015 Buxton Heaths.

7 ACTION TO BE TAKEN ACTION PARTNERS: DATE BY: BY:

5.2.5 Target the following priority heathland/ acid NE FWAG 2015 grassland County Wildlife Sites to receive Natural England agri-environment support:

 Broome Heath (CWS 130)

 Broomscott Common (CWS 598)

 Disused gravel pit (CWS 1411)

 Galley Hill Warren (CWS 2085)

 Cat's Bottom Heath (CWS 451)

 Coxford Meadows (CWS 589)

 Cawston College Heath (CWS 1363)

 Belton Heath North (CWS 1429)

5.2.6 Continue to provide support to heathland/acid NWT CWS 2015 grassland CWS not covered by HLS Partnership agreements, in order to bring them into favourable condition.

5.2.7 Develop and seek funding for a project to NWT Heathland 2012 restore and manage the heaths complex BAP Topic north of Horsford. Group

5.2.8 Develop and seek funding for a project to NWT restore 20 ha of land (known as the “Delft”) in the Gaywood Valley to a mosaic of heathland and grassland.

5.3 Advisory 5.3.1 Continue to hold the Breckland Heaths Forum NE NWT, SWT, Ongoing at least twice a year, as a mechanism for RSPB, NT, promoting networking and information sharing FC among Brecks site managers.

5.3.2 Continue to hold the Norfolk Heaths NBP NWT, NE, Ongoing Practitioners’ Forum once or twice a year, to FC, RSPB, promote information sharing about best NCiC, NCC practice heathland management techniques.

5.3.3 Ensure the recommendations from the NE Ongoing Breckland Biodiversity Audit are incorporated into the Breckland script (an internal document developed by Natural England to guide agri-environment schemes in Breckland). Update the script every six months to incorporate new findings. 5.3.4 Organise at least one training seminar on the NE FWAG, 2015 8 ACTION TO BE TAKEN ACTION PARTNERS: DATE BY: BY:

use of the Breckland script for agronomists, agronomists, land agents and farm advisors. land agents

5.3.5 Secure a future for the Brecks Partnership by NCC Heathland assisting with an HLF Landscape Partnership BAP Topic application and a Nature Improvement Area Group bid.

5.4 Future Research and Monitoring 5.4.1 Develop a proposal and seek funding for the UEA NBP, SBP 2011 Implementation of Phase 2 of the Breckland Biodiversity Audit.

5.4.2 Consider organising a similar biodiversity NBP, NCP UEA 2012 audit to that in the Brecks for the North Norfolk heaths.

5.4.3 Ensure the Heathland BAP Topic Group NBP Heathland Ongoing functions as an informal co-ordinating and BAP Topic networking body for heathland/acid grassland Group projects, including the new Breckland projects that have recently been launched by Butterfly Conservation and Plantlife.

5.4.4 Gather condition information on the remaining NWT Heathland 2011 ‘unknown’ sites for the NWT Heathland CWS BAP Topic Audit Group

5.4.5 Investigate and share information about the NNNS BC, NBIS, 2015 impacts and potential benefits of recreational County disturbance (e.g. from horse riding, biking etc) Recorders on heath/acid grassland dependent species. In the first instance, investigate impacts on ants, Lepidoptera and beetles.

5.4.6 Undertake regular ecological monitoring of NWT, NE, Plantlife, BC, Ongoing selected heathland/acid grassland sites, to FC, NCiC, UEA, NNNS, identify long-term trends and assess the MoD County biodiversity impacts of different management Recorders, regimes. estate owners 5.6 Communications and Publicity 5.6.1 Encourage the Norfolk and Suffolk NBP, SBP Ongoing Biodiversity Partnerships to work more closely together, by ensuring that representatives continue to sit on each others’ heathland BAP working groups.

5.6.2 Publish and disseminate NWT’s Hidden NWT NBP 2011 Heaths report. 5.6.3 Use the Mousehold Heath extension as an NCC GNDP Ongoing

9 ACTION TO BE TAKEN ACTION PARTNERS: DATE BY: BY:

opportunity to work with adjacent schools and the public, in order to raise awareness of the value of heathland/acid grassland and appropriate management practices.

5.6.4 Ensure that heathland/acid grassland is Heathland Ongoing featured in articles and public events. BAP Topic Group

5.7 Links with Other Plans 5.7.1 This plan should be considered in conjunction Heathland Ongoing with the Norfolk Habitat Action Plans for BAP Topic lowland calcareous grassland and arable Group, margins, and the Species Action Plans for Farmland silver-studded blue butterfly, Harpalus BAP Topic froelichii, Ophonus laticollis, tower mustard, Group nightjar, stone curlew, woodlark, nail fungus, starry-breck lichen and scaly-breck lichen. (See Annex 1 for a complete list of BAP species associated with lowland heath and acid grassland in Norfolk.)

Organisational Abbreviations BC Butterfly Conservation BCKLWN Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk BDC Breckland District Council FC Forestry Commission FWAG Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group GNDP Greater Norwich Development Partnership MoD Ministry of Defence NBIS Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service NBP Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership NCC Norfolk County Council NCiC Norwich City Council NCP Norfolk Coast Partnership NE Natural England NT National Trust NWT Norfolk Wildlife Trust RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds SBP Suffolk Biodiversity Partnership SWT Suffolk Wildlife Trust UEA University of East Anglia

10 MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE (This guidance is a general summary; for more detailed information or advice, please consult the references or contacts below.)

Heathland and acid grassland typically occur on acidic, light sandy and gravely soils. In Norfolk, these occur predominantly in the Brecks, north Norfolk, and around Norwich and its northern periphery. In the Brecks, these soils are often found in fine mosaics with chalky soils.

The soils which support heathland and acid grassland are inherently infertile. The accumulation of nutrients, e.g. by agricultural intensification, aerial nitrogen deposition (local, national and international), afforestation, and the development of scrub and woodland, are damaging to the plants and animals of typical heathland/acid grassland communities.

Historically, heathland and acid grassland were important within the rural economy, providing grazing land for domestic animals (cattle, sheep), meat (rabbits), fuel (wood, gorse) and animal bedding (bracken). With agricultural improvement and social changes during the 20th century, the direct link between heathland/acid grassland and the local economy has weakened significantly.

Heaths and acid grasslands are typically very open habitats. Without continued management such as grazing, bracken control and scrub/tree management, heaths and acid grasslands quickly develop into dense scrubland and woodland, with a consequent loss of species dependent on the heath/acid grassland habitat.

Heathlands and acid grasslands frequently occur in mosaics, together with bracken, scrub and scattered trees. In places, heaths and acid grasslands can be found in close association with fens and mires and, in the Brecks, chalk grassland, fluctuating meres and pingos.

On the majority of heaths outside the Brecks, dwarf shrubs (i.e. heather, cross-leaved heath and bell heather) are usually the dominant plants. An important component of management is to create and maintain a variation of age classes and structure, from pioneer seedlings through to mature and degenerate plants. In the grass heaths typical of the Brecks, heather is less significant, and may be a minor component of the vegetation or even absent.

Scrub species such as gorse, broom and hawthorn are integral components of the heathland/acid grassland landscape, and many characteristic heathland species depend upon them. In north Norfolk especially, wood pasture (scattered mature trees in an open landscape of heathland/acid grassland) is a particularly characteristic feature. However, the cover of scrub and trees must be managed so as not to exclude species of more open habitats, and scrub and woodland management and clearance are frequent elements of heathland management and restoration.

Short turf and open, bare, physically disturbed soils (e.g. along trackways and old sand pits) and the ecological processes associated with these, are an especially important component of heathland/acid grassland, on which many rare and scarce species of plants, birds and invertebrates rely.

In the Brecks, many heaths/acid grasslands are derived from the true arable brecks (fields cultivated for a period and then fallowed or allowed to tumble back to grass heath), including most recently much of the Stanford Training Area. The peculiar land-use history

11 of the Brecks means that many rare, scarce and declining species are found equally across heaths, arable land and in Thetford Forest.

Many BAP species are associated with heathland and acid grassland, as well as many other species of conservation concern.

Much of the heathland and acid grassland in Norfolk is designated as open access under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, providing an excellent resource for recreation for local people and visitors alike. Around Thetford and Norwich, these habitats represent an important component of green infrastructure.

Heathlands and acid grasslands have remained largely free of modern agricultural intensification, and as a result, often have great historic interest. Scheduled monuments and locally important sites can often be preserved there, and good habitat management can help conserve these historic features, e.g. by preventing damage from scrub and tree encroachment.

NORFOLK DISTRIBUTION

12 REFERENCES

Dolman, P.M., Panter, C.J., Mossman, H.L. (2010). Securing Biodiversity in Breckland: Guidance for Conservation and Research. First Report of the Breckland Biodiversity Audit. Norwich: University of East Anglia.

Harding, M. and Smith. (2002). North Norfolk Heaths Re-creation Strategy. English Nature.

Eglington, S. and Horlock, M. (2004). East of England Heathland Opportunity Mapping Project. Final Report. East of England Development Agency, English Nature, Forestry Commission, Forest Enterprise, Government Office for the East of England, The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

Gimingham, C.H. (1992). The Lowland Heathland Management Handbook. English Nature Science No. 8.

DATA SOURCES

Draft Lowland Heathland BAP Priority Habitat Inventory for England Version 1.2. Natural England. Lowland Dry Acid Grassland BAP Priority Habitat Inventory for England Version 2.0.1. Natural England Norfolk Update to the Draft Lowland Heathland BAP Priority Habitat Inventory for England. Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service.

KEY CONTACTS

Bev Nichols Natural England Dragonfly House 2 Gilders Way NORWICH Norfolk NR3 1UB

Helen Baczkowska Norfolk Wildlife Trust Bewick House 22 Thorpe Road NORWICH Norfolk NR1 1RY

Neal Armour-Chelu Forestry Commission Santon Downham BRANDON Suffolk IP27 0TJ

13

Annex 1: List of BAP Species Associated with Heathland/Acid Grassland in Norfolk

Scientific Name Common Name Taxon Group Order Family Date of Last Record Bufo calamita Natterjack toad Amphibian Anura Bufonidae 2010 Rana lessonae Pool frog Amphibian Anura Ranidae 2005 Triturus cristatus Great crested newt Amphibian Urodela Salamandridae 2010 Saaristoa firma a money spider Arachnid Araneae Linyphiidae 2009 Agroeca cuprea a spider Arachnid Araneae Liocranidae 1999 Sitticus caricis a jumping spider Arachnid Araneae Salticidae 1989 Dipoena inornata Silky gallows-spider Arachnid Araneae Theridiidae 1959 Caprimulgus europaeus Nightjar Bird Caprimulgiformes Caprimulgidae 2010 Burhinus oedicnemus Stone curlew Bird Charadriiformes Burhinidae 2010 Numenius arquata Eurasian curlew Bird Charadriiformes Scolopacidae 2010 Cuculus canorus Cuckoo Bird Cuculiformes Cuculidae 2010 Perdix perdix Grey partridge Bird Galliformes Phasianidae 2010 Alauda arvensis Skylark Bird Passeriformes Alaudidae 2010 Lullula arborea Woodlark Bird Passeriformes Alaudidae 2010 Emberiza citrinella Yellow hammer Bird Passeriformes Emberizidae 2010 Carduelis cabaret Lesser redpoll Bird Passeriformes Fringillidae 2009 Carduelis cannabina Linnet Bird Passeriformes Fringillidae 2010 Lanius collurio Red-backed shrike Bird Passeriformes Laniidae 2008 Anthus trivialis Tree pipit Bird Passeriformes Motacillidae 2010 Poecile montanus Willow tit Bird Passeriformes Paridae 2009 Prunella modularis Hedge accentor Bird Passeriformes Prunellidae 2010 (dunnock) Locustella naevia Common grasshopper Bird Passeriformes Sylviidae 2010 warbler Eurhynchium pulchellum Elegant feather-moss Bryophyte Hypnales Brachytheciaceae 1967 Lophozia capitata Large-celled flapwort Bryophyte Jungermanniales Jungermanniaceae 1993 Lycopodiella inundata Marsh clubmoss Bryophyte Lycopodiales Lycopodiaceae 1992 Fossombronia foveolata Pitted frillwort Bryophyte Metzgeriales Fossombroniaceae 1988 Leptodontium Thatch moss Bryophyte Pottiales Pottiaceae 1997 gemmascens Pilularia globulifera Pillwort Fern Marsileales Marsileaceae 2010 Asparagus officinalis Wild asparagus Flowering plant Asparagales Asparagaceae 1998 Muscari neglectum Grape-hyacinth Flowering plant Asparagales Asparagaceae 2008 Artemisia campestris Field wormwood Flowering plant Asterales Asteraceae 2009

14 Chamaemelum nobile Chamomile Flowering plant Asterales Asteraceae 1990 Filago lutescens Red-tipped cudweed Flowering plant Asterales Asteraceae 2009 Arabis glabra Tower mustard Flowering plant Brassicales Brassicaceae 2009 Dianthus armeria Deptford pink Flowering plant Caryophyllales Caryophyllaceae 1992 Scleranthus perennis ssp. Perennial knawel Flowering plant Caryophyllales Caryophyllaceae 2009 prostratus Silene otites Spanish catchfly Flowering plant Caryophyllales Caryophyllaceae 2009 Juniperus communis Juniper Flowering plant Pinales Cupressaceae 1988 Carex ericetorum Rare spring-sedge Flowering plant Poales Cyperaceae 2008 Astragalus danicus Purple milk-vetch Flowering plant Fabales Fabaceae 2009 Clinopodium acinos Basil thyme Flowering plant Lamiales Lamiaceae 2009 Mentha pulegium Pennyroyal Flowering plant Lamiales Lamiaceae 1998 Euphrasia anglica Eyebright Flowering plant Lamiales Orobanchaceae 2005 Veronica verna Spring speedwell Flowering plant Scrophulariales Plantaginaceae 2008 Poronia punctata Nail fungus Fungi Sphaeriales Xylariaceae 1982 Amara famelica a ground beetle Insect - beetle Coleoptera Carabidae 1966 Amara fusca Wormwood moonshiner Insect - beetle Coleoptera Carabidae 1997 Anisodactylus a ground beetle Insect - beetle Coleoptera Carabidae 1964 nemorivagus Carabus monilis Necklace ground beetle Insect - beetle Coleoptera Carabidae 1988 Harpalus froelichii Brush-thighed seed-eater Insect - beetle Coleoptera Carabidae 2009 Ophonus laticollis Set-aside downy-back Insect - beetle Coleoptera Carabidae 2003 Poecilus kugelanni Kugelann’s green clock Insect - beetle Coleoptera Carabidae 2006 Psylliodes sophiae Flixweed flea beetle Insect - beetle Coleoptera Chrysomelidae 2002 Melanotus punctolineatus a click beetle Insect - beetle Coleoptera Elateridae 1997 Meloe proscarabaeus Black oil-beetle Insect - beetle Coleoptera Meloidae 2005 Erynnis tages Dingy skipper Insect - butterfly Lepidoptera Hesperiidae 2011 Pyrgus malvae Grizzled skipper Insect - butterfly Lepidoptera Hesperiidae 2011 Plebejus argus Silver-studded blue Insect - butterfly Lepidoptera Lycaenidae 2011 Hipparchia semele Grayling Insect - butterfly Lepidoptera Nymphalidae 2011 Coenonympha pamphilus Small heath Insect - butterfly Lepidoptera Nymphalidae 2011 Asilus crabroniformis Hornet robberfly Insect - Diptera Diptera Asilidae 1979 Bombylius minor Heath bee-fly Insect - Diptera Diptera Bombyliidae 2008 Thyridanthrax fenestratus Mottled bee-fly Insect - Diptera Diptera Bombyliidae 1865 Andrena (Poliandrena) Tormentil mining bee Insect - Hymenoptera Hymenoptera Andrenidae 1979 tarsata Eucera longicornis a long-horned bee Insect - Hymenoptera Hymenoptera Anthophorinae 2006 Bombus humilis Brown-banded carder bee Insect - Hymenoptera Hymenoptera Apidae 2010 Bombus muscorum Moss carder bee Insect - Hymenoptera Hymenoptera Apidae 2009 Bombus ruderarius Red-shanked carder bee Insect - Hymenoptera Hymenoptera Apidae 2009

15 Bombus sylvarum Shrill carder bee Insect - Hymenoptera Hymenoptera Apidae 1963 Cerceris quadricincta Weevil hunting wasp Insect - Hymenoptera Hymenoptera Sphecidae 1983 Cerceris quinquefasciata 5-banded tailed digger Insect - Hymenoptera Hymenoptera Sphecidae 2010 wasp Coleophora tricolor Basil thyme case-bearer Insect - moth Lepidoptera Coleophoridae 2009 Cossus cossus Goat moth Insect - moth Lepidoptera Cossidae 2009 Cyclophora porata False mocha Insect - moth Lepidoptera Geometridae 2009 Lithostege griseata Grey carpet Insect - moth Lepidoptera Geometridae 2011 Trichopteryx Barred tooth-striped Insect - moth Lepidoptera geometridae 2011 polycommata Orgyia recens Scarce vapourer Insect - moth Lepidoptera Lymantriidae 2009 Heliophobus reticulata Bordered gothic Insect - moth Lepidoptera Noctuidae 2009 Noctua orbona Lunar yellow underwing Insect - moth Lepidoptera Noctuidae 2011 Polia bombycina Pale shining brown Insect - moth Lepidoptera Noctuidae 2006 Tyta luctuosa Four-spotted Insect - moth Lepidoptera Noctuidae 2006 Hemaris tityus Narrow-bordered bee Insect - moth Lepidoptera Sphingidae 1999 hawk-moth Adscita statices Forester Insect - moth Lepidoptera Zygaenidae 2009 Coenagrion mercuriale Southern damselfly Insect - Odonata Odonata Coenagrionidae 1983 Stethophyma grossum Stethophyma grossum Insect - Orthoptera Orthoptera Acrididae 1968 Gryllus campestris Field cricket Insect - Orthoptera Orthoptera Gryllidae 1911 Squamarina lentigera Scaly breck-lichen Lichen Lecanorales Bacidiaceae 2002 Buellia asterella Starry breck-lichen Lichen Lecanorales Buelliaceae 1997 Toninia sedifolia A lichen Lichen Lecanorales Ramalinaceae 1991 Anguis fragilis Slow-worm Reptile Squamata Anguidae 2011 Natrix natrix Grass snake Reptile Squamata Colubridae 2010 Zootoca vivipara Common (viviparous) Reptile Squamata Lacertidae 2011 lizard Vipera berus Adder Reptile Squamata Viperidae 2010

16 bright & associates landscape and environmental consultants

Pear Tree House Dovaston Oswestry Shropshire SY10 8DP 01691 682 773 [email protected] www.bright-associates.co.uk

A Registered Practice of the Landscape Institute